Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AGENDA REPORT 1999 0505 CC REG ITEM 09A
TO: FROM: DATE: AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK The Honorable City Council ISM. A• NAM"M Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Wor s April 27, 1999 (Council Meeting 5 -5 -99) SUBJECT: Consider Resolution No. 99 - Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for the Los Angeles Avenue [East] Widening Project. OVERVIEW This presents for approval the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for a project to widen and improve Los Angeles Avenue from South Condor Drive Westerly to a Point East of the Intersection of Spring Road and High Street. BACKGROUND 1. The City Council considered this item on March 17. On that date the City Council opened the public hearing received public input and closed the public hearing. The matter was continued to April 21 to allow time for all of the responses to be received. 2. On April 21 the subject matter was continued to May 5. DISCUSSION Please refer to the attached staff report from the April 21 City Council meeting for a full discussion of the subject item. Please note that the Findings attached to the subject resolution have been revised from those included in the prior copy of the April 21 report. The changes are shown underscored. �;.,,- 1. Negative Declaration: L. A Ave. East April 27, 1999 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Subsequent to a staff presentation on the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment, any written comments received and any written responses thereto, it is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Review and consider the information in the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. 2. Review and approve the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit 1) . 3. Approve the list of Findings attached as Exhibit 'A' to the Resolution (see Exhibit 3). 4. Approve the written responses to comments set forth in Exhibit 2. 5. Adopt Resolution No. 99- (Exhibit 3) approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment, finding that the document is an accurate and complete representation of the environmental effects of the project. I CITY OFMOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of 4 ACTION: AGENDA REPORT Cor 1} rrwd CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council BY: FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works I DATE: April 13, 1999 (Council Meeting 4- 21 -99) SUBJECT:I Consider Resolution No. 99 - Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for the Los Angeles Avenue [East] Widening Project. OVERVIEWI This presents for approval the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for a project to widen and improve Los Angeles Avenue from South Condor Drive Westerly to a Point East of the Intersection of Spring Road and High Street. On March 17, 1999, the City Council opened a public hearing on the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. Subseque to receipt of input at the public hearing, the City Council closed the public hearing and continued the subject matter to April 21, 1999, to discuss responses to comments received and to take action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. DISCUSS A. Project Histo The City Council has taken the following actions with respect to the subject project: 1. Approved the future roadway alignment for Los Angeles Avenue East to shift the centerline to the north (Alt. #2). 2. 4 roved a corridor width for this street segment of eighty - e ght feet (881) -- a street width wide enough to accommodate possible ultimate street improvements to include the following: • four 12' wide travel lanes; • one 14' wide raised landscaped center median; (D0t,�03 L. A. Ave. [East] Negative Declaration April 13, 1999 Page 2 • two 8' wide Bike Lanes; • curb and gutter; and, • two 5' wide sidewalks. 3. Approved the conceptual design for the construction of earthwork and retaining walls for the -project, sufficient to accommodate the above described ultimate improvements. 4. Directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preparation of a preliminary design for the required earthwork and retaining walls, in order to determine the limits of the right -of -way acquisition required for the project. S. Directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preliminary design for the construction of street improvements within the above described corridor, which would provide for only one travel lane in each direction, said street improvements more particularly described as following: • two 12' wide travel lanes; • 8' of paved surface beyond the sideline in each direction; • one 14' wide center paved median (total pavement width of 38'); and, • two 8' wide unpaved shoulders. 6. Considered alternative retaining wall designs (concrete retaining wall, interlocking block and crib walls) and directed the City Engineer to prepare retaining wall easements of a size sufficient to accommodate any of the design alternates presented. 7. Directed staff to proceed with the title work, engineering work and appraisal work necessary to prepare the final Deeds for all of the right -of -way required, and to determine estimated cost of said acquisition. B. Project Scope This project requires the acquisition of additional street right -of -way (approximately 30 parcels) and the realignment and reconstruction of the street to provide two travel lanes, a center paved median and additional pavement width for bicycles and pedestrians. Retaining walls will be required on the north side of the street. C. Compatibility with the Circulation Element The subject segment is designated in the City's Circulation Element as a Rural Collector. The proposed improvements, L A_East2_Neg 000 L. A. Ave. [East] Negative Declaratiun April 13, 1999 Page 3 including the possible widening o consistent with the description of in the Circulation Element of th e proposed project is, therefore, Plan. D. Project Status f the road to four lanes, is a Rural Collector set forth Moorpark General Plan. The compatible with the General 1. Retaining Wall Design: A survey has recently been completed to provide the engineer with information required to prepare the final draft design for the retaining walls. This information is required in order to determine the dimensions of the retaining wall easements to be acquired. It is anticipated that the limits of the retaining wall easements will be determined by April. 2. Record of Survey: A Record of Survey is being prepared to facilitate the preparation of legal descriptions for the street right -of -way deeds and the retaining wall easements. It is anticipated that the Record of Survey will be recorded by April. 3. Deeds: Upon recordation of the Record of Survey the Engineering Department will proceed with the preparation of legal descriptions for all of the deeds for the required street right -of -way and retaining wall easements. It is anticipated that the required Deeds will be prepared by May. At that time total area of the properties to be acquired will be known and a final estimate of right -of -way acquisition costs can be determined. At present right -of- way acquisition costs are estimated to be approximately $1 million. 4. Right -of -Way Agent: It is the intent of staff to solicit proposals for, and ultimately recommend the selection of a firm to provide land acquisition services for this project. It is anticipated that a recommendation on this matter will be presented to the City Council by June. 5. Title Work: It will also be necessary to.retain the services of a firm to provide preliminary title reports and ultimately Policies of Title Insurance for all of the right - of -way parcels and retaining wall easements acquired. 6. Appraisals: It is anticipated that services for a property appraiser will also be required. L A_East2_Neg W010U L. A. Ave. (East] Negative Declaration April 13, 1999 Page 4 7. Schedule: A tentative schedule of the anticipated dates of completion for certain tasks, is listed as follows: 06- 01 -99: Record of Survey recorded; 07- 01 -..99: legal descriptions prepared; 07- 01 -99: right -of -way agent retained; 12- 01 -9 -9: final design complete; 06- 01 -00: all rights. -of -way acquired; and 06- 01 -00: project ready to advertise for bids. E. Negative Declaration 1. Background: The City retained a consultant (The Planning Corporation) to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for this project. This document was prepared and distributed in a manner consistent with the requirements of both the City and State CEQA Guidelines and NEPA regulations. The document was distributed to the public on February 17, 1999. Comments were solicited from the public, relevant local and regional agencies, and from other parties that may have an interest in this matter. 2. Project Summary: The City of Moorpark Public Works Department has initiated planning and design work to implement street improvements to a portion of Los Angeles Avenue from a point east of the Spring Road /High Street intersection, easterly to Condor Drive. These improvements include pavement widening, acquisition of right -of -way for possible future four lanes, construction of retaining walls, street construction and overlay, installation of curb and gutter and other improvements. The programmed improvements and estimated areas of land acquisition are described and illustrated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment. Land acquisition on portions of about 30 parcels is required to implement the project. 3. Copy of Document: A copy of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment has been distributed to the City Council under separate cover. 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan: A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has also been prepared as required by CEQA guidelines. A.copy of that plan is attached as Exhibit 1. 5. Document Review: The proposed undertaking is not exempt from CEQA or NEPA and is considered a project for the purposes of environmental review. Therefore, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment was prepared and circulated for a period of 30 days. L_A_East2_Neg 00M _ L. A. Ave. [East] Negative Declaration April 13, 1999 Page 5 6. Comments Received: All of the written comments received on the subject document are attached as Exhibit 2. 7. Responses to Comments: All of the proposed written responses to comments are included in Exhibit 2. 8. Findings: Certain Findings are required to be made by the City Council prior to the adoption of the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. A draft list of those findings are attached as Exhibit 'A' to the approving Resolution. 9. Resolution: The attached Resolution (Exhibit 3) approves the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment and adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. F. Project Budget The total project cost estimate for this project is $4,000,000. The amount budgeted for this project for FY 1998/99 is $1,028,118 [Project 80081, funded by the Los Angeles Avenue AOC Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Subsequent to a staff presentation on the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment, any written comments received and any written responses thereto, it is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Review and consider the information in the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. 2. Review and approve the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit 1) . 3. Approve the list of Findings attached as Exhibit 'A' to the Resolution (see Exhibit 3). 4. Approve the written responses to comments set forth in Exhibit 2. 5. Adopt Resolution No. 99- (Exhibit 3) approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment, finding that the document is an accurate and complete representation of the environmental effects of the project. L_A_East2_Neg O W7 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN: LOS ANGELES AVENUE /EAST WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION Verification of Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Compliance I. Land Use and Planning (1) The City shall develop parcel specific mitigation plans City to complete Continuous activity Completion of all for all properties within the right -of -way that may have access relocation until acquisition legally required access restrictions or have modifications to access as and acquisition has been completed acquisition a result of the proposed construction. Restoration of planning consistent procedures access in a manner than does not interfere with the with state law and resulting in through traffic objectives of the improvement program applicable City possession of shall be prioritized. In cases where access cannot redevelopment needed right -of -way be restored, proper compensation shall be provided procedures to the effected landowners through eminent domain (where relevant) proceedings. 11. Air Quality (1) All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently Field watering to Continuous Field verification watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering occur during during initial of compliance by shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, grading period grading period City Public Works/ preferably in the late morning and after work is Building Inspectors completed for the day. (2) All clearing, filling, grading, earth moving, or Dust generating Continuous during Same as (1) above excavation activities shall cease during period of activity to cease grading period high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over during periods of (until asphalt one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. high winds completion) Construction grading shall be discontinued on days PAN forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the County APCD air quality monitoring station closest to the City of Oft t Moorpark. Grading and excavation operations shall - not resume until the first stage smog alert expires. Mitigation M firing Program - 1 Feb y 17, 1999 G F--,. Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance (3) If any soil material is transported to or from the Dust suppression to Continuous during Same as (1) above site, this material shall be either sufficiently be verified for all the grading watered or securely covered to prevent excessive transported or period amounts of dust. Fill materials, to the degree imported soils feasible, shall be obtained from appropriate sources close to the site to minimize construction emissions. A haul plan (including routes and hours of delivery) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to commencement of any fill or disposal program. (4) Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept Sweeping of streets Continuous as Same as (1) above as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated to occur on an as necessary during from construction activities so as to prevent needed basis during the grading excessive amounts of dust. grading. program (5) Construction vehicles entering and exiting unpaved Contractors to Same as (4) above Same as (1) above roads onto paved roads during the grading period provide for vehicle shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. clean -up during VI. Geophysical Impacts (1) A final geotechnical report shall be prepared by the City Public Works One time activity City Engineer to prior to the initiation of construction. This report Department to (if deemed necessary review and approve shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer. contract for by the City Engineer) any required soils The report shall address site preparation requirements preparation of during the planning or geotechnical for the design of all structures, including storm water soils and phase prior to reports conveyance facilities, retaining walls, planning for geotechnical report review of grading settlement compensation, and all other aspects of and construction site specific engineering deemed necessary by the City plans Engineer, The report shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. i rn r-. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 2 February 17, 1999 _✓ Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance VIII. Water Resources /Hydrology Drainage and Water Quality (1) If determined necessary by the City Engineer (as City to prepare One time activity Field verification determined by the City Engineer in his sole discretion), required hydrology during plan of construction a drainage conveyance study shall be prepared by a and drainage design preparation consistent with California State Registered Civil Engineer for the reports plans by City review and acceptance by the City Engineer. Hydraulic Public Works design shall conform to the current Hydraulic Design and /or Building Manual of the Ventura County. The study shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. (2) The City should be required to comply with all NPDES NPDES compliance One time activity Same as (1) above and stormwater conveyance facility conditions deemed during construction during construction necessary by the Public Works Director or City Engineer. phase consistent with Best Management Practices (BMP) XI. Noise (1) To minimize construction noise effects, all stationary Enclose noise sources Continuous activity Field verification construction noise sources shall be sheltered or enclosed (if feasible) and during construction by City Engineer to minimize adverse effects on adjacent neighborhoods. limit construction program and /or Public When feasible, generators and pneumatic compressors hours Works Inspectors shall be placed in a manner to _minimize noise inconvenience on adjacent residences. Construction shall be prohibited between 8:OO pm and 7:00 am on weekdays (including Saturday) and no construction shall occur on Sunday. C Mitigation Mr ring Program - 3 Feb, 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure I Monitoring Actions I Frequency (2) All contractors involved in the construction program shall Contractors to One time activity provide a written noise construction effects strategy to prepare written prior to initiation be submitted with building permit applications. The types noise effects of construction of suppression used will vary on a case by case basis. reduction plan Dumpsters, pre- assembly construction tasks, and materials for City Public storage shall be limited to defined, prescribed areas. Works Department Materials storage and work areas shall be situated to review the degree feasible, on portions of parcels that will minimize impacts on nearby commercial and residential areas. Adjacent commercial tenants shall be notified of the construction schedule for the project. (3) Once the final alignment of the roadway is determined, City to contract One time activity the City shall prepare an acoustical report to for acoustical prior to implementation determine what types of noise barriers may be required study and implement of the project for individual homes that may be impacted by the recommendations for relocation of traffic closer to residential locations. interior and exterior noise reduction. 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 Verification of Compliance City Public Works or Building Inspectors to verify compliance Plan check verification of acoustical mitigations; field verification by Public. Works Inspectors or designee. J February 17, 1999 Exhibit 2 Responses to Comments L. A. Ave East Widening Number From Response..o See Page No 2.1 Summary 2.2 Waterworks Dist #1 2.2.1 2.3 Ven. Co. Transportation 2.3.1 2.4 Caltrans 2.4.1 Form A: Notice of Completion See NOT b I Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 9161445 -0613 SCH # 99( 9.099 - Project Tidies Lead Agency: Ct QQf� Contact Person: k G t 1 Strect Addmss: �0�1Anrdlnk "A , Phone: �S/ e3 nQ --I- 9,1- l City: YV1�vs! DgL1k �y , Zip: -7 �Ltv� County: Lbb ❑ Wetland/Riparian ❑ Archeologicl/Historical ❑ Minerals Project Location ^ o ❑ Coastal Zone --- - - - - -- County: _ City/Nearest Community: c nLL ❑ Drainage/Absorpdon Cross Streets: I AftWJnhQL., ao t CampC nx_yTrSn Qa�Zip Code: Total Acres: Assessor's Parcel No. Section: Twp. Range: Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Waterways: ❑ Vegetation ❑ Other Airports: Railways: Schools: .-------------- Document Type -- --- ------ ,.. -.�..� --- -- --- - - -- -- CEQA: NOP ❑ ❑ Supplement/Subsequent [ NEPA: �ldQ'tOf'J;i Other ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ EIR (Prior SCH No.) � 11A ❑ Final Document QNeg Dec ❑ Other ClE [j'DraEt't�IS ❑ Other Draft EIR ❑ FONSI Local Action Type ---------------------------- ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, ❑ Other Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc. Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: - Sq,lr Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial: Sgft Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ industrial: Sqft. Acres Employees ❑ Power: Type Warts ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type ❑ Other: Project Issues Discussed in Document ❑ Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Flood Plain/Rooding ❑ Schools/Universities ❑ Water Quality ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Air Quality . GeologictSeismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian ❑ Archeologicl/Historical ❑ Minerals ❑ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑ Wildlife ❑ Coastal Zone ❑ Noise ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Drainage/Absorpdon ❑ Population/Housing Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Landuse EconomidJobs ❑ Public Services/Facilities ❑ TraftidCirculation ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Vegetation ❑ Other Present land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use Project Description � �V iti lion o¢ -way boQtxwt;� v�r:t( (lpPprtt►3} p'��kr taVl�$ 09 0jr u `%Keer4 21 aih tey wal�S, reap nh+cvt� � c�nsfrtt r1�ati of I ag AAx%tA►s Aix. *b inckAA.t.. v%t;Va11 fttn r4 Iwo Itotud lavtea DJAA c�ra;raq�$atJ�t�t�s W in jlv T awokd tt�4tt= o-R -wou� �nbi4lt road�b.( MaS}'tt 6 r iPP� �� eh ia%A'r%01 Aut. State Clearinghouse Contact: DeLicia Wynn (916) 445 -0613 State Review Began: ,2 - 6L5 - 07`1 Dept. Review to Agency 9— - N Agency Rev to SCH SCH COMPLIANCE :_ -19�- t t Please note State Clearinghouse Number (SCH #) on all Comments SCH #: 99021099 Please forward late comments directly to the Lead Agency AQMD /APCD 53 (Resources: _9, /a2-'H Project Sent to the following State Agencies X Resources Boating _ Coastal Comm _Coastal Consv _ Colorado Rvr Bd _ Conservation • Fish & Game # Delta Protection Forestry Historic Preservation • Parks & Rec _ Reclamation _ Bay Cons & Dev Comm DWR -OES Bus Transp Hous Aeronautics CHP X Caltrans # Trans Planning _ Housing & Devel Food & Agriculture `Health & Welfare State/Consumer Svcs _ General Services Cal EPA ARB _ CA Waste Mgmt Bd SWRCB: Clean WtrProg SWRCB. Delta Unit _ S WRCB: Wtr Quality _ SWRCB: Wtr Righ X Reg. WQCB # _ Toxic Sub Ctrl -CTC Yth/Adlt Corrections Corrections Independent Comm _ Energy Commission X NAHC Public Utilities Comm Santa Monica Mtns X State Lands Comm _Tahoe Rgl Plan Other. Other. 00001.3 Comments and Responses Los Angeles Avenue East Improvement Program Comments on the Los Angeles Avenue East Widening and Rehabilitation project were received from the following individuals, agencies, and associations: R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 30th, 1999 In addition to these written comments, testimony related to the project was presented at a public hearing on the adequacy of the environmental document. Copies of these minutes are attached. None of the comments included in these minutes addressed the adequacy of the environmental document and therefore no responses are provided. In response to comments, minor modifications have been made in the Adopted MND; these changes are identified in the Adopted MND version in italic print. Please refer to the revised Expanded Initial Study Analysis and Mitigation Measures in the Adopted MND for revisions. Comments and Responses 2_I 000014- 03/30/1999 17; 59 $18- 597 -7352 cl i v Ur HUUU(CH i11L.L,-.; PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY u7 b_..: .•• ventura DireC to r Arthur E. Goulet Representing Ex- officio: ,_ Deputy Directors of Public Works Wm S. Britt I �l.. .... ,.l 1,1•:rl rtlr•.l1�+ � r,Net ,'} I',.In, . .I :: r.11 �•. . 1 nx t .p zv, Orr lmwc,.ftvr MOnAgrr,rPrll 4rlvnty John C. Crowley Afiu 19 ! uCbt I tbk I prre Welter Ref)+r'ces & fnQu,Qrrmp itrcy<arrcl h9„rkrt n�:,�lern„rrrl, �onr+ March 8, 1999 Kay Martin Solid Weltte M,tnat)r,nrn�l Ken Gilbert Paul W. Ruffin Director of Public Works Centrr,IServk01 Alex Sheydayi City of Moorpark Flood Control 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: ,Mitigated Negative Declaration Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement Dear Mr. Gilbert: "Thank you for including the Ventura County Waterworks District. No. I (District) in the environmental review process for the City of Moorpark's Capital Improvement Project - Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement. Based on the information received, we have the following comments: Page 3 of the Project Synopsis identi the District is the water purveyor and fies the various utili ty providers. Please be advised that not Calleguas Municipal Water District. Also, sewage is the District's responsibility and not the City of Moorpark. The District does have water and sewer lines within the project boundaries. It is conceivable that appurtenances like valves or manholes might have to be adjusted to match new grades and fire hydrants relocated. The District facilities will be impacted depending on how the rehabilitation project is implemented. If you .have any questions, please call me at (805) 584 -4830. Very truly yours, R. R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division Water ;Resources and Engineering Department RECEIVED MAR 10 1999 CITY OF MOORPARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMENT *OWdisi.I /L"vewideain8 71 50 Walnut Canyon Road • P.O. Box 2S0 • Moorpark, CA 93020 • (80S) 584.4829 . Fax: (805) 529.754000. 1 MAR 30 '99 18 :26 ele 597 7352 PAGE.15 dJ /.fib / IIJJJ 1 I. Z1y d.Ld -,)J ed 'D[ i r ur HuuuMH M.L"— f�HLIC 10 Z '2. 1 Comment R. Pakela, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. Changes have been made as requested clarifying the utility providers for water and sewer service. Refer to the amended text of the Adopted MND for clarification. The location of all utilities within and immediately adjacent to the right-of -way will be identified during the design process. The City will ensure that the proposed design of the rehabilitated and widened street will comply with standard engineering practice regarding buried water and sewer transmission pipelines. All effected utility providers will be notified and consulted prior to initiating construction activities. Plans will be forwarded for Agency review prior to the initiation of construction. The proposed construction program will not modify any existing easement rights that may be exercised by the Agency. Cam►nenta and Rospafssa OGIOI G- - MAR 30 199 19:26 818 597 7352 PAGE.16 11('11\ lu iJ..iJ iJ• GJ �l In 1 I�nl it i a � ru OCJJ OJ-1 JOOJ r.dG 2 - -> PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY o TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Traffic and Planning & Administration M i MEMORANDUM February 24, 1999 TO: Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Attention: Joseph Eisenhut FROM: Robert B. Brownie, al En 'nee ' SUBJECT: Review of Document 99-026 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study 1) Los Angeles AvenueBeltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement 2)` Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement Lead Agency: The City of Moorpark, Department of Public Works The Transportation Department has reviewed the subject Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) and Expanded Initial Study for 1) Los Angeles AvenueBeltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement and 2) Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement as proposed by the City of Moorpark Department of Public Works. We do not concur with the subject Draft MNDs and Expanded Initial Studies for those areas under our purview. The project description in the Los Angeles Avenue East document states that right -of- way will be required for the ultimate construction of a four -lane road for the Los Angeles Avenue East project. Increasing the capacity oLa road creates a potentially significant growth inducing impact. Increasing the capacity of a road can also create a potentially significant air quality impact. These issues have not been addressed in the subject Draft MNDs. These projects may have a significant adverse impact on the Counties Regional Road Network Therefore, we have no alternative but to find these projects inconsistent with the Ventura County General Plan transportation policies. Unless the City of Moorpark addresses these issues in the Final MNDs and mitigates any significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels, the County General Plan requires that the Transportation Department oppose these projects. Please call me at 654 -2080 with questions. c: Richard Herrera Duane Flaten Carole Trigg xes�v�ur -.� F�o�oc► hraneporlwpwinb„amo�199 -0s6.men, MAR 16 '99 15:24 805 654 3683 OC-0:1 i TOTAL P.02 PAGE.02 Comment. Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer - Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 The comments provided in this set of remarks address two separate MNDs which were released simultaneously. Presumably the growth inducement comments in the second paragraph address both projects. Growth Inducement Issues The proposed improvements which are the subject of this document have been designed to increase capacity not to generate growth. The intensity of residential growth in a City is governed by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Making improvements which are consistent with the City's adopted Circulation Element are designed to ensure that planned growth and infrastructure are properly balanced. Roadway improvements proposed within the vicinity of the project have been programmed to improve traffic safety, roadway capacity, and pedestrian separation from existing travel lanes. By making such improvements which are consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, the City is merely implementing improvements which are required to provide adequate Levels of Service to accommodate General Plan buildout. While the City is aware of the need to consider the County's. General Plan transportation policies, it is, rather, the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the long term infrastructure needs and policies envisioned in this document that govern circulation improvements within incorporated areas. Air Quality Impacts Regarding air quality concerns, primary air quality impacts within the City's boundary are attributable to poor levels of service at constrained intersections. The roadway segment proposed to-.be improved in this case does not involve any actions that will decrease intersection capacity. Since the affected roadway portion to be improved is not situated at or immediately adjacent to a signalized intersection, Caline modelling for carbon monoxide concentrations is not required under either State California Air Resources Board or local Air Quality Guidelines. Issues regarding air quality growth inducement related impacts have been previously addressed in the preceding comment. Comments and Responses 00GO - 2,4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BT JSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, ADVANCE PLANNING IGR OFFICE 1 -I0C 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012: TEL: (213) 897 -6536 ATS '_: 8- 647 -6536 FAX: (213) 897 -8906 E- mail: NYedanian /D07 /Caltrans/Cagovg�DOT Mr. Ken Gilbert Director of P.W. City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA. 93012 Re:IGR/CEQA 990252NY LosAngeles Avenue East Widening SCH# 98121011 March 30, 1999 Dear Mr. Gilbert: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Los Angeles Avenue East widening project. According to the facts presented in the document received, no state highway is involved in this project. We would like to remind you that any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires the use of oversized- transport vehicles on State highways will require a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend that large size truck trips be limited to off -peak commute periods. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Yerjanian at (213) 897 - 6536 and refer to IGR/CEQA 990252NY. Sincerely, STEPHEN J. BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager Transportation Planning Office District 7 APR 4 8 1999 CITY OF MOORPA€tK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARNIENT ()0(;()15 Coment: Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 30th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. These remarks do not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The City is aware that a transportation permit from Caltrans may be required to implement the project. The design of the street will also comply with Caltrans design standards because Los Angeles Avenue is also a State Highway (Route 118). OOG020 Comments and Responses Resolution No. 99 - Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment prepared for the proposed widening and rehabilitation of Los Angeles Avenue east of the Spring Road /High Street intersection is accurate and complete and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and NEPA. SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and approved the Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared -to implement the Mitigation Measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment for this project. SECTION 3. On the basis of the record as a whole, the City Council determined that the impacts of the proposed project, with the adoption of mitigation measures, would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Monitoring Plan subject to the attached findings. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified Resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21St DAY OF APRIL, 1999. ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk Exhibit "A": CEQA Findings Patrick Hunter, Mayor 0(;022 - 2� Resolution No. 99- Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment prepared for the proposed widening and rehabilitation of New Los Angeles Avenue between Maureen Lane and Beltramo Ranch Road, is accurate and complete and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and NEPA. SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and approved the Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared to implement the Mitigation Measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment for this project. SECTION 3. On the basis of the record as a whole, the City Council determined that the impacts of the proposed project, with the adoption of Mitigation Measures, would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby a Negative Declaration /Expanded Initial Studproves the Mitigated Assessment and Mitigation Monitoring Plan subj ct /to the rattached findings. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified Resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 213t DAY OF APRIL, 1999. ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk Exhibit "A": CEQA Findings Patrick Hunter, Mayor 1TEN . q-. A - � Memorandum TO: The Honorable City Council n FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: April 27, 1999 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM on 5 -5 -99: Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for the Los Angeles Avenue [East] Widening Project. Attached is a copy of the subject document revised to include all comments and responses. The City Council is scheduled; to consider approval of the subject attached document on May 5, 1999. It is requested that you discard any prior copy transmitted to you and refer to the attached revised copy. It is also requested that you bring this document with you to the May 5 meeting. CC auaa� G� ct� Statement of Findings -2 E x) (7) The adoption of required mitigation measures specified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration /Expanded Initial Study will reduce all potential adverse effects on the environment to acceptable levels based on significance criteria established in CEQA Guidelines and City Procedures for the implementation of CEQA; and (8) the mitigation measures that have been adopted will not themselves cause any significant effects on the environment. ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EXPANDED INTIAL STUDY and NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT City of Moorpark Public Works Department LOS ANGELES AVENUEIBELTRAMO RANCH ROAD STREET REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT in THE CITY OF MOORPARK Mitigated Negative Declaration Capital improvement Project for the 1998 -1999 Fiscal Year (SCH No. 99021098) Prepared by: THE CITY OF MOORPARK City Hall Department of Public Works 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93012 (805) 529 -6864 Contact: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works April 1999 CONTENTS Resolution of Adoption Public Hearing Notice /Notice of Availability Introduction Project Description Initial Study Checklist Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis: Rationale for Findings Contained in the Initial Study CEQA Mitigation Measures Mitigation Monitoring Program Appendix 1: Descriptive Exhibits (Schematic Improvement Plan and Site Area) Appendix 2: Funding Applications Appendix 3: Staff Reports, Agenda Reports, and Prior Council Actions and Related Correspondence RESOLUTION NO. 99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 02 MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE LOS ANGELES AVENUE / BELTRAMO RANCH ROAD WIDENING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City intends to construct a project to widen and improve the south side of Los Angeles Avenue between Beltramo Ranch Road and a point east of Maureen Lane; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 17, 1999, the City Council considered the content of a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration /Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment for said project; and WHEREAS, the City Council opened the public hearing on March 17, 1999, and took testimony from all those wishing to testify and closed the public hearing after public input; and WHEREAS, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment was made available to the public for the required review period set forth in the City and { State CEQA Guidelines and NEPA requirements; and WHEREAS, responses to comments on the adequacy of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment were presented to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a mitigated monitoring plan conforming with City and State guidelines was prepared and distributed to the public and I decision- makers prior to taking action on the sufficiency of the environmental analysis of the project; and i WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that based on the record as a whole the proposed street improvement program will not result in any significant impacts that have not been fully and completely mitigated; and WHEREAS, appropriate findings concerning the impacts of the project have been prepared (attached to this resolution). NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a hearing will be conducted before the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California, at the meeting of March 17, 1999, beginning at 7 :00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at the Moorpark City Hall located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021, to consider the project described below. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN, that pursuant to California State Law, an evaluation was conducted to determine if the proposed project could significantly affect the environment, and that based upon that review, the City of Moorpark as Lead Agency under CEQA has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration to be prepared for the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered at the time and place given by this notice. Project Description: The Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Project will involve the acquisition of additional right -of -way along the southside of Los Angeles Avenue, construction of roadway improvements to widen Los Angeles Avenue to include paving and drainage facilities within the expanded right -of -way, and the installation of roadway traffic striping on Los Angeles Avenue. Project Location: Between Beltramo Road and a point approximately 150 feet east of Maureen Lane within the City Of Moorpark. Applicant: City of Moorpark Public Works Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California Any person affected by the proposed project may appear and be heard in support or opposition at the time of the hearing. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and project documents may be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021; Telephone (805)529 6864. The City Council in their deliberations may approve the document, deny the document, or approve the document with modifications. If you challenge the project or environmental documentation in court, you may be limited to issues raised by you or someone else at the hearing or by written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department at or prior to the hearing. Si tiene preguntas acera de este proyecto, favor de City Hall, telefono 529 -6864. A : \beltramo- pw.doc Mitigation Requirements Defined CEQA Guidelines state that mitigation includes (15370 {a } through {e }): (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the 'action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Section 15369.5 70 of CEQA Guidelines defines in the following language the mitigation standards that must be met to employ a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for CEQA compliance. This section states: "Mitigated Negative Declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or Proposals made by, or agree to by, the application before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmental would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the information provided in this MND, with the incorporation of mitigation measures referenced in the CEQA Conditions of Approval section of the document. Impact Classifications Different categories of impact significance require various administrative actions by the decision makers at the time a project is approved. Conclusions about the significance of an impact are highlighted in bold print in the document. In the analysis to follow, several impact evaluation distinctions have been made. introduction -2 CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, California 93021 DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Notice is hereby given that the City of Moorpark has determined that the following project, THE LOS ANGELES AVENUE /BELTRAMO ROAD WIDENING AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, with the attached mitigation measures would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared rather than an Environmental Impact Report. Interested persons are offered the opportunity to comment in writing on the proposed Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration between February 16th and March 17th, 1999. In addition, the public is also invited to attend a hearing on the proposed Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project to be held before the City Council on March 17th, 1999. Comments on the adequacy of this document will be solicited at this hearing. If no significant, factually documented objections to the proposed Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated environmental analysis are received, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted at the City Council hearing scheduled for March 17th, 1999. The adoption hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of the City of Moorpark (at the address provided above) at 7 :00 p.m. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 529 -6864. Notification 48 hours in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 1. Proiect: Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Road Widening and Rehabilitation 2. Applicant: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 3. Proiect Objective: This capital improvement project is a proposal to rehabilitate and alter the alignment/striping of Los Angeles Avenue between Beltramo Road and an area approximately 150 feet east of Maureen Lane in the City of Moorpark. The project will require additional right -of -way not presently in City ownership. This property, once acquired, will become City right -of -way for the purposes of roadway improvement construction. Parcel Numbers: refer to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Location: The proposed project is situated along a portion of Los Angeles Avenue (State Route 118) between Beltramo Road and Maureen Lane. 4. Impacts /Mitigations: The impacts of the project are described in the attached Initial Study and in the Technical Appendices for the project. 5. Findings: On the basis of the Initial Study, analysis of available information, if is proposed that there is substantial evidence that the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the adoption of mitigation measures. Based on the findings contained in the attached Initial Study and the record as a whole, a finding can be made that there is no evidence that there will be an adverse effect on environmental resources that cannot be fully mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measures. Publication Date: February 16th, 1999 Project consequences with the potential to improve habitats, solve environmental problems, or generate substantial public benefits are classified as beneficial effects. There are factual tests recommended in the Appendices to CEQA Guidelines that aid in this classification process. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration may used to satisfy CEQA processing requirements if no Class l impacts are anticipated or if Class Il impacts can be fully mitigated. Use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate in cases where impacts have been avoided or where significant impacts have been offset by mitigation measures. Since the proposed project will not result in any impacts to the environment as defined by CEQA and elaborated upon in recent case law that have not been completely offset either by project revisions or the imposition of mitigation measures, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Use of this Document by the City of Moorpark This is a Final environmental document which will be used to complete the planning analysis of the project and to inform the decision- makers about the environmental consequences of approving the undertaking. The draft document was offered to the public as a preliminary statement about the environmental consequences of the project. The publication of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration initiated a 30 day review period. Written comments on the document were solicited by the City during this period and a hearing on the adequacy of the Negative Declaration was held before the City Council on March 4th, 1999. Copies of responses to comments on the adequacy of the document are contained in the Comments and Responses section of the report. Portions of the document which were altered since publication of the Draft. MND /Environmental Assessment are indicated in Italic print. Project Processing Timeframes Since the proposed undertaking is a capital improvement project sponsored by the City, mandatory time frames for decision- making related to the approval of the CEQA document and approval of the project (under the Permit Streamlining Act) do not apply. Documentation concerning staff and prior City Council review of this proposal and related funding efforts are provided in Appendix 3. Introduction -4 s v Standards of Analysis and Technical Appendices Because the undertaking is proposed to be funded using grant fund sources primarily, only preliminary engineering, fiscal, and planning analysis has been completed concerning this project. The available whole record related to the project is limited to the information provided in the Appendices of the MND. Further information will be required to implement the project (e.g., soil survey data, acquisition of right -of -way, etc). The available source materials consulted and analysis performed for each issue of concern have been summarized briefly in individual impact discussions in the MND (refer to the MND Analysis section). The primary sources of information consulted were limited to the Certified Final EIR on the City's General Plan, data provided in the MND Appendices, and site inspection by the consulting environmental analyst (The Planning Corporation). An MND is not intended to be either exhaustive or scholastic. Rather, as an informational document used in decision- making, the purposes of an MND are to present only sufficient information to define probable project specific and cumulative environmental impacts and to develop adequate mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. The limited available information concerning the project included in the "Expanded Initial Study" documentation includes: Appendix 1: Descriptive Exhibits (Schematic Improvement Plan and Site Area) Appendix 2: Funding Applications Appendix 3: Staff Reports and Prior Council Actions and Related Correspondence These Technical Appendices provide substantially more information about specific environmental issues than the MND Analysis text. The standards of evaluation used in individual discussion items included in the MND Analysis are conventional to each of the scientific, engineering, planning, or management disciplines contributing to an understanding of the project's impacts. In cases where public agencies or regulating bodies have defined thresholds of significance for various impacts, these thresholds have been used, to the extent applicable and feasible, in determining how individual impacts have been classified. In some cases, these standards and thresholds are related to numerical values derived from summary statistics (e.g., tolerable pollutant emission levels defined by the state of federal government, volume:capacity ratios calculated for intersections by traffic engineers, etc.); in other cases, the thresholds of significance are based on qualitative judgments or expert opinion (e.g., biological or cultural resource effects, aesthetic impacts, etc.). Introduction -5 Use of Incorporation by Reference CEQA Guidelines permit the use of relevant data generated while preparing related environmental documents, a procedure termed incorporation by reference (Guidelines, Section 15150). Both EIRs and Negative Declaration may incorporate any portion of relevant documents that are both a matter of public record and generally available to the public. "Incorporation by reference is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the analysis of the problem at hand." (Guidelines, section 15150, subd. (f).) Typical examples of material that may properly be incorporated by reference include a description of a proposed project's environmental setting from another EIR or a description of the city or county General Plan applicable to the project's location (Guidelines, section 15150, subd. (e).) All documents whose contents are incorporated by reference have been made available for public inspection at the Lead Agency's office at the City of Moorpark (Public Works Department). Copies of documents used in the preparation of this MND are available for review at the City. The primary documents referred to include the EIR prepared for the City's General Plan Update and recently prepared EIRs on the Hidden Creek and Morrison Ranch projects. Traffic, air quality, and other data in the MND has been incorporated from these documents. NEPA Compliance The document has been prepared to comply with requirements in NEPA related to the preparation of an Environmental Assessment. Based on the information contained in this document, the City of Moorpark has determined that a Finding of No Significant Effect is the appropriate notification applicable to the proposed undertaking. Introduction -6 CITY OF MOORPARK LOS ANGELES AVENUE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BETWEEN BELTRAMO ROAD AND MAUREEN LANE IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK 1998 -1999 Capital Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA Environmental Assessment Prepared by the City of Moorpark Public Works Department February 1, 1999 PROJECT SYNOPSIS AND PROJECT NEED STATEMENT Project Title: Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Road Widening and Street Reconstruction Project Location and Setting: The proposed project is a street improvement program for a portion of Los Angeles Avenue (State Route 118) situated between Beltramo Road and a point east of Maureen Lane. The proposed widening will occur on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue. Refer to the Vicinity Map included in Appendix 9 for an illustration of the location of these improvements in relation to existing residential and commercial areas within the City. Landowners: Property owners (or property owner agents for the purpose of service of legal documents) which will be affected by this undertaking include: Joe Fidel P.O. Box 11 Tarzana, California 91356 International Church Foursquare Gospel 1100 Glendale Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90026 Curts, Bert and Placide 13 Maureen Lane Moorpark, California 93012 Robert and Sharon Vogle 4980 Maureeen Lane Moorpark, California 93021 Project Description and Setting -t Architect/Engineer: to be determined Right -of -Way Agent: To be determined Entitlements or Permits Requested: ► City of Moorpark Capital Improvement Project (no entitlements required) ► Caltrans Design Review and Approval ► Caltrans Encroachment Permit ► Right -of -way acquisition complying with state and federal law Assessor's Parcel Nos: 504- 021 -195 (Beltramo Road) 506 -03 -030 (11934 Los Angeles Avenue) 506- 030 -010 (11930 Beltramo) 506- 030 -020 (vacant land) 506- 042 -010 (4981 Maureen Lane) 506- 041 -101 (4980 Maureen Lane) Acreage: Total area of disturbance is projected to be approximately two acres (81,600 square feet - -800 linear feet 102 feet in width). Areas of disturbance will be refined once preliminary engineering is available. Right -of -way: Total right -of -way to be effected is estimated to be 94,400 square feet (800 linear feet 118 feet in width). Grading Quantities: Grading quantities have yet to be determined. Since construction will occur exclusively within the road right -of -way (both existing and proposed acquisitions), grading quantities are anticipated to be minimal. Project Objective; The project is a proposal to acquire right -of -way and widen and improve a portion of Los Angeles Avenue (State Route 118) between Beltramo Road and a point east of Maureen Lane. The Proposed widening and reconstruction will extend easterly from the intersection of Tierra 'Rejada Road and Los Angeles Avenue. The project area contains residentially and commercially zoned Property. The nearest public institutional use is Chaparral Middle School. The dominant land uses along the northern portion of the construction alignment are residential. Relatively high density residential land uses also are situated east and west of the proposed alignment. All of the properties to be affected by right -of -way acquisition are relatively large parcels which are not characteristic of surrounding subdivided properties. Existing Zoning: Street right -of -way within the project boundary is not zoned. Zoning on land to be acquired to complete the widening include residential and institutional designations. Project Description and Setting -2 City General Plan Designation: Jurisdiction: General Plan land use designations are primarily residential on portions of property to be acquired. City of Moorpark Service Districts /Utilities: Water.' Ventura County Waterworks District 1 Electric: Southern California Edison Gas: Southern California Gas Company Fire: County of Ventura (city contract) Police: County of Ventura (city contract) Sewage: City of Moorpark Proposed Construction and Structures: The widening and rehabilitation of Los Angeles Avenue between Beltramo Road and a location east of Maureen Lane will involve obtaining approximately 30 feet of linear right -of -way along the south side of Los Angeles Avenue along nearly the entire 800 foot alignment included in the proposed upgrade of the street. Total ultimate right -of -way width is projected to be 118 feet in width while the built road surface will be confined to a 102 foot section. The construction will involve (1) demolition of certain features within the acquired right -of -way (trees, shrubs, portions of driveways), (2) grading and preparation of the road bed within the new right -of -way, (3) surfacing the new width of road with asphalt and restoring curb cuts and other access features to roadbed adjacent properties, (4) constructing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and a median, (5) restriping of the entire width of the improvement area, and (6) subject to funding availability, parkway landscaping improvements may also be installed as a component of the project at a future date. A 14 foot center median will be constructed to enhance the visual quality of the street and minimize cross- traffic turning movements which will improve the safety of this segment of Los Angeles Avenue. The acquisition of right -of -way will be sufficient to allow development of an ultimate street section comprised of three eastbound and three westbound travel lanes, a center median and two bikelanes and pedestrian way improvements (sidewalks). The project will necessitate some utility relocations. Project Description and Setting -3 Funding Sources: The present funding plan for this improvement is (1) to obtain state and federal grant funds (estimated to be $300,000 for initial phases of work and 1.2 million dollars for ultimate construction widths and amenities) and (2) to allocate initially $75,000 from the AOC for initial improvements and $700,000 for full buildout of the road segment. Existing Environment Proiect Location The proposed project is situated in the western portion of the City of Moorpark. Neighboring communities include the cities of Simi Valley to the east and Thousand Oaks to the south. Specifically, the project construction area is bounded by Beltramo Road (a private road) to the west and the vicinity of Maureen cane and Liberty Bell to the east. Refer to Appendix 1 for a preliminary designation of the improvement corridor. Existing Conditions and Environment Los Angeles Avenue within the alignment of the area to be improved is presently a four lane road which provides access to a mix of land using including residential neighborhoods, light industrial uses, retail projects, entertainment - retail developments, and office /business park uses. Los Angeles Avenue is also a major through diversion route for truck traffic which, by passing through Moorpark, can avoid major transportation check points along the Highway 101 corridor. Los Angeles Avenue also accommodates local truck traffic hauling gravel and fill materials from quarry sites situated in unincorporated County of Ventura canyon systems surrounding the City. Los Angeles Avenue also is a state highway route which provides linkages between semi -rural agricultural communities between the Little Simi Valley and the Oxnard Plain. This combination of demands on the Los Angeles Avenue corridor results in considerable congestion at peak hours and quality of life degrading conflicts between trucking activities and urban uses. The City has planned an extensive improvement program to accommodate these conflicting uses and intents for the corridor; improvements to the corridor are either funded through developer contributions or federal and state grant programs. This combination of funding is also proposed to widen and improve the portion of Los Angeles Avenue which is the subject of this document. Project Description and Setting -4 Within the area proposed to be improved, a small dirt "shoulder" area is present along the south side of the roadway; this area is approximately 10 feet in width. An unimproved pedestrian path is situated along the north side of the alignment. The houses that exist within the project area are single story structures of generally about 1,500 square feet in size; most homes are situated within 20 to 40 feet of the existing right -of -way. Three homes within the alignment scheduled for improvement may be impacted by the right -of -way acquisition process despite the fact that these homes generally access the street grid via cross streets within the improvement corridor. A formal right -of -way acquisition process and appraisal will be required to determine the property impacts of the proposed widening on these homes. Several light industrial and commercial uses are present within the improvement corridor vicinity. The largest and most prominent of these uses is the Moorpark Square Business Park which is parallel to most of the length of the improvement area along the north side of the right -of -way. A small concrete block wall separates the Business Park from the adjacent pedestrian path along the north side of Los Angeles Avenue. Vacant and residential land uses are present along the southern part of the improvement right -of -way. Street lights and power and utility -poles are present along the entire north side of the improvement corridor. Decision to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration As required by CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study of the proposed project and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be prepared for this application. The Initial Study that formed the basis of this judgment follows the summary Negative Declaration Analysis of the environmental issues related to the project. As required by CEQA, a set of mitigation measures were developed for all impacts determined in the Initial Study to be potentially significant. These mitigation measures are provided following the text of the Initial Study. Project Description and Setting -5 As permitted under CEQA guidelines, this Mitigated Negative Declaration may be overturned and an EIR could be required by the decision- makers if either of the following conditions are met: (1) for any impact determined to be potentially significant for which mitigation measures have been developed, if the public or other agencies provide substantial, well documented, and factually based information that the mitigation measures recommended by the City are either financially or technically infeasible, and if no other measures can be identified to offset the subject impact, then the decision to prepare the Negative Declaration should be overturned or (2) if the public or other agencies provide substantial and credible information supporting an assertion of controversy over the City's determination that an impact can be mitigated to insignificance, then an fIR should be prepared. Project Description and Setting -6 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Widening and Street Reconstruction 2. Case Processing Numbers: Refer to attached Project Description 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Moorpark 4. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works 5. Project Location: Los Angeles Avenue at Beltramo, City of Moorpark 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Moorpark 7. General Plan Designation: Refer to attached Project Description Existing: Proposed: 8. Zoning: Refer to attached Project Description Existing: Proposed: 9. Project Description: Refer to attached Project Description 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Refer to attached Project Description 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreements): Refer to Project Description _i Initial Study Checklist - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors listed below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ♦ Aesthetics ♦ Agricultural Resources ♦ Air Quality ♦ Biological Resources Cultural Resources ♦ Geology /Soils ♦ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ♦ Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use /Planning ♦ Mineral Resources Noise ♦ Population /Housing DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ♦ Public Services ♦ Recreation ♦ Transportation/Traffic ♦ Utilities /Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed -` to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DEDCLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signa i wre d Date Steve Craig Printed Name Initial Study Checklist - 2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Requirements specified in CEQA Guidelines) 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project ,falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: (a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Initial Study Checklist - 3 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an Significant Significant Significant ✓ agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to Impact With Impact ✓ the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning Mitigation ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? v' b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an ✓ agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to J ✓ the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ✓ ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? at' d) Result in direct or indirect population related growth inducement impacts (significantly expand empolyment opportunities, remove ✓ policy impediments to growth, or contribute to potential extensions of growth inducing infrastructure)? ✓ 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to ✓ the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California ✓ Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? ✓ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? d) Expose residential areas to increased risks associated with ✓ potential dispersion of hazardous agricultural chemicals. 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ✓ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. ✓ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ✓ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ✓ Initial Study Checklist -4 - t Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantially adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other I/ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and ✓ Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife l/ nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Result in damage to, loss of, or removal of native oak trees or other locally identified specimen trees of significance? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proiect: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? I/ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Result in physical disruption of an identified sacred place or other ethnographically documented location of significance to native Californians? Initial Study Checklist - 5 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Significant Significant Significant (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Impact With Impact most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Mitigation issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other Incorporated V, 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other V, substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? b) 'Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -a -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? g) Result in remediation scars (benched slopes, etc.) whose dimensions cannot be predicted with reasonable accuracy based on a preliminary geotechnical report? Ini ial Study Checklist - 6 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the Impact With Impact likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? Mitigation c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile Incorporated ✓ 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? ✓ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile ✓ of an exiting or proposed school? > d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or V public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Initial Study Checklist - 7 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact requirements? Significant Significant Significant b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere Impact With Impact substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a Mitigation net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater Incorporated 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ✓ b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off site? d) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? f) Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood ✓ hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would ✓ impede or redirect flood flows? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Initial Study Checklist - 8 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive Significant Significant Significant d development open to public view? Impact With Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to Mitigation trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic Incorporated 9. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the ✓ proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive d development open to public view? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings? d) Create sources of incompatibility with the existing scenic and aesthetic environment of the community or quality of life impacts on residents? Y e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day views in the area? f) Significantly impact any existing streetscape or public space which has been designed to provide areas of public assembly and congregation? g) Conflict with adopted design guidelines or development standards which have been implemented to improve the quality of architecture in the community? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ✓ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Initial Study Checklist - 9 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, Significant Significant Significant or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact With Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne Mitigation vibration or groundborne noise levels? Incorporated i 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? i c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project or in rural areas, increase measurably the ambient noise levels more than 5 dbs? d) A substantially temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the v project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or ✓ working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Result in impacts to an established ethnic community? b) Create substantial demands for affordable low income housing in a jurisdiction which does not have an adequate stock of such housing? c) Result in substantial conflicts between type, size, and quality of proposed and existing housing in the project vicinity? d) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? e) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? v 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) -Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Initial Study Checklist - 10 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of Significant Significant Significant the facility would occur or be accelerated? Impact With Impact b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the Mitigation construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have Incorporated j 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have j an adverse physical effect on the environment? 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in the traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or City General Plan Circulation Element threshold? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards related to existing intersections or roadway design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. residential traffic conflicts with farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate secondary or emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Initial Study Checklist - 11 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact ... , Significant Significant Significant o/ b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater Impact With Impact treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the Mitigation construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Incorporated 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? o/ b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which services or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs for a minimum ten year period? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? h) Provide for on -site source separation and recycling facilities which are adequately sized for the proposed use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. i) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? j) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? k) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Checklist - 12 i MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS I. Land Use and Planning The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use designations in the vicinity. The proposed roadway uses is a permitted use compatible with existing zoning and land use designations. With the adoption of all recommended mitigation measures, the impacts of the road widening on land uses in the surrounding area have been minimized to acceptable levels. The acquisition of privately held land will be required to implement the project. Planning parcel specific mitigation related to these land acquisitions will be required to offset impacts to private property owners (a Class II impact requiring mitigation). II. Agricultural Resources The proposed right -of -way is not an area with locally or regionally designated prime farmlands or prime soils. No recent agricultural history has been established for lands within the project boundary. The entire property within the alignment of the road widening was mass graded over five decades ago; at that time, the surface soils were relocated and impacted. The narrow size and shape of the right -of -way makes the existing on -site soils have no agricultural potential for irrigated or non- irrigated crops. The subject property has been devoted to urban uses for the past four decades is not presently nor has in the past been included in any Williamson Act contract lands. The impacts of the project on the agricultural potentials of the property are not significant (a Class IV impact). III. Air Quality Air quality is determined primarily by the types and amounts of contaminants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the local air basin, and the pollutant dispersing properties of local weather patterns. When airborne pollutants are produced in such volume that they are not dispersed by local meteorological conditions, air quality problems arise. Dispersion of pollutants in the County of Ventura is inhibited by periodic temperature inversions and local topographic features which tend to trap pollutants near the ground. As the pollutants become more concentrated in the atmosphere, photochemical reactions take place that produce ozone, which is commonly known as smog. Ventura County experiences temperature inversions, Expanded Initial Study Impact Analysis -1 particularly in the late summer and early fall These inversion layers limit the vertical mixing height and confine horizontal flow through passes and valleys that are below the inversion height. Because of the limited air column available for mixing, pollutant concentrations are generally highest at this time. State CEQA Guidelines state that a project will have a significant effect on the environment if it will violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Los Angeles County impact assessment guidelines recommend that a determination of significant project specific and cumulative effects should be made in cases where sensitive receptors are exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would result in short -term construction impacts during the roadway construction phase; no long -term impacts related to increased vehicle trips associated with occupation and use of the land within the right -of -way will result from the proposed construction. The project is not considered a trip generating use. Local Air Quality Standards Significance thresholds applicable to the proposed project include the following: Carbon Monoxide (1) A CO screening analysis should be conducted for any project exceeding 25 pounds per day, of either ROC or NOx which may significantly impact roadway intersections which are currently operating at, or which are expected to operate at, Levels of Service D, E, or F, or any project- impacted roadway intersection at which there may be a CO hotspot. Toxic Air Pollutants (2) Any project which may release toxic or hazardous air pollutants to the atmosphere in amounts which may be injuries to nearby populations should be analyzed for potential toxic air pollutant impacts. Odors (3) Any project which may create objectionable odors which may impact sensitive receptors should be analyzed for potential odor impacts. Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -2 Particulate Matter /Dust (4) Any project which may create, either during construction or operation, excessive amounts of fugitive dust or other particulate matter, should be analyzed for potential adverse impacts, including nuisances. Regional Air Quality Standards (1) Any general development project in the remainder of the ozone nonattainment area of the county [Outside Ojai CAO] capable of daily emissions of: Reactive Organic Compounds: 25 pounds Nitrogen Oxides: 25pounds These are thresholds for projects that the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board has determined will individually and cumulatively jeopardize attainment of the ozone standard and thus have a significant adverse impact on air quality in the county. (2) A project which cause an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard (state or federal), or makes a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air quality standard. Substantial is defined as making measurably worse an existing exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard. (3) Any project with emissions greater than two pounds per day of ROC, or two pounds per day of NOx, that is found to be inconsistent with the Ventura County AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. (4) Any General Plan Amendment or revision which would provide directly or indirectly for increased population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Impact Analyses Guidelines identify thresholds and impact significance criteria for emission sources, which typically fall outside the jurisdiction of the APCD, such as construction equipment. These thresholds apply only to equipment and operations not subject to an APCD Permit to Operate. The calculation methodologies, equipment emission factors and vehicle generation trip rates are derived from the EPA document Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP -42. Copies of these documents are available at the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003. The project will not result in any 'operational effects" (related to employee and visitor vehicle use) or any exceedence of air quality thresholds and therefore traffic generation related long term air quality impacts associated with the project were determined to be non - significant (a Class IV impact). Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -3 Short -term construction impacts would primarily result from fugitive dust generated by the project grading and soil remediation program which must precede the creation of building pads, landscape modifications, and infrastructure improvements. Given the brevity of the heavy equipment phase of construction, exhaust emissions associated with heavy -duty construction equipment will only contribute to air shed impacts for a short period of time. Preparation of the roadway for construction, the construction process itself, and implementation of infrastructure relocation would result in short term emissions from two sources: (1) fugitive dust during demolition, clearing and grading /site preparation, and (2) exhaust emissions from construction equipment used during each phase of the construction process. In addition to fugitive dust emissions, construction equipment used for clearing and grading of the site would generate combustion emissions. Dust and Particulate Generation Construction of the project would generate particulate emissions during final finish grading activities. The level of particulate generation depends on soil moisture, wind speed, activity level, and silt content of the soil. Particulate generation typically occurs at the rate of 1.2 tons per acre per month of construction activity (U.S. EPA, 1985). Due to the minor nature of the grading required, construction operations for the proposed roadway would not have the potential to result in concentrations of particulates that may exceed both the national and state ambient air quality standards on a short-term basis (a Class III impact). The dust generated by such activities may however pose adverse health and nuisance impacts to those living and working near the construction site. Short Term Construction Effects Insufficient information about geotechnical remediation planning, grading methodology, and proposed equipment to be used for the excavation program to define with any certainty what type of grading will be required to prepare the site for construction. The initial clearing and finish grading for the property has been estimated to require about 2 days of earthwork. The construction equipment emissions projected for the development of the roadway would not result in substantial and prolonged construction emissions (a Class III impact). Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -4 Grading, Particulates, and PM1O Grading improvements necessary to prepare the roadbed would not generate a significant volume of total suspended particulates. The California Air Resources Board estimates that heavy equipment grading activities generate up to 80 pounds of particulate matter per acre per day. Based on the time frames presented in the foregoing discussion, the proposed grading program (and related activities) will require only several days of earthwork distributed over approximately a two week period. At this rate, assuming grading would occur over a six acre area on an average working day, the proposed construction program would generate only a a very minor total particulate load. PM10 emissions generated during the grading and construction phase would not exceed the State 24 -hour standard of 50 ug /m3 (micrograms per cubic meter). Nonetheless, given the proximity of adjacent residential areas, compliance with Federal and State standards for dust control will be required. Combustion Emissions from Construction Vehicles In addition to dust emissions, construction equipment used for clearing and grading would also generate various types of combustion emissions (RHC, NOx, CO, and PM). Grading and site preparation equipment emissions would also occur as short -term impacts. Information regarding the number of construction - related vehicles and the specific type of fuel to be used is necessary for precise calculation of this impact. Given the brief duration of the heavy equipment construction period proposed and the anticipated types of equipment that may be required to complete the required work, impacts related to combustion emissions from construction vehicles are projected to be an insignificant impact (a Class III impact). However, due to the proximity of the construction program to residential neighborhoods, some air quality protection measures have been recommended. IV. Biological Resources No native habitats are present within the roadbed scheduled for improvement. The roadway is situated in a developed, urban setting and therefore development of the project as planned will not have a significant impact on any biological or botanical resources or wildlife habitat. A determination that no significant impact will occur is based on the following conclusions: (7) no endangered, threatened or rare plant or animal species or habitats that support such species are present within the construction corridor, (2) no locally designated botanical landmarks (e.g., heritage trees) are present within the property boundary, Expanded Initial Study Impact Analysis -5 (3) no locally designated plant communities are present within the project boundary (oak woodlands, riparian corridors, coastal habitats, etc.); (4) the project site supports no riparian habitats; and (5) no wildlife corridors are present within the property boundary. The property needed for roadway construction is situated in a developed, urban corridor. No on- site native plants or habitat remains within the property boundary. The property is covered by ruderal vegetation (weeds) and therefore no botanically significant effects are anticipated. A project landscaping program, including possible future streetscape landscaping in conformance with streetscape planting recommendations applicable to the surrounding area, will be required. The land within the perimeter of this project has no locally or regionally significant biological merit. Therefore, no significant impacts to botanical or biological resources are not anticipated (a Class III impact). V. Cultural Resources A literature search and physical survey of the property by the City's environmental consultant (The Planning Corporation) did not result in the identification of any cultural resources within the road corridor boundary. No cultural" remains were reported when the property was originally graded. Archaeological deposits are typically situated in the upper three feet of native soil surfaces. Since the entire property has been mass graded, previously, the native soil has been disturbed within the roadbed. No secondary deposits (from disturbed contexts) were observed within the unimproved alignment. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would not be significant and no mitigation planning for this resource is necessary (a Class IV effect). VI. Geophysical. Impacts: Earth Resources, Geologic Hazards and Seismic Effects The proposed project is not situated within any known fault hazard zones. The development of the roadbed will not require any substantial soil or landform modifications. The existing, previously rough graded alignment will be finish graded and committed to roadway uses. Any minor remedial cut and fill program will be balanced on -site. Only minor demolition is required. The scope of the proposed grading program was determined to be minor; fault hazard and geotechnical impacts were determined to be insignificant (Class III effects). Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -6 Soil borings and seismic analysis of the specific design conditions within the project boundary have not yet been addressed in a geotechnical report. Therefore, mitigation measures related to geological planning will be required. However, on the basis of literature review as well as field and laboratory testing for construction conducted on adjacent properties, no known adverse geologic conditions exist within the property boundary. VII. Hazards The proposed project will not result in any land use with the potential to result in the storage and use of hazardous and controlled materials. No uses considered potential sources of hazard both to human health and to the environment are involved in the development of the roadway. The impacts resulting from risk of upset conditions are considered insignificant (a Class IV impact). VIII. Water Resources: Hydrology, Debris Transport, and Surface and Groundwater Water Quality The proposed use of the area to be impacted by the project as a roadway will not require any major modifications to the existing flood and stormwater collection structures in the area; this finding will need to be confirmed by further hydrologic analysis which is required as a Mitigation Measure for the project. With the construction of hardscape as proposed over a significant percentage of the roadbed, the proposed project will not result in significant potential for on -site erosion or sedimentation except during the brief period of time between completion of finish grading and installation of hardscape. Impacts associated with debris movement and erosion are considered potentially non - significant, even 'during the construction period, due to the small scale nature of the project (a Class IV impact). Based on available information, it is predicted that the implementation of the development will not modify the hydraulics of the immediate area; this predicted finding will be confirmed by a pre- construction hydraulic analysis (if required by the City Engineer or Caltrans). Silt discharge is not anticipated occur except during the initial grading phase. Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -7 The use of appropriate best available technology to intercept oil and gas residues should prevent any downstream contamination to the Arroyo Simi. As long as onsite drainage is appropriately captured and disposed of, the potential for changing stream gradients or impacting downstream areas is remote. Impacts related to surface water flow, dispersion, runoff, and related effects would be very minor, short term effects were determined to be non significant (a Class III impact) and therefore no mitigation measures have been required. Based on available data, potentially significant flooding, drainage, and soil contamination related impacts will not occur coincident with development of this road widening. Impacts resulting from grading, landform modifications, drainage changes, and related effects can be avoided or minimized by the incorporation of conventional roadway design measures into the project when more detailed engineering is conceived for the alignment. Impacts related to these issues are considered non - significant (Class III impacts). IX. Aesthetics: Light and Glare and Impacts on View Corridors The project will not result in the addition of any potentially significant exterior night lighting in the vicinity. Lighting exists presently within the roadway and no changes are anticipated in the existing lighting program. Therefore, light and glare related impacts are projected to be insignificant (a Class IV impact). If landscaping improvements associated with the project are implemented in the future, the impacts of the project on local aesthetics should be beneficial rather than adverse. X. Mineral Resources The proposed project site does not contain any unique or energy significant mineral resources. Mineral extraction has never occurred on the project site or on surrounding lands. No remainder rights for mineral extraction will exist once the land use on the property is dedicated to residential uses. No impacts related to important mineral resources are anticipated as a result of project development (a Class IV impact). XI. Noise The proximity and concentration of people in an urban setting creates a substantial and continuous sound; when these sounds become intrusive, they are defined as noise. Ambient (background) noise levels covary with population density; therefore, as modern transportation Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -8 systems expand and communities develop, noise becomes an increasingly annoying and pervasive condition. Physical health, psychological stability, social cohesion, property values, and economic productivity are all affected adversely by excessive amounts of noise. The significance of noise effects are directly related to the intensity and duration of noise sources. In evaluating noise effects, audible changes associated with a specific project are often difficult (or impossible) to measure quantitatively unless a noise impact is relatively severe. Noise models based on traffic volumes permit at least partial delineation of project specific noise impacts associated with an increment of change in noise volumes. Noise models reflect the following generally accepted audibility criteria: (9) Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, an increase or decrease of only 1 decibel (dBA) cannot be perceived. (2) Outside the laboratory, a 3 dBA increase or decrease is considered a barely perceivable change. (3) An increase or decrease of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in noise levels would be widely perceived. (4) A 90 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of noise volume. In the "Caltrans Noise Abatement Programs from the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1100, published by Caltrans, a "Substantial increase" in noise level is defined to be 3 dBA from an existing noise level; this standard is considered the significance threshold for requiring implementation of noise mitigation for residential noise abatement programs. Short -Term Construction Noise The dominant sources of construction noise associated with development of the project would result from site clearing, demolition, grading, soil and debris export, construction of required project utilities, infrastructure, footing creation, framing, roadway construction and related activities will all be noise generating. These noise sources would result in relatively short -term increases in ambient noise levels. Potentially significant short term increases in ambient noise levels will be perceived by adjacent land uses as a result of: (9) construction vehicle ingress and egress to the project site; (2) activities in construction staging yards; (3) the operation of temporary on -site generators and pneumatic tools, Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -9 (4) daily construction worker ingress and egress to the project site; (5) a brief period of finish grading, and (6) road construction activities. Noise generated by construction equipment, especially diesel - powered equipment including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach intrusive levels. Based on EPA data, the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 dBA to 91 dBA (at 50 feet from the source). The loudest construction -type activities may require more than 1,000 feet of distance between a source and a nearby receiver to reduce the average 91 dBA source strength to a generally acceptable 60 dBA exterior exposure level (from stationary equipment). The residential areas in the project vicinity are sufficiently close to the project location that noise sensitive uses in nearby residential areas may experience substantial short term noise impacts (a Class If impact). Noise inconvenience is a universal phenomenon for any urban development construction program and is not unique to the proposed project. The potential for noise inconvenience is considered a potentially adverse impact of short duration which is subject to effective mitigation (Class II). Normally, construction hours are limited to daylight hours, Monday through Friday. To prevent construction premium costs, evening or weekend construction is not planned. Since off -hour construction is not contemplated, conflicts with and inconvenience to nearby residential areas will be avoided. Construction impacts have the potential to result in periodic and short term disturbances to local residents, a short term impact requiring mitigation planning. Refer to measures included in the CEQA Conditions of Approval section of this document. Vehicle Related Noise Impacts Associated with Occupation of the Development A formal vehicle related noise analysis of the proposed project has not yet been undertaken since the proposed roadway alignment has not been engineered. Further, the City's General Plan EIR indicates that future cumulative noise volumes within the roadway are within threshold values presently and will continue to remain within acceptable limits with continuing General Plan buildout. From the perspective of contributing to changes in CNEL volumes (related to traffic volumes on the street system averaged over a 24 hour period), the amount of traffic that will be generated by the project is predicted to be insignificant as a noise generation source. However, Expanded Initial Study., Impact Analysis -10 widening of the roadway may result in the need to construct specific noise barriers for individual homes. Until more detailed plans are available for the proposed construction program, the details of noise mitigation for this project cannot be determined. However, impacts from project related noise sources were determined to be generally insignificant except for homes in close proximity to the revised right -of -way (a Class If impact). Additional mitigation planning for noise issues related to specific homes along the right -of -way will be required in the future. X1111. Population and Housing The proposed project will not generate demands for rental or sale housing. The levels of employment anticipated for the project can be accommodated given the available housing stock in the City and adjacent unincorporated areas. Impacts related to housing demand related to employment generation are not anticipated to be significant (a Class III impact). XIII. Public Services The proposed road widening program will not create any unanticipated demands on local service providers. Fixed utility providers have not expressed any objections to the proposed undertaking. The County police and fire departments which provide contract services to the City have reviewed and commented on the proposed project and indicated that the roadway can be widened without changing service demands on existing service personnel. The project will not result in any impacts on service providers (a Class IV impact). XIV. Recreation The project will not result in any significant new demands for recreational opportunities for the residents of the City. The proposed use would not have any effect on recreational opportunities on either a local or regional basis. As a road widening undertaking, impacts related to demands on recreational facilities were determined to be insignificant (a Class IV impact). XV. Traffic Circulation and Parking The proposed project is designed to improve regional and local circulation. Resolution of the existing traffic circulation problems in the City of Moorpark will require widening and improvement of major arterials and collectors. The proposed improvement program is designed to enhance safety and roadway capacity. As such, the project will solve rather than create problems related Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -11 to traffic movements and local and regional circulation. The project will not result in any significant traffic circulation impacts (a Class IV effect). XVI. Utilities The project will not result in any unanticipated demands on existing utilities or public infrastructure. The development is consistent with the available energy supplies in the local and regional grid. Impacts on utilities and infrastructure would be insignificant (Class 111 impacts). Expanded Initial Study. Impact Analysis -12 CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES Land Use and Planning (1) The City shall develop parcel specific mitigation plans for all properties within the right -of- way that may have access restrictions or have modifications to access as a result of the proposed construction. Restoration of access in a manner than does not interfere with the through traffic objectives of the improvement program shall be prioritized. In cases where access cannot be restored, proper compensation shall be provided to the effected landowners through eminent domain proceedings. II. Air Quality (1) All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (2) All clearing, filling, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during period of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Construction grading shall be discontinued on days forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the County APCD air quality monitoring station closest to the City of Moorpark. Grading and excavation operations shall not resume until the first stage smog alert expires. (3) If any soil material is transported to or from the site, this material shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Fill materials, to the degree feasible, shall be obtained from appropriate sources close to the site to minimize construction emissions. A haul plan (including routes and hours of delivery) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to commencement of any fill or disposal program. (4) Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. (5) Construction vehicles entering and exiting unpaved roads onto paved roads during the grading period shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Residual Effects: not significant. Mitigation Measures-1 VI. Geophysical Impacts (1) A geotechnical report shall be prepared by the City prior to the initiation of construction. This report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer. The report shall address site preparation requirements for the design of all structures, including storm water conveyance facilities, retaining walls, planning for settlement compensation, and all other aspects of site specific engineering deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The report shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. Residual Effects: not significant. Vlll. Water Resources /Hydrology Drainage and Water Quality (1) If determined necessary by the City Engineer (as determined by the City Engineer in his sole discretion), a drainage conveyance study shall be prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer for the review and acceptance by the City Engineer. Hydraulic design shall conform to the current Hydraulic Design Manual of the Los Angeles County. The study shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. (2) The City should be required to comply with all NPDES and stormwater conveyance facility conditions deemed necessary by the Public Works Director or City Engineer. Residual Effects: not significant. XI. Noise (1) To minimize construction noise effects, all stationary construction noise sources shall be sheltered or enclosed to minimize adverse effects on adjacent neighborhoods. When feasible, generators and pneumatic compressors shall be placed in a manner to minimize noise inconvenience on adjacent residences. Construction shall be prohibited between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays (including Saturday) and no construction shall occur on Sunday. (2) All contractors involved in the construction program shall provide a written noise construction effects strategy to be submitted with building permit applications. The types of suppression used will vary on a case by case basis. Dumpsters, pre - assembly construction tasks, and materials storage shall be limited to defined, prescribed areas. Mitigation Measures -2 Materials storage and work areas shall be situated to the degree feasible, on portions of parcels that will minimize impacts on nearby commercial and residential areas. Adjacent commercial tenants shall be notified of the construction schedule for the project. (3) Once the final alignment of the roadway is determined, the City shall prepare an accoustical report to determine what types of noise barriers may be required for individual homes that may be impacted by the relocation of traffic closer to residential locations. Residual Effects: not significant. Mitigation Measures -3 Mitigation Monitoring Program AB 3180'(Stats 1988, ch. 1232) which became effective on January 1989 and has been codified as Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, now requires that, along with the adoption of the findings specified in an EIR or MND, the lead agency must also adopt a "reporting /monitoring program to ensure compliance during project implementation." A mitigation monitoring program has been prepared and will be distributed with the staff report for the project. A copy of the adopted monitoring and reporting program will be included in the published version of the adopted MND. Mitigation Monitoring Program -1 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN: NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE /BELTRAMO WIDENING AND REHABILITATION Verification of Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Compliance 1. Land Use and Planning (1) The City shall develop parcel specific mitigation plans City to complete Continuous activity Completion of all for all properties within the right -of -way that may have access relocation until acquisition legally required access restrictions or have modifications to access as and acquisition has been completed acquisition a result of the proposed construction. Restoration of planning consistent procedures access in a manner than does not interfere with the with state law and resulting in through traffic objectives of the improvement program applicable City possession of shall be prioritized. In cases where access cannot redevelopment needed right -of -way be restored, proper compensation shall be provided procedures to the effected landowners through eminent domain (where relevant) proceedings. II. Air Quality (1) All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently Field watering to Continuous Field verification watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering occur during during initial of compliance by shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, grading period grading period City Public Works/ preferably in the late morning and after work is Building Inspectors completed for the day. (2) All clearing, filling, grading, earth moving, or Dust generating Continuous during Same as (1) above excavation activities shall cease during period of activity to cease grading period high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over during periods of (until asphalt one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. high winds completion) Construction grading shall be discontinued on days forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the County APCD air quality monitoring station closest to the City of Moorpark. Grading and excavation operations shall not resume until the first stage smog alert expires. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 1 February 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance (3) If any soil material is transported to or from the site, this material shall be either sufficiently watered Dust suppression to be verified for Continuous during Same as (1) above or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Fill materials, to the degree all transported or the grading period feasible, shall be obtained from appropriate sources imported soils close to the site to minimize construction emissions. A haul plan (including routes and hours of delivery) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to commencement of any fill or disposal program. (4) Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated Sweeping of streets Continuous as Same as (1) above from construction activities so as to prevent to occur on an as necessary during excessive amounts of dust. needed basis during the grading .grading. program (5) Construction vehicles entering . and exiting unpaved roads onto paved roads during the grading period shall be washed off prior to leaving the Contractors to provide for vehicle Same as (4) above Same as (1) above site. clean -up during construction VI. Geophysical Impacts (1) A final geotechnical report shall be prepared by the City [Department blic Works prior to the initiation of construction. This report shall be prepared by a registered to One time activity (if deemed necessary City Engineer to geotechnical engineer. g The report shall address site preparation requirements tract for by the City Engineer) review and a pprove any required soils for the design of all structures, including storm water conveyance paration of s and during the planning or geotechnical facilitiesretaining or sound attenuation walls, planning for settlement compensation, and all other aspects geotechnical report phase prior to review of grading reports of site specific engineering deemed necessary by the City and construction Engineer. The report shall be subject to the approval plans of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 2 February 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance VIII. Water Resources /Hydrology Drainage and Water Quality (1) If determined necessary by the City Engineer (as City to prepare One time activity Field verification determined by the City Engineer in his sole discretion), required hydrology during plan of construction a drainage conveyance study shall be prepared by a and drainage design preparation consistent with California State Registered Civil Engineer for the reports plans by City review and acceptance by the City Engineer. Hydraulic Public Works design shall conform to the current Hydraulic Design and /or Building Manual of the Ventura County. The study shall be Inspectors subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. (2) The City should be required to comply with all NPDES NPDES compliance One time activity Same as (1) above and stormwater conveyance facility conditions deemed during construction during construction necessary by the Public Works Director or City Engineer. phase consistent with Best Management Practices (BMP) X1. Noise (1) To minimize construction noise effects, all stationary Enclose noise sources Continuous activity Field verification construction noise sources shall be sheltered or enclosed (if feasible) and during construction by City Engineer to minimize adverse effects on adjacent neighborhoods. limit construction program and /or Public When feasible, generators and pneumatic compressors hours Works Inspectors shall be placed in a manner to minimize noise inconvenience on adjacent residences. Construction shall be prohibited between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays (including Saturday) and no construction shall occur on Sunday. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 3 February 17, 1999 Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 February 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance One time activity City Public Works (2) All contractors involved in the construction program shall provide a written noise construction effects Contractors to strategy to be submitted with building permit applications. The types prepare written noise prior to initiation or Building of suppression used will vary on a case by case basis. effects reduction plan of construction Inspectors to Dumpsters, pre - assembly construction tasks, and materials for City Public verify compliance storage shall be limited to defined, prescribed areas. Works Department Materials storage and work areas shall be situated to the degree feasible, on portions of parcels that will review minimize impacts on nearby commercial and residential areas. Adjacent commercial tenants shall be notified of the construction schedule for the project. (3) Once the final alignment of the roadway is determined, the City shall prepare an acoustical report to City to contract One time activity Plan check verification determine what types of noise barriers may be required for acoustical study and implement prior to implementation of the of acoustical for individual homes that may be impacted by the recommendations for project mitigations; field relocation of traffic closer to residential locations. interior and verification by Public Works Inspectors or exterior noise designee. reduction. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 February 17, 1999 Comments and Responses Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Improvement Program Comments on the Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Street Rehabilitation project were received from the following individuals, agencies, and associations: Eric Bergh, Manager of Resources Calleguas Mutual Water District Letter dated March 17th, 1999 R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 16th, 1999 Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 Keith Turner, County Planning Director Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated March 16th, 1999 In addition to these written comments, testimony related to the project was presented at a public hearing on the adequacy of the environmental document. Copies of these minutes are attached. None of the comments included in these minutes addressed the adequacy of the environmental document and therefore no responses are provided. In response to comments, minor modifications have been made in the Adopted MND these changes are identified in the Adopted MND version in italic print. Please refer to the revised Expanded Initial Study Analysis and Mitigation Measures in the Adopted MND for revisions. Comments and Responses i`tHli GG " �7 lb 17 rK �1 T Ur t'IUUKr HKt4 cSFJJ ?C7 be (u I u too'DI�k7ti PATRICK H. MILLER, PRESIDENT DIVISION l WILLIAM R. SEAVER. DIRECTOR DIV151QN S JEFFREY A. SORENSTEIN, TREASURER DIVISION 2 L100 L_4�� TED ORANDSEN, VICE - PRESIDENT DIVISION 1 DONALD G. HAUSER, SECRETARY DIVISION 3 DONALD R. KENDALL. Ph.D.. P.E, GENERAL MANAGER web site: http: / /www.calleguas.com 2100 OLSEN ROAD • THOUSAND OAKS, CAUFORNIA 91360-6800 805/525.9323 FAX: 805/5225730 • FAX: 805/526 -3675 March 17, 1999 RECEIVED Mr. Ken Gilbert Director of public Works MAR 2 2 1999 City. of Moorpark CITY OF N1t3R�'aRX 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMENT RE: Los Angeles Avenue /Bettramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement Dear Mr. Gilbert. On behalf of the Calleguas Municipal Water District (District), I offer the following comments with respect to the above referenced project proposed by the City of Moorpark. As you are aware, the District owns and maintains a 36- inch - diameter water transmission pipeline within a 20- foot -wide permanent, non - exclusive easement and right -of - -way immediately south and adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue in the proposed project area: The District is generally concerned with any alterations within its easements given that our pipelines require adequate cover and are sensitive to load. As the senior rights holder in this instance, we ask that all project plans be forwarded to the District for approval prior to any project - related activities within our easement. Calleguas intends to maintain its easement rights for maintenance and repair purposes and may exercise its right of access for future improvement projects. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of plan sheets for the reach of our pipeline that is located within the proposed project site. In the future, please coordinate this matter with Mr. George Mulligan, Calleguas Operations and Maintenance Manager. Mr. Mulligan can be reached at (805) 526 -9323. Sincerely, Eric Bergh Manager of Resources Enclosures cc, George Mulligan Post -it' Fax Note 7671 Daft TO Z'\ From LL CAo Phone # Fti OnOY II Fax # lDJ cJl,} Fax # ** TOTAL PAGE.01 ** Comment. Eric Bergh, Manager of Resources Calleguas Mutual Water District Letter dated March 17th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. The location of all utilities within and immediately adjacent to the right -of -way will be identified during the design process. The City will ensure that the proposed design of the rehabilitated and widened street will comply with standard engineering practice regarding buried water and sewer transmission pipelines. All effected utility providers will be notified and consulted prior to initiating construction activities. Plans will be forwarded for District review as requested. The proposed construction program will not modify any existing easement rights that may be exercised by the District. Comments and Responses <�OF�F PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 0? U. 5; y I.Wi county of ventura Representing Ex- officio: Ventura County Flood Control District Ventura County Waterworks Districts No. 1, 16, 17, and 19 take Sherwood Community Services District Fox Canyon Groundwater Manageanent Agency AB939 Local Task Force March $, 1999 Recycling Market Development Zone Ken Gilbert Director of Public Works City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement Director Arthur E. Goulet Deputy Directors of Public Works Wrn B. Britt John C. Crowley Water Resour.s Enqu•,t�_.:: Kay Martin Solid Waste %1.:nagemer,; Paul W. Ruffin Central Sery ce,. Alex Sheydayi Flood Control Dear Mr. Gilbert: Thank you for including the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (District) in the environmental review process for the City of Moorpark's Capital Improvement Project - Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement. Based on the information received, we have the following comments: Page 3 of the Project Synopsis identifies the various utility providers. Please be advised that the District is the water purveyor and not Calleguas Municipal Water District. Also, sewage is the District's responsibility and not the City of Moorpark. The District has a 10" water line on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue and an 8" water line running southerly on the east 'side of Beltramo Road. District facilities may be impacted, depending on how the rehabilitation project is implemented. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 584 -4830. Very truly yours, R. R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division Water Resources and Engineering Department RRP: ec word /dirt. l /la &bel tramorehab- improv ® 7150 Walnut Canyon Road • P.O. Box 250 Moorpark, CA 93020 • 805 ( ) 584-4829 Fax: (805) 529 -7542 �C� Comment. R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. Changes have been made as requested clarifying the utility providers for water and sewer service. Refer to the amended text of the Adopted MND for clarification. The location of all utilities within and immediately adjacent to the right -of -way will be identified during the design process. The City will ensure that the proposed design of the rehabilitated and widened street will comply with standard engineering practice regarding buried water and sewer transmission pipelines. All effected utility providers will be notified and consulted prior to initiating construction activities. Plans will be forwarded for Agency review prior to the initiation of construction. The proposed construction program will not modify any existing easement rights that may be exercised by the District. Comments and Responses Mar 1G 99 04:48p Nora Piring 213- 897 -8906 p.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA —BUSMS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAV18 ucrARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT', ADVANCE PLANNING OFFICE I -10C 120 SOUTH SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 TEL: (213) 897 -3747 FAX: (213) 897 -6317 E -mail: Chery' 1jpowell/D07 /CAGOV @SOT March 16,1999 IGR/CEQA/ #990253/CP Los Angeles Avenue/Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation & Improvemeni City of Moorpark VEN- 118- RO16.74 irffril� t Mr. John Whitman City of Moorpark Public Works Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93012 Dear Mr. Whitman: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for the project referenced above. The project includes a proposal to rehabilitate and alter the alignment/striping of Los Angeles Avenue between Beltramo Road and an area approximately 150 feet east of Maureen Lane in the City of Moorpark. The project will require additional right -of -way not presently in City ownership. As was noted in the document, a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be needed for the project. If you have any questions regarding this response please reference IGR/CEQA # 990253 and call me at (213) 897 -4429 or Cheryl Powell, the IGR/CEQA Coordinator for the project at (213) 897 -3747. Sincerely, STEPHEN J. BUS WELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager Transportation Planning Office Cc: A. Ahmadi Caltrans Office of Permits MAR 1F +qq 17111 217 997 8905 PPGF.02 Comment. Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 16th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. These remarks do not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The City is aware that an encroachment permit from Caltrans will be required to r implement the project. The design of the street will also comply with Caltrans design standards because Los Angeles Avenue is also a State Highway (Route 118). Comments and Responses MHK- 1b -1y�J 15 :2y KMH I'LH4NINU a PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Traffic and Planning & Administration MEMORANDUM February 24, 1999 UOD bD4 .30d.3 r. ue TO: Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Attention: Joseph Eisenhut 'Weer u' FROM: Robert B. Brownie, Principal gi SUBJECT: Review of Document 99-026 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study 1) Los Angeles Avenue/Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement 2)' Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement Lead Agency: The City of Moorpark, Department of Public Works The Transportation Department has reviewed the subject Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Expanded Initial Study for 1) Los Angeles AvenueBeltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement and 2) Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement as proposed by the City of Moorpark Department of Public Works. We do not concur with the subject Draft MNDs and Expanded Initial Studies for those area under our purview. The project description in the Los Angeles Avenue East document states that right-of- way will be required for the ultimate construction of a four -lane road for the Los Angeles Avenue East project. Increasing the capacity oLa road creates a potentially significant growth inducing impact. Increasing the capacity of a road can also create a potentially significant air quality impact. These issues have not been addressed in the subject Draft MNDs. These projects may have a significant adverse impact on the Counties Regional Road Network Therefore, we have no alternative but to find these projects inconsistent with the Ventura County General Plan transportation policies. Unless the City of Moorpark addresses these issues in the Final MNDs and mitigates any significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels, the County General Plan requires that the Transportation Department oppose these projects. Please call me at 6542080 with questions. c: Richard Herrera Duane Flaten Carole Trigg RBBaZ voar -."r F\mnvnonwwgxxAwpwi nloamam199 -o26.m m a0z Wd ss, 5-Z 833 TOTAL P.02 MAR 15 199 15:7)4 RGS ^ 3 s z PGr,G, tai Comment: Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 The comments provided in this set of remarks address two separate MNDs which were released simultaneously. Presumably the growth inducement comments in the second paragraph address both projects. Growth Inducement Issues The proposed improvements which are the subject of this document have been designed to increase capacity not to generate growth. The intensity of residential growth in a City is governed by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Making improvements which are consistent with the City's adopted Circulation Element are designed to ensure that planned growth and infrastructure are properly balanced. Roadway improvements proposed within the Beltramo /Maureen Lane vicinity have been programmed to improve traffic safety, roadway capacity, and pedestrian separation from existing travel lanes. By making such improvements which are consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, the City is merely implementing improvements which are required to provide adequate Levels of Service to accommodate General Plan buildout. While the City is aware of the need to consider the County's General Plan transportation policies, it is, rather, the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the long term infrastructure needs and policies envisioned in this document that govern circulation improvements within incorporated areas. Air Quality Impacts Regarding air quality concerns, primary air quality impacts within the City's boundary are attributable to poor levels of service at constrained intersections. The roadway segment proposed to be improved in this case does not involve any actions that will decrease intersection capacity. Since the affected roadway portion to be improved is not situated at or immediately adjacent to a signalized intersection, Caline modelling for carbon monoxide concentrations is not required under either State California Air Resources Board or local Air Quality Guidelines. Issues regarding air quality growth inducement related impacts have been previously addressed in the preceding comment. Comments and Responses 1'IHK- "lb -lyyy 15��d KMH HLHNN1Na ab5 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY county of ventura March 16, 1999 Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works Moorpark, CA FAX #: 529 -8270 Subject: Los Angeles Avenue /Beltrano Road Improvement b54 .doffs H.01 Planning Division Keith A. Turner Direaror Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Attached are the comments that we have received resulting from intra- county review of the subject document. Your proposed responses to these comments should be sent directly to the commentator, with a copy to Joseph Eisenhut, Ventura County Planning Division, L #1740, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009. If you have any questions regarding any of the comments, please contact the appropriate respondent. Overall questions may be directed to Joseph Eisenhut at (805) 654 -2464. Sincerely, meT m-rurner County Planning Director P,'WMAUWCWNW0RD%1cd1-d99.dot Attachment County RMA Reference Number 99 -026 f`rr-�ki _ I�uv CL _... - 3 800 South Victoria Avenue, L #1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654 -2481 FAX (805) 6542509 Printed an Recycled Peoer MAR 16 '99 15 :23 925 554 3683 pAGF.+� Comment. Keith Turner, County Planning Director Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated March 16th, 1999 Comment acknowledged. This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental document and therefore no response is necessary. Comments and Responses Appendix 1 Descriptive Exhibits (Schematic Improvement Plan and Project Area) ui 63'f i. Sq° 5 4, �7' f EXIT PAVEMENT SECTION 7�f Po L/ YYIC./%T$ r J1 ROUTE 118 ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS FuTu�� IMPROVEMENS---- SCALE: 1"=10, fib% u -i_5�( GiS MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 September 12, 1997 Chicago Title Company Att: Brooks Russell 5675 Ralston Street Ventura, CA 93003 re: Title Reports for Los Angeles Avenue @ Beltramo Widening Project Dear Mr. Russell, The City intends to proceed with the acquisition of additional street right -of -way on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue from Beltramo Road to a point just east of Maureen Lane. Please refer to the enclosed chart and map showing the location of the affected properties. This is to request your price per report to-provide the City with a Preliminary Title Report for each of these parcels. It is the intent of the City to upgrade these reports to Policies of Title Insurance upon acquisition of the needed street right -of- way. Should the need arise, we will ask that given reports be upgraded to a Litigation Guarantee. Due to the fact that the street widening project will be, in part, federally funded, all right -of -way acquisition efforts will comply with all federal requirements pertaining-to property acquisition. The City is in the process of retaining a Civil Engineer to prepare the Preliminary Design for the street widening project, which will identify the proposed improvements, including alternative concepts for relocating access to certain lots. We are also in the process of retaining the services of a Consultant to assist the City in right -of -way acquisition efforts. Once the preliminary design and the Title Reports are complete, the Legal Descriptions for the Right -of -Way and Temporary Construction Easements will be prepared. We intend to make initial contact with the affected property owners, as soon as we have the Title Reports. Please call if you should have any questions. I -can be reached at 529 -6864, G ext. 255. You s r , Kenneth C. Gilbert Director of Public Works cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager la_belltd PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHRISTOPHER EVANS DEBBIE RODGERS TEASLEY JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember L.A.Avenuv / Beltramo Right -of -Way Acquisition e u a LDC F. IC URT Y Ltd_ 4 C Lj- a Los Angeles Avenue / Beltramo Title Work Page 1 d t R -O -W Constr. Easemnt. Title Report Policy No. AP Number Width Width Owner / Address Order No. Issued Remarks 1 504 -0- 021 -195 29' * 50' ? Fidel, Joe �'l�lo' 0� , 3z I * Plus additional Width to BCR ? P. 0. Box 11 Tarzana, CA 91356 2 506 -0- 030 -035 29' * 10, ? International Church �3 U� 1� a� ? �S * Plus additional Width to BCR ? Foursquare Gospel ** Possible Conveyance of "panhandle" to 1100 Glendale Blvd. Parcel No. 3 if access rights can be Los Angeles CA 90026 obtained from Parcel No. 1. 3 506 -0- 030 -010 29' 10, ? International Church Same As No. 2 ** Possible relocation of access to a Foursquare Gospel driveway on to Parcel No. 1, with no 1100 Glendale Blvd. future access permited on to Los Los Angeles CA 90026 Angeles Avenue. 4 506 -0- 030 -020 29' 10, ? International Church Same As No. 2 ** Possible relocation of access to a Foursquare Gospel driveway on to Parcel No. 1, with no 1100 Glendale Blvd. future access permited on to Los Los Angeles CA 90026 Angeles Avenue. 5 506 -0- 042 -015 9' 10, ? Curts, Bert and Placide 0,0 13 Maureen Lane Moorpark, CA 93021 6 506 -0- 041 -015 9' 10, ? Vogle, Robert and Sharon W1%9 093 'So 5 Note: The north facade of an existing 4980 Maureen Lane structure is believed to be 13' from the Moorpark, CA 93021 existing R -O-W line. Ultimate R-O-W would only be 4' from structure. Roof overhang encroaches into this area. (See Exhibit 1) Bk. RANCHO SIMI Bk Tax Rote Area (BO 500 PORTION TRACT "L" 500 10005 '1 0014 67011 I 511 504 -02 _ 115,.a, ro 10007 10031 C O cnx,,ar m tors 99 a ,9J LOS A9BERT , (HWY.23) ,969.N ANGELES 10008 10067 ROAD I ; r -- ---------- - - - - -- (HWY.f18) -- — -- - e----- - - - - -- - - --- -- ,629 ea CO256C.$6.7t5 it _ AVENUE I I — — — - _ -- -- — — — — — -- ---- -- !!t f M��_�__ —_ - iJ7- 12CSi:: _ _ — - — - — — _ - SEa. UN. 19roW I - _ - - -- - - 1I I o rnACT II 1 TRACT 70.72 -4 I TRACT 19 1 I 1 C11� j 2817 -t i 3841 -t 2.59Ac. 1 I j r, 1 I �1 I - - - -- ` — — — I 1 i C.oc.111Y — - -, 11 f ► ' IXOA -c -"- I TRACT ,841_2 t3k. 1 �J� TRACT 7072 -3 i n• 1 TRACT 10 U I \ T-- ___1_ -- -so i :-25' 2817 -2 1tAR1 1ERw STREET n I I 18 I I 7cRS75 j s9r 4.44Ac.an.78• 01 5g,46gc. 139.20Ac. W 02 y i 16 6.80Ac. S 35-4 17 3.07Ac. aixeL°awaJ /� •• TRACT i 5.8.E 148 I 35-1 1.14Ac. 13 nA 5dd€ c6�{IN i 3032 -t �`J 3032 -2 cS U I I r I I P 4.22A �� � • 1� p 10.56Ac. m - -- . 20 _ _ -- J , COIlRS£ �i 1.99Ac. ' - - - - - -- -- -- -- COURSESCHEDUIE . .� �C�/ A N7J90n'7 1680.95' C N10'01D'E y'p - - -- - - -- �RAGT -- e Necsav6 MMO K Nszvut ,ose 1 I 1 9 N y1'0% `q0 D N49n0r 1ezI2' K NJ9fiE jM _ 2.83AcR3 �o�lss �l 10 C r x66•xv zza6• u x�5croE s 4W 3032 -t 10.66Ac. �P ��� y u xore AssESSan �uN ns sxoxx ox n+s PAIL ,� I ,yS�e1 �`��,• dlEacr WRY C05 tE LOTS. OR i4 1y� JGf %% ¢3 � - B�( PtNWNO IXNSgN 10 VERILY. - '-^ 51.18' -�� 97`Pi �" 505 F CITY OF MOORPARK & VICINIII' A - -a - -- = - =L_�_ 8��762f __ �% Ventura County Assessorps Map. 1_ - - - - -- ` &.18' - - - -- -- -- =sue = == -'� -- 6 Asssa6 t7bCh —� xa9as to 6 — - e Mm bens Sbosn 1n Ohjxss (139 -460) a - ,� „- -�� o-� 1.61Ac. -�- �-1 —°°- 7 - Record of Survey, R.S.Bk.31,P 100. A -mores Parcel. Mpt" &bM j, GMes• Bk. - titrrn 95- 956,16 _ g AmesWs IA e a Mvvb= Sham , Squares --- -,1,6. Moorpark Home Acres, M.R.Bk.20 P 3. 505 22 21 F Pon Tract 430 —! M.R.8k.116 P .9. MUM s -iz -toss + g REDRAWN LUTAYL04 CRE1TEp 1 -12 -1944 1.59Ac. ! � arty s _- Fremont Tract, M.R:Bk.3,Pgg.39. INKED Ptolrm 1}TECTNf 75-78 Rota 3.4fAc, � Rancho Simi, M.R.Bk.3,Pg.7. PreviausBkSO ,.P.OZPor8k505.P.12Por -76 .01 2.82Ac. Cam led Ventura Caun Assassor'a Of(res 'a i 1 .. N.W. cOR. LOT 38 3 RM39 POR. TRACT Lit RANCHO SIMI Bk.511 { LOS ANGELES AVENUE Q Tax Rate Area .506 -OJT 67014 DEC 31981 h 1164. 74 •. (HWY. 118) . vs, N. E.cor. Lo1.K - SLY -LOT 38 3 Rw39 Parcel Map P, M. k 17, Pg. 88 Por.Lct K �aindexler Sub.R.M.Bk.5,Pg "5 Free, ea Tract, R. M. Bk. 3, Pg. 39 • REDRAWN 10 -15.81 Assessors Map Bk.5CG -Pg.03 County of Ventura, Calif. NOTE- Ass<ssors Btcck n�rbe:s Showr in EII;pSoS 1954 � 1w.�e• /,row. re/ ��//.��%"...�-- .-- .- - -__ 306.62' 526.46' IrS.IS' .e' f / /O• N.W. Car ygZ i2 �♦ T1 Lot. K I h��� y 0 � ��.., / : %•= iv 714 �., I 07P.t189 VJ t2 Rb ^ _ Q J RS R -... ( / / -'.17 RS 70 I _ For nI $ �1-1� /_1 4\ ( ORD. 351 I O ( 12 -23 -80 1.45Ar- ` N I6 I6 10.74k. m QI g ¢ v. 3984 °K 9.47Ac. ALIa17$O5 I 1,92Ac. K p I F32Ac. ry 0 I I 38 39 f 40 I 41 42 I 43 a $ Po 5� 3 k. ( z W 's EAST 02Ac. �TOPMA88 Q o ! ° /d��1�r� c C 3.01 Ac. • : I 5 • Drainage Easement • i25 83 sw I . 125" �\ ` X. (/6�i S.W. CO . IZ a / �5 �� .�. \ C rty 0 0 ti•O .O M BROWN- LIV NGS TON SUB 22 RbI. EN 33• ti s I / / - \ 2 . < L 4NE !rW �I•lL F!'Y�4GW, n �. 1zr a Izs - o � 3B!'S5'w r ` N as, S.f E / 1a S vA• + - - - - -- ,9K zs N• °^ 3 •W 12 /.' / VENTURA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT " tih O �O 10 �D -E $O /� / /// i AZ 7643 ZONING MAP506 -03 Q o 0RD. 3512 / h /' 50M) 01 SU"IN150" COUNTY 01 VINIURA I ORDINANCE 2691 ADOPTED 5 -8 -73 N O 2 t. 1NGSo- o ti 29 / SL i9 5 1 I COUNTY CLERK P.obe(I L.Htnr.+ ` EAST 1 0l ��=Y 421 SLY -LOT 38 3 Rw39 Parcel Map P, M. k 17, Pg. 88 Por.Lct K �aindexler Sub.R.M.Bk.5,Pg "5 Free, ea Tract, R. M. Bk. 3, Pg. 39 • REDRAWN 10 -15.81 Assessors Map Bk.5CG -Pg.03 County of Ventura, Calif. NOTE- Ass<ssors Btcck n�rbe:s Showr in EII;pSoS 1954 r vr1. /TH 1. 1 L KA /V (,'l-lU S7Ml 'Tax Rate Area �)Ub -uq 670/4 DEC 3 1581 ' wI» 03 R —, -- - -- _ o12;8 59 ^ -:I - - • .. _1 -- - -- .:: . I� �Y -E I�O 2 ..a.93• y +u;, 3 6 _7 of E 9 U oRO. u27 !3 I f2 Iz • 11 -7-61 °o W nn 24A IRS 86 4 D7 I ja N h .: II .. 1514/165 R-0 R -E 2 R _'� ,.• , h' /3/4/E65 • ORO.2373 ORO.1127 - ORD.2373 0 2 ~ "t 9-1 -70 it -7 -61 9 -1- 70 S r I 2s 23 L - - 22 21 20 19 t0 17 16 IS z N 13 S �. . >. - - - -- -- - -- _ .i'.u.... u r..• ........ - - -- " 199Z 017.209/ AZ 7605...... _ zoNETUReox�w tTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ZONING MAP506 -04 EOAR0 O -M SORS COMTY QE VENWRA ! ORDINANCE 2373 ADOPTED 9- 1- 70 COUNTY CLERK Robert L.Nam BY�s j� -c� Depu1j Brow - i-ivingslon Sub, RM. Bk.22, Pg.87 Assessors leap 9k,50u' pg.0g N r OTE - Assessos 6!ock Numbers Shown. in Ellipses County of Ventura, Cclif._ I RT 2002 -36 02.0 COUNTY OF VENTURA — ASSESSOR'S OFFICE DATE: 11/16/95 22:20 NUMERIC INDEX PAGE NR: VC225c 10014 504 -0- 021 -075 VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL DIST 800 S VICTORIA AV 08/06/9= * ** ATTN R —W AGENT VENTURA CA 93009 9101138` 10014 504 -0- 021 -105 VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL DIST 800 S VICTORIA AV 10/07/6£ * ** ATTN R —W AGENT VENTURA CA 93009 3377 57( EDISON CO * ** 10007 504 -0- 021 -135 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON ROSEMEAD CA 11/30/6( 91770 1933 40£ 11/30/6( 10007 5:04 0 _021 145 .............. BOETHING FAMILY TRUST 2347y LCFNG GALLEY; RD WOODLAND :'HILLS CA 913 4 6 810:4759` 10007 504 -0- 021 -155 BOETHING FAMILY TRUST 23475 LONG VALLEY RD 08/11/8_ WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364 8100759` 10067 5;04 0 O21 165 . SOUT=HERN CALIF EDTSQN CO P :'O BOA: EOfl 11 s24 6` ** * RC3SEMEAIk.:A 9177{1 2677 15:c 1(3067 5:Q4 -0 =021 175 .50U.THERN_. CALIF EFTS .- GO ; . P:;:O. BDi ...8(10 ..: :.: 11/24/6? * ** ROSEMEAD CA 91770 2677 161- 10008 504 -0- 021 -185 MOORPARK CITY OF P 0 BOX 701 05/11/8, * ** MOORPARK CA 93021 8400520£ 10:00$ 504 Q 02. :.1 I >95 FEiELE _x70E :: 1? `.D BOA 1 ::.... 11f 08/71 :: .; . >: ...:.. .. TARZANA >CA:. :. 9135:6 653:4.: 37L 10007 504 -0- 021 -205 ... VENTURA COUNTY OF , 800 S VICTORIA AV 01/26/8: * ** ATTN R —W AGENT VENTURA CA 93009 8300080£ 10005 504 -0- 021 -215. BELTRAMO ALBERT TRUST P 0 BOX 20.7 12/24/71 B$L'1` -RAMO IRENE N ; GRENADA. CA >. 96Q38 5566 3I: 10005 .504 -O021 225 VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL` DIST 8(30 SIICT3RIA AV 051Qf 9£ ** ATTTN R W AGENT: �IENTUR? CA.:. 9305):9 950€}561: 10031 504 -0- 030 -015 SCHMIDT PETER G —DIANE M 10031 504 -0- 030 -045 CHRISTENSEN KEITH A— JANICE J 4443 CLEARCREEK CT 01/17/9: MOORPARK CA 93021 9200085, 10031 504 0 =030 Q55 #ELI�?.� o. TOOR 4 21 G ,EA£? REEit GT 04/2.4/9' ;::::',: ?'...: Iit](7RPIRC;;CA` 93QZ1 95304 ?3:' 10031 504 -0- 030 -065 PROVINSE CYNTHIA S 4413 CLEARCREEK CT 05/27/9 MOORPARK CA 93021 9300957 0 COUNTY OF VENTURA - ASSESSOR'S OFFICE NUMERIC INDEX NAME - x.0067 , X06 i3�020 405 �T�NTU�tA COUNTY �`L '.CTRL 10067 506 -0- 020 -475 MOORPARK CITY OF P O BOX 701 MOORPARK CA PAGE NR: 1 VC225 DATE 93021 9202344: 10067 506 -0- 020 -500 MOORPARK CITY OF --- y3uzl yb00277! * ** P O BOX 701 MOORPARK SCHIELE NIKOLAUS H CA 1(Ifl66 506 0 .020 510 BtNETE RQHERT PAULETTE 3021 9500277E TR :..:.:., 42 C ' ARILLO C A€ #� :VIC'. o DOROTI3Y fiR1iST 06/22/95 10067.506 -0- 020 -525 MOORPARK CITY OF 93010 95007427 >f 10067 506 0 020 565 VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL P 0 BOX 701'. CA 03/09/95 021 9 x ar t DIST ATN R W..:iGNT 800 S VICTORIA AV ENTURAA:: «:> .08/26/86 101366 506 0 E320 70 NICQLA HZTCHELL R7SALIE TR .. 05/1 009 8601.1528 upTC93 Ai 01}.:.: 10/(3 8/91 10066 506 -0- 020 -595 MOORPARK LE CLUB LTD , ..9.3021-91014904 11740 SAN VICENTE BL ANGELES CA STE 208 12/23/85 1DD57 506 0 E320 605 M ©ORARKR CLUB STD 90049 9 850146 9 -: 11740 SAN ViCENTE BL Lpv ANGELES CA STE 208 12%Z3f85 1x067 56 17 .:020 515 MQQRPA LE..LUS %TD :90049:::65 014639 140 SAN VICENTE.BL LOS ANGELES CA SZE 208 12/2:3 /$5 10067 506-0-020-620 GNACINSKI THOMAS S 90049 85014639 P O BOX 88 TAGS NM 08/10/92 1afl67 6-0 Q2t3 �CHMTDT OpMI�t2C F ERESA A 87571 92013940 9D FREMENT AV MORPARK: CA 04/fk4/94 10067 506 -0- 020 -640 A C CONSTRUCTION INC 93021: 940Q674 4875 SPRING RD 12/14/73 10066 506 -.0-020-650 TOPA MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP 93021 4200 634 1800P AVENUE .OF STARS LOS: ANGELES OF #1400 10/31/86 10457 506 0 Q313 D10 INTERNATIONAL>CHURCH 90067:86Q1558 F ©II;I�SQITAEE ;G(7SPEI, ; :.: 11013 GLEKi]ALIi BL LOS ANGET�ES CA 07/13/84 10067 506 -0 -030 -020 INTERNATIONAL CHURCH 90026 840077.58 FOURSQUARE GOSPEL 1100 NGELES C BL LOS ANGELES CA 07/13/84 506 0 Q30 90026 84007758 10067 506 -0- 020 -500 MOORPARK CITY OF 93 ATTN DR PEARL BUCKLAND TTEE WESTLAKE VILLAGE 11/0 10067 506-0-030-055 SCHIELE NIKOLAUS H CA 91361 8201 11944 BELTRAMO RD 12/2 1x057 506 0 030 06x: A€ #� :VIC'. o DOROTI3Y fiR1iST 021 9302 1 1 921 L�3RETTA �3R I OORPARK CA 10067 506 -0- 030 -070 HOPPE LARRY D- JUDITH L TR 93021 9401: 11935 LORETTA DR M(V1DnTnv .. 05/1 93 Appendix 2 Funding Applications MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Kueny, City Manager FROM: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: June 16, 1997 SUBJECT: STP [NEXTEA] Funded Projects OVERVIEW The following is a status report and suggested plan of action for the projects to be funded by the subject federal grant. FUNDING We have been advised no costs expected to be funded by grant proceeds should be incurred until after the Congress appropriates the NEXTEA funds. This is not expected to occur until next fall. PROJECT STATUS A. Route 118 Bypass Study Funding Summary: L A AOC Description STP Grant lS) Other Tot Pre- Engineering 120,000 30,000 150,000 Design Engineering 0 Construction 0 Construction Eng. 0 120,000 30,000 150,000 This project consists solely of the preparation of a Study to determine the feasibility of proceeding with the early implementation of the establishment of a new east -west .corridor; and, if feasible, development of an implementation plan (which could include some preliminary design work). In the upcoming weeks and months it is my intent to investigate the extent of "red - tape" required to use federal money to fund consultant services. As I have mentioned to your before, I fear that it may be burdensome -- possible to an extent requiring abandonment of this grant. • a STP Projects June 16, 1997 Page 2 B. Arroyo Simi Trail Study Funding Summary: Descry— •oon _ Pre- Engineering Design Engineering Construction Construct' L A AOC 120,000 30,000 Total 150,000 0 0 ion Eng. 120,000 30,000 150,000 This project consists solely of the preparation of a Study to determine the feasibility of establishing a Trail System along the Arroyo between Moorpark and include some preliminary design work). Simi Valley; and, if feasible, development of an implementation plan (which could In the upcoming weeks and months it is my intent to investigate the extent of "red- tape" required to use federal money to fund consultant services. As 1 have mentioned to your before, I fear that it may be burdensome -- possible to an extent requiring abandonment of this grant. C. L A Avenue Signal Interconnect Project Funding Summary: Description L.A AOC MM-M Total Pre- Engineering ? a Design Engineering ? ? . Construction ? . Construction Eng. ? ? 3201000 80,000 + 400,000 + As stated above, we cannot incur any grant funded expenses until ,funds are appropriated. by Congress and the project is authorized by Caltrans. However, I would Hike to proceed with some project related efforts costs this approval. Naturally, such costs would not be grant eligible reasons receivin this recommended course are as follows: 1 The cost estimate for this grant is very preliminary. I do not know for sur what the construction costs will be. e 2 It is recommended that a consultant be retained to prepare a conceptual desi and a cost estimate for the project. 9n STP Projects June 16, 1997 Page 3 3 Once this conceptual design and cost estimate is completed we will know if we will have any surplus grant monies available which possibly could:be used to fund consultant design engineering and /or consultant construction engineering costs. 4 Once the extent of grant funds possibly available for "soft" costs is known, we can decide whether or not we want to undertake the monumental task of coping with the Red -tape associated with federally funded consultant contracts. • D. L A Avenue Widening R Beltramo Funding Summary: L A AOC Description STP Grant 151 otbe Total Pre- Engineering ? ? 0 Design Engineering ? ? 0 Construction ? ? 0 Construction Eng. ? ? p 0,000 7 ,000 + ,•i,966,606 -t- 3ao,onu Is a�J 37S,a�, As stated above, we cannot incur any grant funded expenses until funds are appropriated by Congress and the project is authorized by Caltrans. However, I would like to proceed with some project related efforts (costs) prior to receiving this approval. Naturally, such costs would not be grant eligible. The reasons for this recommended course are as follows: 1 The cost estimate for this grant is very preliminary. I do not know for sure what the construction costs will be. 2 It is recommended that a consultant be retained to prepare a conceptual design and a cost estimate for the project. 3 Once this conceptual design and cost estimate is completed we will know if we will have any surplus grant monies available which possibly could be used to fund consultant design engineering and /or consultant construction engineering costs. 4 Once the extent of grant funds possibly available for "soft" costs is known, we can decide whether or not we want to undertake the monumental task of coping with the 'Red -tape associated with federally funded consultant contracts. 5 I have already received a proposal (copy attached) from a firm offering right -of- way acquisition efforts. I recommend that we hire them for the Phase One services [$2,500] outlined in their proposal. T STP Projects June 16, 1997 Page 4 6 It is also recommended that we proceed with preliminary design efforts for following reasons: the • We need to know what the options are and if it will be possible to build the project yet retain the house (one foot from the ultimate R -O -W line) at the southeast corner of Maureen and L A Ave. • We need to have a preliminary design for the Beltramo transition to determine the extent of Beltramo improvements and thus the extent of the temporary construction easement from Fidel. • We need to resolve access issues with the Church and other properties. 7 As stated in the attached proposal, we must acquire R -0 -W in accordance with Federal requirements -- even if we use no federal money on actual R -O -W acquisition. We should refrain from talking with them until we know how the project is going to impact all the affected properties. We can't know the answer to these questions without a Preliminary design. I recommend, therefore, that we proceed with the preliminary design as ineligible expenses. stp -gnt Appendix 3 Staff Reports, Agenda Reports and Prior Council Actions AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: April 13, 1999 (Council Meeting 4- 21 -99) SUBJECT: Consider Resolution No. 99 - Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for the Los Angeles Avenue / Beltramo Ranch Road Widening Project. OVERVIEW This presents for approval the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for a project to construct street widening and related improvements on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue between Beltramo Ranch Road and a point east of Maureen Lane. On March 17, 1999, the City Council opened a public hearing on the subject Negative Declaration. Subsequent to receipt of input at the public hearing, the City Council closed the public hearing and continued the subject matter to April 21, 1999, to discuss responses to comments received and to take action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. DISCUSSION A. City Budget / Federal Grant The FY 1998/99 Budget includes funding for the subject project in the amount of $400,000 [Project 80501. The City has received approval of a federal grant for this project. The funding source is the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program [CMAQ], one of the grant programs under the "Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA -21]." The amount of the federal grant is $300,000. The local share funding will come from the Los Angeles Avenue AOC Fund. Street Widening: L. A. Ave. @ Beltramo Road Negative Declaration April 13, 1999 Page 2 B. Scope of Project The location and limits of the project is shown on the map attached as Exhibit 1. The project is located on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue, and extends from Beltramo Road easterly to a point east of Maureen Lane. The scope of the project is to include right -of -way acquisition, utility relocation and construction of street widening. Upon completion of the construction of this project, this segment of Los .Angeles Avenue will be improved to its full ultimate design width (see cross sections attached as Exhibit 2). The proposed improvements include asphalt pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkway landscaping. C. Compatibility with the Circulation Element The subject segment is designated in the City's Circulation Element as a "Six -Lane Arterial" street. The proposed improvements are consistent with the description of a Six -Lane Arterial street set forth in the Circulation Element of the Moorpark General Plan. The proposed project is, therefore, compatible with the General Plan. D. Right -of -Way Acquisition It is the intent of staff to seek proposals from, and then recommend retaining the services of a right -of -way acquisition agent to assist the City in obtaining the additional street right -of -way required for this project. The diagram attached as Exhibit 3 shows the approximate location of the required right- of -way. E Project Design It is the intent of staff to distribute a Request for Proposals (RFP) to a select list of qualified civil engineering firms to solicit proposals for design engineering services for this project. F. Project Schedule The tentative schedule for this project is as follows: • retain design engineer by: June 1999 • complete preliminary Design by: October 1999 • retain R -O -W Agent by: July 1999 • complete design and R -O -W by: February 2000 • commence construction by: May 2000 Beltramo2 —neg Street Widening: L. A. Ave. @ Beltramo Road Negative Declaration April 13 1999 Page 3 G. Mitigated Negative Declaration /Environmental Assessment 1• Background: The City retained a consultant (The Planning Corporation) to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment on the subject project. This document was prepared and distributed in a manner consistent with the requirements of both the City, State CEQA Guidelines and NEPA regulations. The document was distributed to the public on February 17, 1999. Comments were solicited from the public, relevant local and regional agencies, and from other parties that may have an interest in this matter. 2. Project Summary: The City of Moorpark Public Works Department has initiated planning and design work to implement street improvements to a portion of Los Angeles Avenue from a point just east of Maureen Lane, westerly to Beltramo Road. These improvements include minor widening, street reconstruction and overlay, installation of curb and gutter and other improvements on the south side of the street as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment. Minor land acquisition is required to implement the project. 3• Copy of Document: A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment has been distributed to the City Council under separate cover. 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan: A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has also been prepared as required by CEQA and NEPA. A copy of that document is attached as Exhibit 4 5. Document Review: The proposed undertaking is not exempt from CEQA and is considered a project for the purposes of environmental review. Therefore, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment was prepared and circulated for a period of 30 days. 6. Comments Received: All of the written comments received on the subject document are attached as Exhibit 5. 7. Response to Comments: All proposed written responses to written comments are included in Exhibit 5. 8. Findings: Certain Findings are required to be made by the City Council prior to the adoption of the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. A draft list of those findings are attached as Exhibit 'A, to the approving Resolution. Beltra=2 neg Street Widening: L. A. Ave. @ Beltramo Road Negative Declaration April 13, 1999 Page 4 9. Resolution: The attached Resolution (Exhibit 6) approves the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment and adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Subsequent to a staff presentation on the project, the Negative Declaration, any written comments received and any written responses to those comments, it is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Review and consider the information in the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. 2. Review and approve the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit 4). 3. Approve the list of Findings attached as Exhibit 'A' to the Resolution (see Exhibit 6). 4. Approve the written responses to comments set forth in Exhibit 5. 5. Adopt Resolution No. 99- (Exhibit 6) approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment finding that the document is an accurate and complete representation of the environmental effects of the project. Beltra=2_neg Exhibit 1: Location Map t t t c c c A C c Ll z U a Beltramol w rt t=! M 0 r tr f.. rt SECTION CA rt 0 m ------ ---_.— 118' N• 59 30' —29' a C L - -- Existing R -O -W Proposed R -O -W 89' Acquisition and Street Widening 29' - — ` 8' r DETAIL R -O -W Acquisition and Widening i ,N , LOS ANGELESAVE Elm -- ._ 306.6 z T = T N- 00 LO Ci 0 0 J �� C` `�.. ,�:! lot. K ryas. .,� 'r 2217P..M88 0 co �a Cj)� 250" cY1 A ?C W m 4 4J N MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN: NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE /BELTRAMO WIDENING AND REHABILITATION Mitigation Measure onitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance I. Land Use and Planning (1) The City shall develop parcel specific mitigation plans for all properties within the right -of -way that may have o complete rand Continuous activity Completion of all access restrictions or have modifications to access as s' relocation cquisition until acquisition legally required a result of the proposed construction. Restoration of ng consistent has been completed acquisition access in a manner than does not interfere with the through traffic objectives of the improvement with state law and procedures program shall be prioritized. In cases where access cannot applicable resulting in City possession of be restored, proper compensation shall be provided redevelopment procedures needed right -of -way to the effected landowners through eminent domain (where relevant) proceedings. 11. Air Quality (1) All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent .excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily Field watering to occur Burin g Continuous during initial field verification with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is radin g 9 period grading period of compliance by City Public Works / completed for the day. Building Inspectors (2) All clearing, filling, grading, earth moving, or e excavation activities shall cease during period of Dust generating Continuous during Same as (1) above high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over hour) activity to cease during radin g period one to prevent excessive amounts of dust. periods of ( )until asphalt Construction grading shall be discontinued on days high winds completion) forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the County APCD air quality monitoring station closest to the City of (1 Moorpark. Grading and excavation operations shall not resume until the first stage smog alert expires. �J A> Mitigation Mc •ing Program - 1 Febr 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance (3) 1f any soil material is transported to or from the site, this material shall be either sufficiently Dust suppression to be verified for Continuous during Same as (1) above watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Fill materials, to the degree all transported or the grading period feasible, shall 6e obtained from a appropriate sources imported soils close to the site to minimize construction emissions. A haul plan (including routes and hours of delivery) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to commencement of any fill or disposal program. (4) Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated Sweeping of streets Continuous Same as (1) above from construction activities so as to prevent to occur on an as .necessary duri ng excessive amounts of dust.. needed basis during the grading grading. program (5) Construction vehicles entering and exiting unpaved roads onto paved roads during the grading period shall be washed off prior to leaving the Contractors to provide for vehicle Same as (4) above Same as (1) above site. clean -up during construction VI. Geophysical Impacts (1) A final geotechnical report shall be prepared by the City F�] prior to the initiation of construction. This report shall be prepared` by a registered One time activity if deemed necessary City Engineer to geotechnical engineer. The report shall address site preparation requirements by the City Engineer) review and a poils any required soils for the design of alt structures, including storm water soils during the planning or geotechnical conveyance facilities, retaining or sound attenuation walls, planning for settlement compensation, and all other aspects and geotechnical report phase prior to review of grading reports P of site specific engineering deemed necessary by the City and construction Engineer. The report shall be subject to the approval plans of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in Tt a manner consistent with the approved report. x r Mitigation Monitoring Program - 2 February 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure VIII. Water Resources /Hydrology Drainage and Water Quality (1) If determined necessary by the City Engineer (as determined by the City Engineer in his sole discretion), a drainage conveyance study shall be prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer for the review and acceptance by the City Engineer. Hydraulic design shall conform to the current Hydraulic Design Manual of the Ventura County. The study shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. (2) The City should be required to comply with all NPDES and stormwater conveyance facility conditions deemed necessary by the Public Works Director or City Engineer. XI. Noise (1) To minimize construction noise effects, all stationary construction noise sources shall be sheltered or enclosed to minimize adverse effects on adjacent neighborhoods. When feasible, generators and pneumatic compressors shall be placed in a manner to minimize noise inconvenience on adjacent residences. Construction shall be prohibited between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays (including Saturday) and no construction shall occur on Sunday. Monitoring Actions City to prepare required hydrology and drainage design reports NPDES compliance during construction Phase consistent with Best Management Practices (BMP) Verification of Frequency Compliance One time activity during plan preparation Onetime activity during construction Enclose noise sources Continuous activity (if feasible) and during construction limit construction program hours Field verification of construction consistent with plans by City Public Works and /or Building Inspectors Sime as (I ) a5ovs. Field verification by City Engineer and /or Public Works Inspectors rp Mitigation Mr ring Program - 3 Febr 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions (2) All contractors involved in the construction program shall provide a written noise construction effects strategy to Contractors to be submitted with building permit applications. The types prepare written of suppression used will vary on a case by case basis. noise effects Dumpsters, pre - assembly construction tasks, and materials storage shall be limited to defined, reduction plan for City Public prescribed areas. Materials storage and work areas shall be situated to Works Department the degree feasible, on portions of parcels that will review minimize impacts on nearby commercial and residential areas. Adjacent commercial tenants shall be notified of the construction schedule for the project. (3) Once the final alignment of the roadway is determined, the City shall prepare an acoustical report to City to contract . determine what types of noise barriers may be required for acoustical for individual homes that may be impacted by the study and implement relocation of traffic closer to residential locations. recommendations for interior and exterior noise reduction. Frequency One time activity prior to initiation of construction Verification of Compliance City Public Works or Building Inspectors to verify compliance One time activity Plan check verification prior to implementation of acoustical of the project mitigations; field verification by Public Works Inspectors or designee. tsl x r-1 u Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 February 17, 1999 Exhibit 5 Responses to Comments L.A. Ave & Beltramo Road Form A. Notice of Completion Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, 9°169`1 0 9 8 CA 95814 9161445 -0613 SCH # Project True: Q� Lead Agency: Street Address: r, Contact Prison Phone: City: _MOA Cc Q ^r:,CA Zi P : CL�n �of — ----------------------------------------- County: _�t•LS t4"V1Ap1Q.S S Project Location County: !>1QA City/Nearest Community:iMC(`k Cross Streets: 1SA I tyn vet - - ". 4 t Cu, , f V% Qvu 1 � --7 � 1 � �' Code: s P - Total Acres: Assessor's Parcel No. Section: Twp. Rargc: Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy S: Waterways: Airports: ----------------------------------------- Railways: Schools: Document Type CEGA: Q NOP ❑ Early Cons ❑ Supplement/Subsequent ❑ EM (Prior SCH NoJ NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joint Document eg Dec .0-Draft [I Other ❑ EA Q Draft EIS C] Final Document C] Other EIR -------_----'--------------- ❑ FONSI i Local Action Type — — — — — — -- - — — — — — ❑ General Plan Update ❑ General Plan Amendment Q Specific Plan ❑ Master Plan ❑ Rezone. I ❑ Annexatio n ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Community Plan ❑ Planned Unit Development El Piezone Q Use Permit ❑ Redevelopment C3 Coastal Permit Q Site Plan Q Land Division (Subdivision, Q Other -----------------------.------- Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Development Type Q Residential: Units ❑ Office: Sq.Jt Acres Acres Employees ❑ Water Facilities: Type ❑ Transportation: Type MGD ❑ Commercial: Sq fr. C1 Industrial: Sq,JI Acres Employees Acres [3 Mining: Mines[ [I Educational Employees ❑ Power: Type Waur ❑ Recreational Q Waste Treatment: Tyne Q Hazardous Waste: Type ----------------------------------------- ❑ Other. Project Issues Discussed in Document El AestheticMisual ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Flood Plairunoodin g ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑ Schools/Universides ❑ Water Quality ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geologic/Seismic Septic Systems Q w y [J Sewer Capacity ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Archeological/Historical ❑ Coastal Zone Q Minerals ❑ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑ Wetland/Riparian diRiparian ❑ Wildlife Drainage/Absorption Q Noise 0 Population/Housing Balance ❑ Solid Waste Q Toxic/Hazardous ❑Growth Inducing ❑ Landuse Q Economic/fobs ❑ Fiscal ❑ Public Services/Facilities ❑ Traf6c(Circulation Q Cumulative Effects ❑ Recmation/Parks Q Vegetation Q Other Present Land Use/Zoning/Gsneral Plan Use 1�er Project Description h(%"-6t4tbn6t eCCld',iV'b'Mk "(5Vor �- U-Y am �y' %M'Jt' b O ) j OAAA, AUL -� t�yw ,'A0n 4 roadway c>r.P(otlLw�enig lAwAxft LMA- t -altUR /4iuHu -�-to tom+ v�4 drocr%ay. -�'ac.(Yt W ul`X'A' 0- L%kp0.wd.d, inaWt roadwoY{� {�tir�pe State Clearinghouse Contact: DeLicia Wynn (916) 445 -0613 State Review Began: Dept. Review to Agency Agency Rev to SCH SCH COMPLIANCE 3 � h Please note State Clearinghouse Number (SCH#) on all Comments SCH #: 99021098 Please forward late comments directly to the Lead Agency AQMD /APCD,13_ (Resources: -12_I a I J Project Sent to the following State Agencies X Resources _ Boating _ Coastal Comm _ Coastal Consv _ Colorado Rvr Bd _ Conservation X Fish & Game 06- _ Delta Protection _ Forestry Historic Preservation X Parks & Rec _ Reclamation _ Bay Cons & Dev Comm _ DWR _ OES Bus Tramp Hous _ Aeronautics CHP --tt X Caltrans # -� _X Trans Planning Housing & Dever Food & Agriculture _ Health & Welfare State/Consumer Svcs General Services Cal EPA ARB CA Waste Mgmt Bd _ SWRCB: Clean Wtr Prog _ SWRCB: Delta Unit _ SW.RCB: Wtr Quality SWRCB: Wtr Rights X Reg. WQC11 # Toxic Sub Ctrl -CT Yth/Adlt Corrections Corrections Independent Comm Energy Commission X NAHC Public Utilities Comm _Santa Monica Mtns X State Lands Comm _ Tahoe Rgl Plan _ Other. Other. 5*.1 03/30/1999 17:59 818 - 597 -7352 1 Y ur HkaLJLJMH n."-Z Comments and Responses Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Improvement Program C � Comments on the Los Angeles Avenue/Beltramo Street Rehabilitation project were received from the following individuals, agencies, and associations: Eric Bergh, Manager of Resoumos Calleguas Mutual Water District Letter dated March 17th, 1999 R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 1Gth, 1999 Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 Keith Tumor, County Planning Director Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated March 18th, 1999 In addition to these written comments, testimony related to the project was presented at a public hearing on the adequacy of the environmental document. Copies of these minutes are attached. None of the comments included In these minutes addressed the adequacy of the environmental document and therefore no responses are provided. In response to comments, minor modifications have been made in the Adopted MND; these changes are identified in the Adopted MND version in italic print. Please refer to the revised Expanded Initial Study Analysis and Mitigation Measures in the Adopted MND for revisions. Comments and Ralponssa MAR 30 '99 18:21 819 59? ?352 PAGE.02 nt�-�o -.�77 1J•GO M'In rL- MiiiV•wu 00J oJ4 .SbC.S r'.b1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Planning Division cwnt Keith A. it Turner ventura Director y March 16, 1999 Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works Moorpark, CA FAX #: 529 -8270 s. Z Subject: Los Angeles Avenue /Beltrano Road Improvement Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Attached are the comments that we have received resulting from intra - county review of the subject document. Your proposed responses to these comments should be sent directly to the commentator, with a copy to Joseph Eisenhut, Ventura County Planning Division, L #1740, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009. If you have any questions regarding any of the comments, please contact the appropriate respondent. Overall questions may be directed to Joseph Eisenhut at (805) 654 -2464. Sincerely, . A 11 17 r F'3 r-,f�i f:y i 6irner County Planning Director F'1 RM4�WPC'llMNWC�RD11 cNJ99.dx Attachment County RMA Reference Number 99 -026 800 South Victoria Avenue, L #1740, Ventura. GA 93009 Prinrad on Recyelad Panar MAR 16 '99 15:23 (805) 654-2481 FAX (805) 654 -2509 805 654 3693 PAGE.01 ►TAI 03/30/1999 17:59 818- 597 -7352 CITY OF AGOURA MILLS Comment Keith Tumer, County Planning Director Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated March 18th, 1999 Comment acknowledged, This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental document and therefore no response Is necessary. Comments OW Responses MAR 30 199 18 :25 818 597 7352 PAGE.13 MHK—lb-1 Jyy 15 �y KMH t'LHNN i NIa CFTJ bD4 JbC 3 t'. Oe i PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 5,3 o TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ` Trafric and Planning & Administration r s MEMORANDUM February 24, 1999 TO: Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Attention: Joseph Eisenhut7 FROM: Robert B. Browni e, P Engine ne Principal En ier SUBJECT: Review of Document 99-026 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study 1) Los Angeles AvenueBeltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and. Improvement 2)' Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement Lead Agency: The City of Moorpark, Department of Public Works The Transportation Department has reviewed the subject Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Expanded Initial Study for 1) Los Angeles AvenueBeltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement and 2) Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement as proposed by the City of Moorpark Department of Public Works. We do not concur with the subject Draft NiNDs and Expanded Initial Studies for those areas under our purview. The project description in the Los Angeles Avenue East document states that right -of- way will be required for the ultimate construction of a four -lane road for the Los Angeles Avenue East project. Increasing the capacity oLa road creates a potentially significant growth inducing impact. Increasing the capacity of a road can also create a potentially significant air quality impact. These issues have not been addressed in the subject Draft MNDs. These projects may have a significant adverse impact on the Counties Regional Road Network Therefore, we have no alternative but to find these projects inconsistent with the Ventura County General Plan transportation policies. Unless the City of Moorpark addresses these issues in the Final MNDs and mitigates any significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels, the County General Plan requires that the Transportation Department oppose these projects. Please call me at 654 -2080 with questions. c: Richard Herrera Duane Flaten Carole Trigg RBa WDRRA" F'-amm*mapmlwawia,4nem zM-026.mem z ,Bz 9ds6,5a83.4 MAR 16 '99 15:24 905 654 3683 TOTAL P.02 PAGE.02 F Comment. Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 The comments provided in this set of remarks address two separate MNDs which were released simultaneously. Presumably the growth inducement comments in the second paragraph address both projects. Growth Inducement Issues The proposed improvements which are the subject of this document have been designed to increase capacity not to generate growth. The intensity of residential growth in a City is governed by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Making improvements which are consistent with the City's adopted Circulation Element are designed to ensure that planned growth and infrastructure are properly balanced. Roadway improvements proposed within the Beltramo /Maureen Lane vicinity have been programmed to improve traffic safety, roadway capacity, and pedestrian separation from existing travel lanes. By making such improvements which are consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, the City is merely implementing improvements which are required to provide adequate Levels of Service to accommodate General Plan buildout. While the City is aware of the need to consider the County's General Plan transportation policies, it is, rather, the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the long term infrastructure needs and policies envisioned in this document that govern circulation improvements within incorporated areas. Air Quality Imoacts Regarding air quality concerns, primary air quality impacts within the City's boundary are attributable to poor levels of service at constrained intersections. The roadway segment proposed to be improved in this case does not involve any actions that will decrease intersection capacity. Since the affected roadway portion to be improved is not situated at or immediately adjacent to a signalized intersection, Caline modelling for carbon monoxide concentrations is not required under either State California Air Resources Board or local Air Quality Guidelines. Issues regarding air quality growth inducement related impacts have been previously addressed in the preceding comment. Comments and Responses Mar 16 99 04:48p Nora Piring 213- 897 -E906 p.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA —BUSMS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY —�j GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTWcNT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, t.DVANCE PLANNING OFFICE 1 -10C 120 SOUTH SPRING STREET LOS ANGELEG, CA 90012 TEL: (213) 89713747 FAX: (213) 897 -6317 E -mail: Cheryl*weUM07 /CAGOV @SOT March 16, 1999 ' f' r Mr. Jolty Whitman City of Moorpark Public Works Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93012 IGR/CEQA/ #990253/CP Los Angeles Avenue/Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation & Improvement City of Moorpark VEN- 118- RO16.74 Dear Mr. Whitman: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for the project referenced above. The project includes a proposal to rehabilitate and alter the alignment/striping of Los Angeles Avenue between Beltramo Road and an area approximately 150 feet east of Maureen Lane in the City of Moorpark. The project will require additional right -of -way not presently in City ownership. As was noted in the document, a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be needed for the project. If you have any questions regarding this response please reference IGR/CEQA # 990253 and call me at (213) 897 -4429 or Cheryl Powell, the IGR/CEQA Coordinator for the project at (213) 897 -3747. Sincerely, STEPHEN J. BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager Transportation Planning Office Cc: A. Ahmadi Caltrans Office of Permits MAR 16 '99 17 :11 213 897 8906 PAGE.02 E Comment Stephen Buswell, CEQA program Manager Cf,0itrans District T Lotter dated March 113th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. These remarks do not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The Ci!y is aware that an encroachment permit from Caltrans will be required to implement the project. The design of the street will also comply with Caltrans design standards because Los Angeles Avenue Is also a State Highway (Route 118). CommMf$ aW Responses MAR 30 '99 18:23 818 597 7352 PAGE. 08 03/30/1999 17:59 r _ 818- 597 -7352 CITY Or A6CJuRA r,1L�3 w .v�nv rn�r� OV.d .JC7 OC rtl I u 70�I1JV0 PATRICK H. MILLRR. PRESIDENT DIVISION a W1LUA1M R. SEAVER. OIRCCTOR 01VIS10N } JEFFREY A. >I04EN5TE1N, TRIASNRER DfvIvON t 5, TED GRANOSEN. VICR,pRE310tNY DIVISION t OONALO O. P+AL1sER. sECRETARti 0/VIS10N 3 OONALO R. KlNOA�I„ Tl.,p„ I.E. GENERAL MANAGER web late: hnp: / /www.eo8*"0s.edM 2100 OISEN ROAD • THOUSAND OAKS CALIFORNIA 01360.6800 80S/S26-9323 • FAX: d05/522,5730 • FAx: 806/S26.3675 March 17, 1999 RECEIVED Mr, Ken Gilbert Director of Public Works MAR P. 2 1999 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue CIrl OF MOORPARK Moorpark, CA 93021 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMENT RE: Los Angeles Avenue/Seltramo Road Street Rehabigt>ation and Improvement Dear Mr. Gilbert. On behalf of the Caileguas Municipal Water District (District). I offer the following comments With respect to the above referenced proj@t proposed by the City of Moorpark. As you are aware, the District owns and maintains a 3&inc1.dlameter water ct transmission pipeline within a 20- foot -wide permanent, non - exclusive easement and right-ofway immediately south and adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue in the proposed proje area: The District is generally concealed with any alterations within its easements given that our pipelines require adequate cover and are sensitive to load. As the senior rights holder in this Instance, we ask that all District for approval prior to an l�leGt plans be forwarded to the intends to maintain its easemon frights for ti maintenance within repair easement. d may ex its right of access for future Improvement projects, Pia txlrP and may exercise For your reference, 1 have enclosed copies of plan sheets for the reach of our pipeline that Is located within the proposed project site. In the future, please coordinate this matter with Mr. George Mulligan, Calleguas Operations and Maintenance Manager. Mr. Mulligan can be reached at (803) 328 -9323. Sincerely, w Eric Bergh Manager of Resources Enclosures cc: George Mulligan MAR 30 199 18:21 P004t• Fax Note 7671 Dew 3 _ fts 'a Co. /D�pt. v Ce. i PtW ! A f - Frc1 Q�_1.� ICt�OI Fi• ** TOTRL PAGE, 01 M* 818'597 7352 PAGE.03 03/30/1999 17: 59 818 - 597 - 7352 CITY OF k6bUt -A MILL5 5 �$.. Comment Eric Bergh, Manager of Resources Calleguas Mutual Water District Letter dated March 17th, 19£? Comments acknowledged. The location of all utilities within and immediately adjacent to the right -of -way will be identified during the design process. The City will ensure that the proposed design of the rehabilitated and widened street will comply with standard engineering practice regarding buried water and sewer transmission pipelines. All effected utility providers will be notified and consulted prior to Initiating construction activities. Plans will be forwarded for District review as requested. The proposed construction program will not modify any existing easement rights that may be exercised by the District. Cawnnrents and Reopmme MAR 30 '99 12 :22 919 59? 7352 PAGE.04 oFy� PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY ti ventura Director -- - -- Arthur E. Gouiet Representing Ex- officio: a Cc.;ai.- �,00d _�niroi Dlstrict Deputy Directors of Public Works .. .ra _ou ^'v 4Vaterwcrks i�utncts Wm B. Britt -anyon r`mt,ndhwater Man,gement Agency John C. Crowley Local T.,sk Force 1, pp 8 Water Resour,e> S u1,,r =- ;cling Market Development Zone March , 1999 Kay Martin Solid Waste Mar,agerrent Ken Gilbert Paul W. Ruffin Director of Public Works Central serV CeS City of Moorpark Alex Rood Control Flood Contrpl 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement Dear Mr. Gilbert: Thank you for including the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (District) in the environmental review process for the City of Moorpark's Capital Improvement Project Los Angeles Avenue /Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement. Based on the information received, we have the following comments: Page 3 of the Project Synopsis identifies the various utility providers. Please be advised the District is the water purveyor and not Calleguas Municipal Water District. Also, sewage is the District's responsibility and not the City of Moorpark. The District has a 10" water line on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue and an 8" water lin running southerly on the east side of Beltramo Road: District facilities may be impacted, depending on how the rehabilitation project is implemented. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 584 -4830. Very truly yours, R. R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division Water Resources and Engineering Department RRP: ec word /dist.l /la&beltramorehab- improv ® 7150 Walnut Canyon Road P.O. • Box 250 Moorpark, CA 93020 • (805) 584 -4829 • fax: (805) 529 -7542 �j� 03/30/1999 17:59 818- 597 -7352 CITY OF A60URA MILLS rHUG Go Comment: R. Pakele, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. Changes have been made as requested clarifying the utility providers for water and sewer service. Refer to the amended tent of the Adopted MND for clarification. The location of all utllitles within and immediately adjacent to the right -of -way will be identified during the design process. The City will ensure that the proposed design of the rehabilitated and widened street will comply with standard engineering practice regarding buried water and sewer transmission pipelines. Ali effected utility providers will be notified and consulted prior to initiating construction activities. Plans will be forwarded for Agency review prior to the initiation of construction. The proposed construction' program will not modify any existing easement rights that may be exercised by the District. MAR 30 199 19:22 Canmenh and Reipms" 818 597 7352 PAGE.06 MOORPARK iuu Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 June 4, 1998 TO: Distribution INTRODUCTION: This is to request that you provide the City of Moorpark with a Proposal for Civil Engineering Design Services for the subject project. PROJECT: Los Angeles Avenue Widening @ Beltramo. SCOPE OF DESIGN WORK: See attached. FEE: The Proposal shall include 1) a list of tasks and costs for each task; 2) a list of items and rates for reimbursable Expenses along with a Not to Exceed amount for same; and 3 ) a list Rates for Additional Services. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS: The Proposal shall include a list of qualifications, including Resumes of individuals assigned to the Project [Not required from firms who have previously provided design services to the City]. PROPOSAL DUE DATE: Sealed Proposals (one copy only) due to City of Moorpark Public Works Department no later than 5:00 p the July 15, 1998. Those included in the list of firms being p m. final consideration, may be asked to provide ten (10) additional copies of the Proposal. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF DESIGN SERVICES: The proposal shall include a schedule or bar chart showing the tasks or elements of the work with the maximum time allotted for each task and a maximum time required to complete the requested design services. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Yours truly, Kenneth C. Gilbert , Director of Public Works cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager rATRIU -ri6Fd`t'ER DEBBIE RODGERS TEASLEY CHRISTOPHER EVANS Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Pro Tem Councifinember Councilmember Councilmember Request for Civil Engineering Design Services Los Angeles Avenue @'Beltramc Page 1 PRWRrOP DESC TPTIOP PROJECT: Los Angeles Avenue Widening @ Beltramo. PROJECT LOCATION: The location of the project is a segment of Los Angeles Avenue, as shown on the maps attached as Exhibit 1. PROJECT LIMITS: The limits of project extend from Beltramo Road to a point approximately three hundred feet (3001) east of Maureen Lane [800' ±]. [see Exhibit l] SCOPE OF DESIGN WORK: A. General Description: The preparation of plans and specifications for the construction of the subject project. B. General Requirements: I. The plan(s) shall be drawn at the scale required by Caltrans (possibly 1" =501). -If required by Caltrans, dimensions shall be shown in metric measurements. 2. Plan sheet size shall be as required by Caltrans. Reduced copies of the plan sheets, on 11° x 1711 pages, shall also be provided as required by.the City. 3. The Specifications shall consist of Special or Technical provisions only. Except for the information identified in Item B -5 & B -6 below, all General Provisions, bidding documents and contract documents shall be provided by the City. Each Section of the Special Provisions shall include a sub - section describing the method of Measurement and Payment (if any) for the work required by that Section. 4. If required by Caltrans, the Standard Specifications shall be the Caltrans State Standard Specifications, otherwise, the Standard Specifications shall be the Standard Specifications for Public Works construction (Green Book). 5. A bid sheet (using the sample provided id d s Exhibit shall be prepared by the Consultant. S herein heet wll be incorporated into the final Contract Documents by the City. Said bid sheet(s) shall include all bid items and quantities required to construct the project. The bid sheet shall also state the Payment references. la_bel.dsn Request for Civil Engineering Design Services Los Angeles Avenue @ Beltramo Page 2 6. The final design shall be accompanied by an estimate of probable construction cost, to be set forth on a copy of the bid sheet. 7. The format of the specifications shall be compatible with the format used by the City for public works construction projects (sample excerpt enclosed as Exhibit 3). 8. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by Standard Drawing (APWA, County of Ventura, etc.) as required. Said Standard Drawings shall be included as an Appendix to the Specifications. 9. All specifications shall be prepared in Word Perfect 6.1 [Windows]. Both a paper copy and an electronic copy (on a 3k" disc) shall be provided to the City. 10. The final approved plans shall be stamped and signed by the Consultant as City Engineer for the project. 11. The final plans shall also be accompanied by an estimate of the construction time (calendar days or working days) required to construct the project. C. Special Instructions: The Consultant is directed to provide the most cost effective design possible which adequately addresses the requirements set forth herein, including the following: 1. General Description of the Project: The purpose of this project is to construct additional pavement width, curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue, between Beltramo Road and a point east of Maureen Lane, as well as certain other related work as described below. The street west of the project is already improved. The street east of the project is to be widened in the near future by a land developer. Refer to Exhibit 1 for a map showing the location of the project. 2 Existing Street Cross section: • Right -of -Way Width: 89, to 109' • Pavement Width: Approximately 70' , 3. Proposed Street Cross Section: • Right -of -Way Width: 118, • Curb -to -Curb Width: 102' 4. Interim Striping Design A: With south side street widening improvement immediately east of the subject street segment already completed by developer: la bel.dsn Request for Civil Engineering?Iiesign Services Los Angeles Avenue @ Beltramo Page 3 • Median:. 14' wide • Travel Lanes: four 12' wide lanes • Bike Lanes: two 8' wide Bike Lanes • Sidewalks: 8' wide 5. Interim Striping Design B: With no street widening improvement to the south side of the street immediately east of the subject street segment: • Median: 14' wide • Travel Lanes: four 12' wide lanes • Bike Lanes: two 8' wide Bike Lanes • Sidewalks: 8' wide 6. Ultimate Striping Design: • Median: 14' wide • Travel Lanes: six 12' wide lanes • Bike Lanes: two 8' wide Bike Lanes • Sidewalks: 8' wide 7. Beltramo Road Improvements: Beltramo: The initial design shall include the construction of a commercial driveway [approximately thirty feet (301) wide] and transition [approximately twenty feet (201) long] for Beltramo Road. Note: Beltramo Road is a "private road." 8. Design Options: a. Access to Church Property: options for providing a num] provide access to the church corner of Beltramo Road and options shall include : a) driveway(s) on Los Angeles b) no access on Los Angeles provided from Beltramo property(ies). The design shall include )er of different means to property at the southeast Los Angeles Avenue. The Avenue; and Avenue -- access to be Road across __adjacent b. Structure @ SE Corner of L. A. Ave. & Maureen Lane: The design shall include options for dealing with the existing structure on the property at the southeast corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane. The options shall include: r a) full improvements with removal and /or relocation of the structure; b) full improvements constructed to accommodate the existing structure; and, c) different options providing less than full -width improvements to better accommodate the existing structure (see Options described in Exhibit 4). la_beLdsn Request for Civil Engineering Design Services Los Angeles Avenue @ Beltramo Page 4 D. Design Phases: The design services are to be provided in phases described as follows: a. Conceptual: Provide several rough conceptual design plans illustrating a number of proposed design options. b. Preliminary: Based on the input received from the City regarding the conceptual designs, prepare preliminary project plans. Provide an ADD ALTERNATE Price for including in the Preliminary Design, design options for the SE corner of Maureen Lane and access to the church property. C. Final Draft Document: Based on the input received from the City regarding the Preliminary Plans, prepare the final plans and specifications. E. Caltrans: City review may also include review and comment by Caltrans. All Caltrans permits and approvals will be-obtained by the City. F. Referenced Documents: The following reference materials are attached hereto: Exhibit Description I Location Map 2 Sample Bid Sheet 3 Sample Excerpt from Specifications 4 Maureen Options 5 Sample Professional Services Agreement r la_bel.dsn law eftltts!!lt;t-11 /�l o®tttt■ tttty S;'e!tI�lj,'1_ — ml t� ttt� r �I c� J I r r� G 0 HAST 7mim-- m cn D rn R D. �r r (�C �r I � • PROPOSAL TIERRA REJADA ROAD SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM ITEM APPROX. ITEM NO. UANTITY PAYMENT UNIT Q — DESCRIPTION ice_ REF. TOTAL ($) PRICUL in fi es I LS Traffic Control - 602 -9 2 15,200 LF Subdrain per 606 -9 Detail 'B' 3 11 EA Join Existing 608 -2 Catch Basin 4 � -- 20 EA Utility Clearnace 607 -2 per Detail 'A' 5 250 TONS A/C Pavement 605 -6.1 LS A/C Testing 605 -6.2 20 EA Replace Traffic Loops 609 -5 8 ---- LS Release on Contract 9.4 Total Alount of Bid: Deduct 15 EA Delete requirement for Alt. 1 Circular Loops 609 -6 Total Bid Amount Including Deduct Alternate No. 1: Bidder Must fill in the number and date of Number Date each Addenda or may enter the word "None'f C -3 . SECTION 703 PROTECTIVE CROSS BARS 703 -1 SCOPE Protective cross bars shall consist of the installation of vertical supports if needed, and horizontal support, including 3/4" protection bars, adjustable and fixed stirrups, threaded couplings and end anchors as necessary to retrofit the catch basins identified in Appendix "C" herein. 703 -2 MATERIALS All hardware materials used for work in this section shall conform with APWA Standard Plan 310-0, appended (Appendix -D-) herein. Mortar cement fill of vertical support countersink areas (if necessary) shall conform to SSPWC Section 201 -5. 703 -3 INSTALLATION Protection bar installation shall conform to APWA Standard Plan 310-0 (Appendix "D" Types "A" and "B ". _ ) 703 -3.1 Type "A" Installation. Type "A" installation shall apply to the basins _having existing vertical supports not located within 6" of the basin ends. The end anchors shall be installed by embedding 5" into the walls as shown on the end anchor detail on Sheet 4 of Standard Plan 310-0, modified as follows: Embedment hole shall be drilled for tight clearance with the anchor pipe (1/8" tolerance). - Flattening the ends of the 3/4" pipes is not required. Pipe connections shall be injected with an epoxy conforming to moisture resistant Simpson Epoxy -Tie, ICBO Code No. 4945, (Appendix "D") or equal. The pipe anchors and embedment holes shall be thoroughly cleaned and dried prior to application of the epoxy. The anchors shall not be disturbed for 24 hours following embedment. The Contractor shall note that most of the basins in this Project have existing vertical support systems that are set up for Type "A" installation. F -10 2 i M i 1 r 1 1 r r Inlet Modification C5- 28 -971 4 703 -3.2 Type -B- Installation. Type "B" installation may be used where existing vertical supports located within 6" of the basin ends. are 703 -3.3- Vertical Support Installation. Where basins do not have adequate vertical support as specified below, vertical support(s) ate o existing provided. "Adequate vertical support" is defined herein arts) shall be provided. Vertical support (either "eye" bolt or support bolt perAPWA Stnd. 310- 0) at a maximum spacing of S feet. The Contractor shall note that there are only a few locations, if any, J` where such conditions exist - most, if not all, of the basins included in the scope of the Work have "adequate vertical support„. Determinations as to the need for the installation of vertical supports, shall be made by the City at the sole discretion of the Engineer. Where vertical support installation is required, either Type "A" or Type 1 "B" support may be installed, at Contractor's discretion. The vertical 1 supports shall be installed as shown on "Modified Sheet 1 of Standard Plan 310 -0 ", provided in Appendix , D _ herein. Contractor shall note that man of th e y existing vertical bars do not have the adjustable or welded stirrups required, and that installation of the stirrups is included as a part of the horizontal bar installation. 703-4 MEASUREMENT & PAYMENT 703 -4.1 Materials: Measurement of each Cross Bar installed shall be determined by measuring the width ( "W ") of each catch basin inlet modified. 'Pa ment for work under this Subsection will be made at the unit rice bid y foot of catch basin opening. Such payment shall a ed ineal full compensation for furnishing all materials, and incidentals (including vertical supports, welds, adjustable and fixed stirrups, threaded couplings, end anchors and epoxy) necessary to provide the cross bars required. 703 -4.2 Installation: Measurement of th e installation of cross.. bars shall be determined by totalling the number of catch basin inlets modified. Payment for work under this Subsection will be made at the unit price bid per catch basin modified. Such payment shall be considered full compensation for furnishing all labor, equipment, and all incidentals necessary to install and otherwise complete the work in this Section in accordance with the Construction Documents. F -11 1n1et:HOditication (5 -28 -971 �'_X�S � ►mot G Ex �S'C►�.IG R- o.i„�: I Baas: - t -1 - - AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19 by and between the City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation located in the County of Ventura, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and , Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant ". W I T N E S S E T H Whereas, the City requires the services of a qualified civil engineering firm to prepare design plans and specifications for various public works improvement projects; I Whereas, Consultant is qualified to provide such services and has submitted a Proposal pertaining to same, attached hereto as Exhibit 'B'; and, Whereas, City wishes to retain Consultant to prepare the design plans and specification for certain public works improvement project(s). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convents, benefits and premises herein stated, the parties hereto agree as follows: City does hereby appoint Consultant in a contractual capacity to perform certain professional civil engineering services as set forth herein. I. Sco a of Work The services to be provided by Consultant shall consist of the civil engineering services set forth in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and made a part hereof. It is agreed that said scope of work may be revised to add additional services and /or projects in the future, by mutual consent of the City and Consultant. The services set forth in Exhibit 'A' shall be provided in a manner consistent with the stipulations set forth in the Proposal(s) set forth in Exhibit 'B' also attached hereto and made a part hereof. II. Compensation The amount of full compensation to Consultant for said services shall be as set forth in Exhibit 'A'. 5(2') III. Termination This agreement may be terminated with or without cause by City at any time with no less than 10 days written notice of such termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be compensated for such services up to the date of termination. Such compensation for work in progress shall be prorated as to the percentage of progress completed at the date of termination. This agreement may be terminated by Consultant only by providing City with written notice no less than 30 days in advance of such termination. IV. General Conditions A. In undertaking the work set forth in Exhibit 'A', Consultant shall perform all work and provide all services which would normally be performed by the City Engineer for the City of'Moorpark, in the same manner as if Consultant were the City Engineer. The scope of said City Engineer responsibilities shall be limited specifically to the work or projects listed in Exhibit 'A.' B. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wage or other compensation to any person employed by Consultant performing services hereunder for City. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its officers, employees, servants or agents shall control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant officer, employees or agents, except as herein set forth. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner employees of the City. C. At the time of 1) termination of this agreement or 2) conclusion of all work; all original documents, designs, drawings, reports, calculations, diskettes, computer. files, notes, and other related materials whether prepared by Consultant or their subcontractor(s) or obtained in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this agreement shall become the sole property of the City. 2 S< 3) D. Consultant shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City and its officers, employees, servants and agents and independent contractors who serve in the role of City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Director of Public Works, Assistant City Engineer, City Engineer or City Attorney from any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense, for any damage whatsoever, including but not limited to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, resulting from misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant, or any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in the performance of this agreement by Consultant, except such damage as is caused by the sole negligence of the City. The City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may have against Consultant by reason of Paragraph E hereof, because of the acceptance by the City, or the deposit with the City, of any insurance Policy or certificate 'required pursuant to this agreement. This hold harmless and indemnification provision shall apply regardless of whether or not said insurance policies are determined' to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense described in Paragraph E hereof. E. Consultant shall secure from a good and responsible company or companies doing insurance business in the State of California, pay for, and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this agreement those policies of insurance required by this paragraph and shall furnish to the City Clerk of the City certificates of said insurance on or before the commencement of the term of this agreement. Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in any of said policies or any subsequent endorsement attached thereto, the protection offered by the policies shall: 1. Name the City and its officers, employees, servants and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Director of Public Works or City Attorney, as additional insured with Consultant. 2. Bear an endorsement or have attached a rider whereby it is provided that, in the eventfof cancellation or amendment of such policy for any reason whatsoever, the City shall be notified by mail, postage prepaid, not less than thirty (30) days before the cancellation or amendment is effective. Consultant shall give City thirty (30) days written notice prior to the expiration of such policy. 3 5(,,) 3. Be written on an Occurrence Basis. 4. Be primary to the City's liability coverage. 5. Be issued by an insurer with a Bests rating of A:VII or better and licensed to do business in the State of California. 6. State, a deductible amount that is acceptable to the City. F. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph E, Consultant shall provide general public liability including automobile liability and property damage insurance in an amount not less than One Million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and annual aggregate. G. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph E, Consultant shall provide workers' compensation insurance as required by the California Labor Code. If any class of employees engaged by Consultant in work under this agreement is not protected by the workers' compensation law, Consultant shall provide adequate insurance for the protection of such employees to the satisfaction of the City. H. Consultant shall not assign this agreement, or any of the rights, duties or obligations hereunder. It is understood and acknowledged by the parties that Consultant is uniquely qualified to perform the services provided for in this agreement. I. The Proposal(s) (Exhibit 'B') submitted by Consultant is hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Where said exhibit is modified by this Agreement, including the provisions of Exhibit 'A' attached hereto, the language contained in this Agreement shall take precedence. J. Payment to Consultant shall be made by City within 30 days of receipt of invoice, except for those which are contested or questioned and returned by City, with written explanation within 30 days of receipt of invoice. Invoices shll be submitted in a form approved by the City, - showing payment history and remaining contract amounts. Consultant shall provide to City a written response to any invoice contested or questioned and further, upon request of city, provide City with any and all documents related to any invoice. 4 5( 5-) K. Any notice to be given pursuant to this agreement shall be in writing, and all such notices and any other document to be delivered shall be delivered by personal service or by deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended as follows: To: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Attn: City Manager To: Either party may, from tiine to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address which shall be substituted for the one above- specified. Notices, payments and other documents shall be deemed delivered upon receipt by personal service or upon deposit in the United States mail. L. Nothing contained in this agreement shall be deemed, construed or represented by the City or Consultant or by any third person to create the relationship of principal or agent, or of a partnership, or of a joint venture, or'of any other association of any kind or nature between the City and Consultant. M. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and all prior agreements or understandings, oral or written, are hereby merged herein. This agreement shall not be amended in any way except by a writing expressly purporting to be such an amendment, signed and acknowledged by both of the parties hereto. N. Should interpretation of this agreement, or any Portion thereof, be necessary, it is deemed that this agreement was prepared by the parties jointly and equally, and shall not be interpreted against either party on the ground that the part prepared the agreement or caused it to be prepared. 0. No waiver of any provision of this agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of 5 the same provision. No waiver shall be binding, unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. P. In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of or the declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this agreement or as a result of any alleged breach of any provision of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, from the losing party, and any judgement or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof. Q. Cases involving a dispute between the City and Consultant may be decided by an arbitrator if both sides agree in writing, with costs proportional to the judgement of the arbitrator. R. This agreement is made; entered into, executed in Ventura County, California, and any action filed in any _court or for arbitration for the interpretation, enforcement or other action of the terms, conditions or covenants referred to herein shall be filed in the applicable court in Ventura County, California. S. The captions and headings of the various Articles and Paragraphs of this agreement are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit or define the content of the respective Articles and Paragraphs hereof. V. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL The individual directly responsible for Consultant overall performance of the contract provisions herein above set forth and to serve as principal liaison between City and Consultant shall be Upon mutual written agreement of the parties, other individuals may be substituted in the above capacity. It 6 5(G) VI. IMPLEMENTATION The City shall provide Consultant with written notice in advance of the date at which these services are to be implemented if different than the date of the agreement. CITY OF MOORPARK: Consultant Steven Kueny, City Manager contr \dsn i ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY and NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT City of Moorpark Public Works Department LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST WIDENING, REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT in THE CITY OF MOORPARK Mitigated Negative Declaration capital Improvement Project for the 1998 -1999 Fiscal Year (SCH NO. 99021099) Prepared by: THE CITY OF MOORPARK City Hall Department of Public Works 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93012 (805) 529 -6864 Contact: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works April, 1999 CONTENTS Resolution of Adoption Public Hearing Notice /Notice of Availability Introduction Project Description Initial Study Checklist Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis: Rationale for Findings Contained in the Initial Study CEQA Mitigation Measures Mitigation Monitoring Program Appendix 1: Descriptive Exhibits (Schematic Improvement Plans, Right -of -way Acquisition Areas and Related Exhibits) Appendix 2: Los Angeles Avenue East Alignment Study Appendix 3: Staff Reports, Agenda Reports, and Prior Council Actions and Related Correspondence Appendix 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Report Appendix 5: Preliminary Hydrological Report Ex 3 RESOLUTION NO. 99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY /_ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE LOS ANGELES AVENUE [EAST] WIDENING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City intends to construct a project to widen, rehabilitate and improve Los Angeles Avenue from South Condor Drive westerly to a point east of the intersection of Spring Road and High Street; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 17, 1999, the City Council considered the content of a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration /Expanded Initial Study for said project; and WHEREAS, the City 'Council opened the public hearing on March 17, 1999, and took testimony from all those wishing to testify and closed the public hearing after public input; and WHEREAS, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment was made available to the public for the required review period. set forth in the City and State CEQA Guidelines and NEPA regulations; and WHEREAS, responses to comments on the adequacy of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment were presented to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a mitigated monitoring plan conforming with City and State guidelines was prepared and distributed to the public and decision- makers prior to taking action on the sufficiency of the environmental analysis of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that based on the record as a whole the proposed street improvement program will not result in any significant impacts that have not been fully and completely mitigated; and WHEREAS, appropriate findings concerning the impacts of the project have been prepared, which have been attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A." Resolution No. 99 - Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has determined that Mitigated Negative Declaration the and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment prepared for the proposed widening and rehabilitation of Los Angeles Avenue east of the Spring Road /High Street intersection is accurate and complete and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and NEPA. SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and approved the Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared to implement the Mitigation Measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment for this project. SECTION 3. On the basis of the record as a whole, the City Council determined that the impacts of the proposed project, with the adoption of mitigation measures, would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Monitoring Plan subject to the attached findings. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified Resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21St DAY OF APRIL, 1999. ATTEST: Patrick Hunter, Mayor Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk Exhibit "A": CEQA Findings Statement of Findings -1 X �` Resolution Number 99- EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS THE LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST WIDENING PROJECT Legal Requirements The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15074 and 15074.1, which specify procedures for the consideration and approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, requires the preparation of certain findings. These findings, as applicable to the proposed project, include: (1) Based on the record as a whole, the decision - making body, the City of Moorpark City Council (Lead Agency), has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, the widening of Los Angeles Avenue East, will result in significant effects on the environment; (2) The Mitigated Negative Declaration /Expanded Initial Study represents the independent judgement of the Lead Agency; (3) The analysis of the data contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration /Expanded Initial Study was subjected to properly noticed public review and comment; (4) All comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration /Expanded Initial Study were considered and responses, in writing, to each comment were prepared by the Lead Agency; (5) The City has placed all of the analysis and baseline data used in the preparation of the document at the public counter of the City Community Development Department and has, during the duration of the review period, made this material available to interested persons; (6) The City has adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure proper implementation of mitigation measures; and Statement of Findings -2 ?} (7) The adoption of required mitigation measures specified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration /Expanded Initial -Study will reduce all potential adverse effects on the environment to acceptable levels based on significance criteria established in CEQA Guidelines and City Procedures for the implementation of CEQA; and (8) the mitigation measures that have been adopted will not themselves cause any significant effects on the environment. NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a hearing will be conducted before the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California, at the meeting of March 17, 1999, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at the Moorpark City Hall located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021, to consider the project described below. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN, that pursuant to California State Law, an evaluation was conducted to determine if the proposed project could significantly affect the environment, and that based upon that review, the City of Moorpark as Lead Agency under CEQA has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered at the time and placed given by this notice. Project Description: The Los Angeles Avenue East Rehabilitation Improvement Program will involve the acquisition of right -of -way to permit future development of four lanes of travel, construction of engineered retaining walls, realignment and construction of Los Angeles Avenue to include installation of two travel lanes and drainage facilities within the expanded right - of -way, and the installation of roadway traffic striping on Los Angeles Avenue. Project Location: Between Spring Road and Princeton Avenue within the City Of Moorpark. Applicant: City of Moorpark Public Works Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California Any person affected by the proposed project may appear and be heard in support or opposition at the time of the hearing. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and project documents may be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021; Telephone (805)529- 6864. The City Council in their deliberations may approve the document, deny the document, or approve the document with modifications. If you challenge the project or environmental documentation in court, you may be limited to issues raised by you or someone else at the hearing or by written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department at or prior to the hearing. Si tiene preguntas acera de este proyecto, favor de City Hall, telefono 529 -6864. A: \LA widening.doc CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Notice is hereby given that the City of Moorpark has determined that the following project, THE LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, with the attached mitigation measures, would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared rather than an Environmental Impact Report. Interested persons are offered the opportunity to comment in writing on the proposed Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration between February 16th and March 16th, 1999. In addition, the public is also invited to attend a hearing on the proposed Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project to be held before the City Council on March 17th, 1999. Comments on the adequacy of this document will be solicited at this hearing. If no significant, factually documented objections to the proposed Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated environmental analysis are received, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted at the City Council hearing scheduled for March 17th, 1999. The adoption hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of the City of Moorpark (at the address provided above) at 7:00 p.m. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 529 -6864. Notification 48 hours in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 1. Project: Los Angeles Avenue East Rehabilitation Improvement Program 2. Applicant: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 3. Proiect Objective: This capital improvement project is a proposal to complete minor widening, rehabilitation and realignment of Los Angeles Avenue between Spring Road and Happy Camp Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark. The modified alignment will also be restriped. The project will involve the acquisition of right of way which will result in the acquisition of private property. Residential relocation may be necessary in some instances to complete the project. Several walls constructed to support the road widening and to minimize property acquisition. In addition, several major retaining walls will be constructed (the type of retaining wall not yet determined) to support the widening of the roadway to its ultimate planned four lane configuration. However, four lane construction will not occur at this time. Parcel Numbers: refer to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for a list of impacted properties. Location: The proposed project is a portion of Los Angeles Avenue between Happy Camp Canyon and Spring Road. 4. Impacts /Mitigations: The impacts of the project are described in the attached Initial Study and in the Technical Appendices for the project. 5. Findings: On the basis of the Initial Study, analysis of available information, it is proposed that there is substantial evidence that the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the adoption of mitigation measures. Based on the findings contained in the attached Initial Study and the record as a whole, a finding can be made that there is no evidence that there will be an adverse effect on environmental resources that cannot be fully mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measures. Introduction Preparation of an Initial Study and Environmental Assessment This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended and CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Moorpark. Section 15063 of CEQA Guidelines defines an Initial Study as the proper preliminary method of analyzing the potential environmental consequences of a project. The purposes of an Initial Study are to: (1) to provide the Lead Agency (the City of Moorpark) with the necessary information to decide whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) to enable the Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts thus avoiding the need to prepare an EIR; (3) to provide sufficient technical analysis of the environmental effects of a project to permit a judgment, based on the record as a whole, that the environmental effects of a project have been adequately mitigated. Initial Studies and companion Mitigated Negative Declarations may be used to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when developments such as the proposed New Los Angeles Avenue East Widening, Rehabilitation and Improvement Project are anticipated either to have no significant effects or to have potentially significant effects on the environment that can be fully mitigated by either modifying a project or by incorporating mitigation measures into an environmental compliance program. In the case of the proposed project, as discussed in this document, this undertaking will not result in any significant effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels and therefore preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. Introduction -1 Mitigation Requirements Defined CEQA Guidelines state that mitigation includes (15370 {a} through {e }): (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Section 15369.5 70 of CEQA Guidelines defines in the following language the mitigation standards that must be met to employ a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for CEQA compliance. This section states: "Mitigated Negative Declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agree to by, the application before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmental would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the information provided in this MND, with the incorporation of mitigation measures referenced in the CEQA Conditions of Approval section of the document. impact Classifications Different categories of impact significance require various administrative actions by the decision makers at the time a project is approved. Conclusions about the significance of an impact are highlighted in bold print in the document. In the analysis to follow, several impact evaluation distinctions have been made. Introduction -2 The different types of impacts that have been distinguished include: Class I: Significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated or avoided have been identified as Class I impacts in the Initial Study Analysis. A significant unmitigable adverse impact is a problem for which the City has been unable to find a solution. These impacts require decision- makers to make findings of overriding consideration before the project is approved. If such impacts are identified, an MND cannot be used for CEQA compliance and an EIR must be prepared. These impacts are identified as a Potentially Significant Impact in the attached Initial Study Checklist analysis. Class II: Potentially significant impacts which can feasibly be mitigated are identified as Class II impacts in the Initial Study Checklist analysis. In these cases, the consequences of a project are considered sufficiently serious that some form of mitigation planning is needed. These mitigations can involve modifications to the project, changing the project design to avoid conflicts with environmental values, or performing data collection procedures prior to construction (such as archaeological salvage programs). A significant mitigable impact is a problem for which a solution can be conceived and feasibly implemented. Decision- makers are required to make findings that impacts have been mitigated before a project approved. The Mitigation Measures section of this document contain a list of measures that, when adopted, reduce all impacts to insignificance thus permitting the use of an MND for CEQA compliance. These impacts are identified as a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated effects in the attached Initial Study Checklist analysis. Class III: Impacts which are not significant are classified as Class III effects. Insignificant impacts describe the consequences of a project that are not sufficiently disruptive to require mitigation measures. Modest changes in the environment that have no serious consequences on the abundance or diversity of plant or animal life, for example, are usually classified as adverse but not significant. These impacts are identified as a Less Than Significant Impact in the attached Initial Study Checklist. Class IV: Project effects which have no impacts on the environment are identified in the attached Initial Study checklist as No Impact. Introduction -3 Project consequences with the potential to improve habitats, solve environmental problems, or generate substantial public benefits are classified as beneficial effects. There are factual tests recommended in the Appendices to CEQA Guidelines that aid in this classification process. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration may be used to satisfy CEQA processing requirements if no Class I impacts are anticipated or if Class ll impacts can be fully mitigated. Use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate in cases where impacts have been avoided or where significant impacts have been offset by mitigation measures. Since the proposed project will not result in any impacts to the environment as defined by CEQA and elaborated upon in recent case law that have not been completely offset either by project revisions or the imposition of mitigation measures, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Use of this Document by the City of Moorpark This is a Final environmental document which will be used to complete the planning analysis of the project and to inform the decision- makers about the environmental consequences of approving the undertaking. The draft document was offered to the public as a preliminary statement about the environmental consequences of the project. The publication of the initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration initiated a 30 day review period. Written comments on the document were solicited by the City during this period and a hearing on the adequacy of the Negative Declaration was held before the City Council on March 4th, 1999. Copies of responses to comments on the adequacy of the document are contained in the Comments and Responses section of the report. Portions of the document which were altered since publication of the Draft MND /Environmental Assessment are indicated in Italic print. Project Processing Timeframes Since the proposed undertaking is a capital improvement project sponsored by the City, mandatory time frames for decision - making related to the approval of the CEQA document and approval of the project (under the Permit Streamlining Act) do not apply. Documentation concerning staff and prior City Council review of this proposal and related funding efforts are provided in Appendix 3. introduction -4 Standards of Analysis and Technical Appendices Because the undertaking is proposed to be funded using grant fund sources primarily, only preliminary engineering, fiscal, and planning analysis has been completed concerning this project. The available whole record related to the project is limited to the information provided in the Appendices of the MND. Further information will be required to implement the project (e.g., soil survey data, acquisition of right -of -way, etc). The available source materials consulted and analysis performed for each issue of concern have been summarized briefly in individual impact discussions in the MND (refer to the MND Analysis section). The primary sources of information consulted were limited to the Certified Final EIR on the City's General Plan, data provided in the MND Appendices, and site inspection by the consulting environmental analyst (The Planning Corporation). An MND is not intended to be either exhaustive or scholastic. Rather, as an informational document used in decision - making, the purposes of an MND are to present only sufficient information to define probable project specific and cumulative environmental impacts and to develop adequate mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. The limited available information concerning the project included in the "Expanded Initial Study" documentation includes: Appendix 1: Descriptive Exhibits (Schematic Improvement Plan and Site Area) Appendix 2: Los Angeles Avenue East Alignment Study Appendix 3: Staff Reports and Prior Council Actions and Related Correspondence Appendix 4: Preliminary Geotechnical Report Appendix 5: Preliminary Hydrological Report These Technical Appendices provide substantially more information about specific environmental issues than the MND Analysis text. The standards of evaluation used in individual discussion items included in the MND Analysis are conventional to each of the scientific, engineering, planning, or management disciplines contributing to an understanding of the project's impacts. In cases where public agencies or regulating bodies have defined thresholds of significance for various impacts, these thresholds have been used, to the extent applicable and feasible, in determining how individual impacts have been classified. In some cases, these standards and thresholds are related to numerical values derived from summary statistics (e.g., tolerable pollutant emission levels defined by the state of federal government, volume:capacity ratios calculated for intersections by traffic engineers, etc.); in other cases, the thresholds of Introduction -5 significance are based on qualitative judgments or expert opinion (e.g., biological or cultural resource effects, aesthetic impacts, etc.). Use of Incorporation by Reference CEQA Guidelines permit the use of relevant data generated while preparing related environmental documents, a procedure termed incorporation by reference (Guidelines, Section 15150). Both EIRs and Negative Declaration may incorporate any portion of relevant documents that are both a matter of public record and generally available to the public. "Incorporation by reference is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the - analysis of the problem at hand." (Guidelines,' section 15150, subd. (f).) Typical examples of material that may properly be incorporated by reference include a description of a proposed project's environmental setting from another EIR or a description of the city or county General Plan applicable to the project's location (Guidelines, section 15150, subd. (e).) All documents whose contents are incorporated by reference have been made available for public inspection at the Lead Agency's office at the City of Moorpark (Public Works Department). Copies of documents used in the preparation of this, MND are available for review at the City. The primary documents referred to include the EIR prepared for the City's General Plan Update and recently prepared EIRs. on the Hidden Creek and Morrison Ranch projects. Traffic, air quality, and other data in the MND has been incorporated from these documents. NEPA Compliance The document has been prepared to comply with requirements in NEPA related to the preparation of an Environmental Assessment. Based on the information contained in this document, the City of Moorpark has determined that a Finding of No Significant Effect is the appropriate notification applicable to the proposed undertaking. Introduction -6 CITY OF MOORPARK EAST LOS ANGELES AVENUE WIDENING, REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1998 -1999 Capital Improvement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA Environmental Assessment Prepared by the City of Moorpark Public Works Department April 1999 PROJECT SYNOPSIS AND PROJECT NEED STATEMENT Project Title: Los Angeles Avenue East Widening, Rehabilitation and Improvement Program Project Location and Setting: Landowners: Architect/Engineer: The proposed project is a street improvement program for a portion of Los Angeles Avenue East situated between High Street and Princeton. The proposed widening and realignment will affect properties situated on both the north and south sides of Los Angeles Avenue East. Refer to the exhibits included in Appendix 1 for an illustration of the location of these improvements in relation to existing residential and commercial areas within the Los Angeles East corridor. Appendix 1 includes illustrations which clarify where cut and fill programs are proposed within the alignment corridor and identifies locations where retaining walls (up to 18 feet in height) are required to complete the realignment program. This appendix also contains diagrams identifying approximate boundaries of right -of -way acquisition. Property owners (or property owner agents for the purpose of service of legal documents) which will be affected by this undertaking include a number of properties within the Los Angeles Avenue East Corridor. The right -of -way acquisition table included in Appendix 1 describes all of the properties that will be impacted by this undertaking. This table summarizes present information about slope easements, construction easements, and preliminary estimates of acquisition areas. Actual right -of -way information will not be available until preliminary design engineering is completed. to be determined Project Description and setting -1 Right -of -Way Agent: Entitlements or Permits Requested: Assessor's Parcel Nos: Acreage: Right -of -way: Grading Quantities: Project Objective: Existing Zoning: City General Plan to be determined ► City of Moorpark Capital Improvement Project (no entitlements required) ► Caltrans Design Review and Approval Caltrans Encroachment Permit ► Right -of -way acquisition complying with state and federal law The right -of -way acquisition table included in Appendix 1 includes the assessor parcel numbers for all properties that will be included in the acquisition program. The total area of disturbance for this undertaking has not yet been estimated. Estimates will be provided upon completion of preliminary engineering. Total right -of -way to be acquired has not been determined with finality. A preliminary right -of -way assessment is contained in Appendix 1 of the MND. Based on available information, right of way will need to be acquired from about 26 parcels. Of this number, a significant amount of land will be required for about 12 parcels and three or more properties may need to be acquired in their entirety since the residual parcel, after right -of -way acquisition, may be insufficient to support present or planned land uses. Grading quantities have yet to be determined. However, the grading program is predicted to be substantial since rather extensive cut is required along the alignment in areas where retaining walls are planned. An illustration of the location of proposed retaining walls and section diagrams illustrating the probable height of these walls is provided in Appendix 1. The type of wall construction to be used and the ultimate wall height in various segments is still under investigation. The project is a proposal to acquire right -of -way and widen and improve a portion of Los Angeles Avenue East (old Los Angeles Avenue) between the intersection of Spring Road and High Streets and Condor Road. The segment being improved ultimately will provide a connection and access to the Princeton Interchange. The proposed improvements will substantially upgrade the roadway segment passing through the Virginia Colony area and provide an improved connection between the Campus Park Community and Moorpark's "old town" downtown. Street right -of -way within the project boundary is not zoned. Zoning on land to be acquired to complete the widening include residential, commercial or institutional designations. Project Description and Setting -2 Designation: General Plan land use designations are primarily residential on portions of property to be acquired. Jurisdiction: City of Moorpark Service Districts /Utilities: Water. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 Electric: Southern California Edison Gas: Southern California Gas Company Fire: County of Ventura (city contract) Police: County of Ventura (city contract) Sewage: City of Moorpark Proposed Construction and Structures: The widening and rehabilitation of Los Angeles Avenue between (approximately) Spring Road and Condor Drive will involve obtaining sufficient linear right -of -way along the north and south side of Los Angeles Avenue along nearly the entire improvement alignment included in the proposed upgrade of the street. Total ultimate right -of -way width is projected to be 88 feet in width while the built road surface will be confined to a 54 foot street section. The roadway construction at this time will be limited to two twelve foot wide paved travel lanes, two 8 foot paved surfaces (for bikelanes, emergency stops, and streetscape), a 14 foot center median, and two 8 foot unpaved shoulders. The construction will involve (1) demolition of certain features within the acquired right -of -way (trees, shrubs, portions of driveways and, in some cases, possibly residences themselves), (2) grading and preparation of the road bed within the new right -of- way, (3) surfacing - the new width of road with asphalt and restoring curb cuts and other access features to roadbed adjacent properties, (4) constructing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and a median, (5) restriping of the entire width of the improvement area, (6) construction of retaining walls to provide adequate area within the alignment for right -of -way, and (6) subject to funding availability, parkway landscaping improvements may also be installed as a component of the project at a future date. A 14 foot center median will be constructed to enhance the visual quality of the street and minimize cross - traffic turning movements which will improve the safety of this segment of Los Angeles Avenue. The acquisition of right -of -way will be sufficient to allow development of an ultimate street section comprised of two eastbound and two westbound travel lanes, a center median and two bikelanes and pedestrian way improvements (sidewalks). The project will necessitate some utility relocations (as illustrated in Appendix 1). Funding Sources: The present funding plan for this improvement is (1) to obtain state and federal grant funds (estimated to be 1.2 million dollars for the initial right -of -way acquisition phase of work) and (2) to Project Description and Setting -3 allocate initially funds from other City capital improvement sources as required. Existing Environment Project Location The proposed project is situated in the east- central portion of the City of Moorpark. Neighboring communities include the cities of Simi Valley to the east and Thousand Oaks to the south. Specifically, the project construction area is bounded approximately by the intersection of Spring and High Streets on the west and the point at which Los Angeles Avenue East curves north to become Happy Camp Canyon which ultimately connects with the Highway 118 Princeton interchange. Refer to Appendix 1 for a preliminary description of the improvement corridor. Existing Conditions and Environment Los Angeles Avenue within the alignment of the area to be improved is presently a two lane road which provides access to a mix of land using including residential neighborhoods, light industrial uses, retail projects, entertainment- retail developments, and office /business park uses. This roadway is characterized by a reverse curve with limited visibility along segments of the curve. Small residential homes have generally perpendicular driveway access directly off this roadway segments. In general, it appears that the roadway segment is characterized by driving patterns which result in travel speeds that exceed the safe design speed of the road. Los Angeles Avenue is also a major through diversion route for local traffic from Campus Park to the center of the City. Based on data contained in Appendix 3, predicted traffic volumes along this segment are estimated to peak at about 15,000 average daily trips (ADTs). Once infrastructure improvements (e.g., rerouting of State Route 118, development of the Spring Street Extension in Specific Plan 2, etc) planned as part of future buildout of the City are completed, these present volumes are expected to be reduced to about 7,000 ADT. Within the area proposed to be improved, a small dirt "shoulder" area is present along the north and south side of the roadway; this area is approximately 10 feet in width. An unimproved pedestrian path is situated along the south side of the alignment. The houses that exist within the project area are single story structures of generally about 1,500 square feet in size; most homes are situated within 20 to 40 feet of the existing right -of -way. Some of the homes within Project Description and Setting -4 the alignment scheduled for improvement may be impacted by the- right -of -way acquisition process. A formal right -of -way acquisition process and appraisal will be required to determine the property impacts of the proposed widening on these homes. Based on available data, it appears that some relocation of residents and "whole takes" of individual parcels where homes are situated will be required. In other cases, the right -of -way acquisition will not substantially compromise existing land uses. It is likely sound attenuation walls will ultimately be required along the alignment in areas where residential properties will remain within the corridor. Several light industrial and commercial uses are present within the improvement corridor vicinity. The largest and most prominent of these uses is Kav Lico industrial park and newly constructed industrial buildings which are situated where the east to north transition occurs along the alignment. Other nearby land uses include Litton Data Systems, the CHS Model School and residential areas within the Virginia Colony. The segment of the Arroyo Simi near the proposed improvement alignment appears to serve general recreational needs of local residents. Project Background: Supplemental Information Prior City Council Actions The proposed project has been in preparation for a considerable period of time. Appendix 3 of the MND contains a selection of important Agenda and staff reports prepared concerning this project. Preliminary intensive planning to accommodate this improvement was initiated in 1991 with definition of a concept improvement for this roadway segment. In 1995, the City completed a preliminary assessment of alignment and right -of -way alternatives designed to identify the most cost effective and sensible improvement program for the corridor. Appendix 2 contains a summary of the consultant conclusions regarding this alignment study. In November of 1995, the City Council reviewed the conclusions in this study and initiated proceeding with undertaking an interim improvement program under Alternative 2 described in the study. Refer to this MND Appendix for additional information about the alignment study and associated right -of -way and construction costs. In June of 1996, the City Council formally approved the future realignment of the corridor and directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preparation of a preliminary design for the project to widen and realign the street. In July of 1997, the conceptual widening and Project Description and Setting -5 realignment plan was reviewed and commented upon by the Transportation and Streets Council Subcommittee. The City Council has approved the alignment and preliminary design for this project. The design calls for the acquisition of additional street right -of -way to increase the width of the street from fifty feet (50') to eighty -eight feet (88'). Initial construction will include the construction of retaining walls along the north side of the street at the right -of -way line and street improvements described as: two 12' wide paved travel lanes 8' of paved surface beyond the sideline in each direction; one 14' wide center paved median (total pavement width of 54); and, two 8' wide unpaved shoulders. The eighty -eight feet (88') wide street right -of -way will accommodate the future widening of the street, if necessary, to four lanes without the need to demolish and reconstruct the retaining walls. The design for those possible future improvements will include: four 12' wide travel lanes; one 14' wide raised/ landscaped center median; two 8' wide Bike Lanes, curb and gutter, • and, two 5' wide sidewalks. Construction Phasing The ultimate construction phasing for the project has not been defined. However, the first major task will be the acquisition of street rights -of -way from approximately 30 properties at an estimated cost of between $1,000,000 to $1,500,000. As of January 20th, 1999, the status of various components of the project was that the preliminary design was 98% complete and the City Engineer was is in the process of preparing a design for the retaining walls for the project. Decision to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration As required by CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study of the proposed project and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be prepared for this application. The Project Description and Setting -6 Initial Study that formed the basis of this judgment follows the summary Negative Declaration Analysis of the environmental issues related to the project. As required by CEQA, a set of mitigation measures were developed for all impacts determined in the Initial Study to be potentially significant. These mitigation measures are provided following the text of the Initial Study. As permitted under CEQA guidelines, this Mitigated Negative Declaration may be overturned and an EIR could be required by the decision - makers if either of the following conditions are met: (1) for any impact determined to be potentially significant for which mitigation measures have been developed, if the public or other agencies provide substantial, well documented, and factually based information that the mitigation measures recommended by the City are either financially or technically infeasible, and if no other measures can be identified to offset the subject impact, then the decision to prepare the Negative Declaration should be overturned or (2) if the public or other agencies provide substantial and credible information supporting an assertion of controversy over the City's determination that an impact can be mitigated to insignificance, then an EIR should be prepared. Project Description and Setting -7 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: Los Angeles Avenue East Reconstruction and Widening 2. Case Processing Numbers: Refer to attached Project Description 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Moorpark 4. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works 5. Project Location: Los Angeles Avenue East of Spring Street, City of Moorpark 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Moorpark 7. General Plan Designation: Refer to attached Project Description Existing: Proposed: 8. Zoning: Refer to attached Project Description Existing: Proposed: 9. Project Description: Refer to attached Project Description 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Refer to attached Project Description 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreements): Refer to Project Description Initial Study Checklist - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors listed below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics ♦ Agricultural Resources ♦ Air Quality ♦ Biological Resources ♦ Cultural Resources Geology /Soils ♦ Hazards & Hazardous Materials HydrologyNVater Quality Land Use /Planning ♦ Mineral Resources Noise ♦ Population /Housing DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this ' initial evaluation: ♦ Public Services ♦ Recreation ♦ Transportation/Traffic Utilities /Service Systems ♦ Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DEDCLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Initial Study Checklist - 2 t- 1 q4 a Datte e - d d' EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Requirements specified in CEQA Guidelines) 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: (a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Initial Study Checklist - 3 and Supporting 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Less than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to ✓ b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California ✓ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? d) Result in direct or indirect population related growth inducement impacts (significantly expand empolyment opportunities, remove potential dispersion of hazardous agricultural chemicals. policy impediments to growth, or contribute to potential extensions of growth inducing infrastructure)? 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. = 'Would the nroiect? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to ✓ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state- ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California ✓ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? d) Expose residential areas to increased risks associated with potential dispersion of hazardous agricultural chemicals. ✓ 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Droiect: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? . b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. ✓ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state- ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ✓ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Initial Study Checklist 4 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Significant Less than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or Impact With Impact special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or Mitigation regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. Incorporated 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantially adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and ✓ Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands / as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ✓ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Result in damage to, loss of, or removal of native oak trees or other locally identified specimen trees of significance? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? " e) Result in physical disruption of an identified sacred place or other ethnographically documented location of significance to native / Californians? Initial Study Checklist - 5 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse eTt�he including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated omost recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning ap issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction ,/ or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -a -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ✓ f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ✓ g) Result in remediation scars (benched slopes, etc.) whose dimensions cannot be predicted with reasonable accuracy based on a preliminary geotechnical report? Initial Study Checklist - 6 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Significant Significant Significant ✓ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through Impact With Impact - Mitigation likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? Incorporated 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? ✓ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an exiting or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for ✓, people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ✓ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are ✓ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Initial Study Checklist - 7 sues all Information Potentially Less than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off site? d) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? f) Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Initial Study Checklist 8 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive Significant Significant Significant ✓ development open to public view? Impact With Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to Mitigation i/ trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic Incorporated 9. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive ✓ development open to public view? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to i/ trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings? d) Create sources of incompatibility with the existing scenic and aesthetic environment of the community or quality of life impacts on ,l residents? e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day views in the area? ,l f) Significantly impact any existing streetscape or public space which has been designed to provide areas of public assembly and congregation? g) Conflict with adopted design guidelines or development standards which have been implemented to improve the quality of architecture ✓ in the community? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ✓ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific i/ plan or other land use plan? Initial Study Checklist - 9 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, b) Create substantial demands for affordable low income housing in a jurisdiction which does not have an adequate stock of such housing? or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ✓ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project or in rural d) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? areas, increase measurably the ambient noise levels more than 5 e) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? dbs? d) A substantially temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Result in impacts to an established ethnic community? b) Create substantial demands for affordable low income housing in a jurisdiction which does not have an adequate stock of such housing? ✓ c) Result in substantial conflicts between type, size, and quality of proposed and existing housing in the project vicinity? f d) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? e) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? ✓ d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Initial Study Checklist - 10 Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of Significant Significant Significant the facility would occur or be accelerated? Impact With Impact ✓ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the Mitigation construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have Incorporated ✓ 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ✓ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have ✓ an adverse physical effect on the environment? 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in the traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume ✓ to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or City General Plan Circulation Element threshold? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards related to existing intersections or roadway design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. residential traffic conflicts ✓ with farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate secondary or emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ✓ g) Conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Initial Study Checklist - 11 Issues and Supporting Information, Significant Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Less than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? With Impact Mitigation j) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Incorporated ✓ k) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? j) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ✓ k) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ✓ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which services or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ✓ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs for a minimum ten year period? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? h) Provide for on -site source separation and recycling facilities which are adequately sized for the proposed use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. i) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? j) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ✓ k) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Checklist - 12 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS I. Land Use and Planning The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use designations in the vicinity. The proposed roadway uses is a permitted use compatible with existing zoning and land use designations. With the adoption of all recommended mitigation measures, the impacts of the road widening on land uses in the surrounding area have been minimized to acceptable levels. The acquisition of privately held land will be required to implement the project. Planning parcel specific mitigation related to these land acquisitions will be required to offset impacts to private property owners (a Class II impact requiring mitigation). 11. Agricultural Resources The proposed right -of -way is not an area with locally or regionally designated prime farmlands or prime soils. No recent agricultural history has been established for lands within the project boundary. The entire property within the alignment of the road widening was mass graded over five decades ago; at that time, the surface soils were relocated and impacted. The narrow size and shape of the right -of -way makes the existing on -site soils have no agricultural potential for irrigated or non - irrigated crops. The subject property has been devoted to urban uses for the past four decades is not presently nor has in the past been included in any Williamson Act contract lands. The impacts of the project on the agricultural potentials of the property are not significant (a Class IV impact). 111. Air Quality Air quality is determined primarily by the types and amounts of contaminants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the local air basin, and the pollutant dispersing properties of local weather patterns. When airborne pollutants are produced in such volume that they are not dispersed by local meteorological conditions, air quality problems arise. Dispersion of pollutants in the County of Ventura is inhibited by periodic temperature inversions and local topographic features which tend to trap pollutants near the ground. As the pollutants become more concentrated in the atmosphere, photochemical reactions take place that produce ozone, which is commonly known as smog. Ventura County experiences ,temperature inversions, Expanded Initial Study. Impact Analysis -1 particularly in the late summer and early fall. These inversion layers limit the vertical mixing height and confine horizontal flow through passes and valleys that are below the inversion height. Because of the limited air column available for mixing, pollutant concentrations are generally highest at this time. State CEQA Guidelines state that a project will have a significant effect on the environment if it will violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Los Angeles County impact assessment guidelines recommend that a determination of significant project specific and cumulative effects should be made in cases where sensitive receptors are exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would result in short -term construction impacts during the roadway construction phase; no long -term impacts related to increased vehicle trips associated with occupation and use of the land within the right -of -way will result from the proposed construction. The project is not considered a trip generating use. Local Air Quality Standards Significance thresholds applicable to the proposed project include the following: Carbon Monoxide (1) A CO screening analysis should be conducted for any project exceeding 25 pounds per day, of either ROC or NOx which may significantly impact roadway intersections which are currently operating at, or which are expected to operate at, Levels of Service D, E, or F, or any project- impacted roadway intersection at which there may be a CO hotspot. Toxic Air Pollutants (2) Any project which may release toxic or hazardous air pollutants to the atmosphere in amounts which may be injuries to nearby populations should be analyzed for potential toxic air pollutant impacts. Odors (3) Any project which may create objectionable odors which may impact sensitive receptors should be analyzed for potential odor impacts. Particulate Matter /Dust (4) Any project which may create, either during construction or operation, excessive amounts of fugitive dust or other particulate matter, should be analyzed for potential adverse impacts, including nuisances. Expanded Initial Study: impact Analysis -2 Regional Air Quality Standards (1) Any general development project in the remainder of the ozone nonattainment area of the county [Outside Ojai CAO] capable of daily emissions of: Reactive Organic Compounds: 25 pounds Nitrogen Oxides: 25pounds These are thresholds for projects that the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board has determined will individually and cumulatively jeopardize attainment of the ozone standard and thus have a significant adverse impact on air quality in the county. (2) A project which cause an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard (state or federal), or makes a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air quality standard. Substantial is defined as making measurably worse an existing exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard. (3) Any project with emissions greater than two pounds per day of ROC, or two pounds per day of NOx, that is found to be inconsistent with the Ventura County AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. (4) Any General Plan Amendment or revision which would provide directly or indirectly for increased population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Impact Analyses Guidelines identify thresholds and impact significance criteria for emission sources, which typically fall outside the jurisdiction of the APCD, such as construction equipment. These thresholds apply only to equipment and operations not subject to an APCD Permit to Operate. The calculation methodologies, equipment emission factors and vehicle generation trip rates are derived from the EPA document Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP -42. Copies of these documents are available at the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003. The project will not result in any 'operational effects" (related to employee and visitor vehicle use) or any exceedence of air quality thresholds and therefore traffic generation related long term air quality impacts associated with the project were determined to be non- significant (a Class !V impact). Expanded Initial Study Impact Analysis -3 Short-term construction impacts would primarily result from fugitive dust generated by the project grading and soil remediation program which must precede the creation of building pads, landscape modifications, and infrastructure improvements. Given the brevity of the heavy equipment phase of construction, exhaust emissions associated with heavy -duty construction equipment will only contribute to air shed impacts for a short period of time. Preparation of the roadway for construction, the construction process itself, and implementation of infrastructure relocation would result in short term emissions from two sources: (1) fugitive dust during demolition, clearing and grading /site preparation, and (2) exhaust emissions from construction equipment used during each phase of the construction process. In addition to fugitive dust emissions, construction equipment used for clearing and grading of the site would generate combustion emissions. Dust and Particulate Generation Construction of the project would generate particulate emissions during final finish grading activities. The level of particulate generation depends on soil moisture, wind speed, activity level, and silt content of the soil. Particulate generation typically occurs at the rate of 1.2 tons per acre per month of construction activity (U.S. EPA, 1985). Due to the minor nature of the grading required, construction operations for the proposed roadway would not have the potential to result in concentrations of particulates that may exceed both the national and state ambient air quality standards on a short-term basis (a Class III impact). The dust generated by such activities may however pose adverse health and nuisance impacts to those living and working near the construction site. Short Term Construction Effects Insufficient information about geotechnical remediation planning, grading methodology, and Proposed equipment to be used for the excavation program to define with any certainty what type of grading will be required to prepare the site for construction. The initial clearing and finish grading for the property has been estimated to require about 2 days of earthwork. The construction equipment emissions projected for the development of the roadway would not result in substantial and prolonged construction emissions (a Class 111 impact). Expanded Initial Study. impact Analysis -4 Grading, Particulates, and PM1 p Grading improvements necessary to prepare the roadbed and install retaining wall segments would not generate a significant volume of total suspended particulates. The California Air Resources Board estimates that heavy equipment grading activities generate up to 80 pounds of particulate matter per acre per day. Based on the time frames presented in the foregoing discussion, the proposed grading program (and related activities) will require only several weeks of earthwork distributed over approximately a one month period. At this rate, assuming grading would occur over a six acre area on an average working day, the proposed construction program would generate only a a very minor total particulate load. PM10 emissions generated during the grading and construction phase would not exceed the State 24 -hour standard of 50 ug /m3 (micrograms per cubic meter). Nonetheless, given the proximity of adjacent residential areas, compliance with Federal and State standards for dust control will be required. Combustion Emissions from Construction Vehicles In addition to dust emissions, construction equipment used for clearing and grading would also generate various types of combustion emissions (RHC, NOx, CO, and PM). Grading and site preparation equipment emissions would also occur as short -term impacts. Information regarding the number of construction- related vehicles and the specific type of fuel to be used is necessary for precise calculation of this impact. Given the brief duration of the heavy equipment construction period proposed and the anticipated types of equipment that may be required to complete the required work, impacts related to combustion emissions from construction vehicles are projected to be an insignificant impact (a Class III impact). However, due to the proximity of the construction program to residential neighborhoods, some air quality protection measures have been recommended. IV. Biological Resources No native habitats are present within the roadbed scheduled for improvement. The roadway is situated in a developed, urban setting and therefore development of the project as planned will not have a significant impact on any biological or botanical resources or wildlife habitat. A determination that no significant impact will occur is based on the following conclusions: Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -5 (1) no endangered, threatened or rare plant or animal species or habitats that support such species are present within the construction corridor; (2) no locally designated botanical landmarks (e.g., heritage trees) are present within the property boundary; (3) no locally designated plant communities are present within the project boundary (oak woodlands, riparian corridors, coastal habitats, etc.); (4) the project site supports no riparian habitats; and (5) no wildlife corridors are present within the property boundary. The property needed for roadway construction is situated in a developed, urban corridor. No on- site native plants or habitat remains within the property boundary. The property is covered by ruderal vegetation (weeds) and therefore no botanically significant effects are anticipated. A project landscaping program, including future streetscape landscaping in conformance with streetscape planting recommendations applicable to the surrounding area, may be developed in the future. However, landscaping is not proposed as a component of the project as proposed. The land within the boundary of this roadway alignment has no locally or regionally significant biological merit. Therefore, no significant impacts to botanical or biological resources are not anticipated (a Class III impact). V. Cultural Resources A literature search and physical survey of the property by the City's environmental consultant (The Planning Corporation) did not result in the identification of any cultural resources within the road corridor boundary. No cultural remains were reported when the property was originally graded. Archaeological deposits are typically situated in the Upper three feet of native soil surfaces. Since the entire property has been mass graded previously, the native soil has been disturbed within the roadbed. No secondary deposits (from disturbed contexts) were observed within the unimproved alignment. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would not be significant and no mitigation planning for this resource is necessary (a Class IV effect). VI. Geophysical Impacts: Earth Resources, Geologic Hazards and Seismic Effects The proposed project is not situated within any known fault hazard zones. However, development of the proposed retaining walls for the undertaking will require substantial soil or landform modifications. Geotechnical testing done as part of development review for projects Expanded Initial Study. Impact Analysis -6 LA situated to the north of the roadway alignment has resulted in the identification of unmapped trace faults and other anomalies that may extend into the project boundary. Therefore, the City undertook a preliminary geotechnical analysis of the project (contained in Appendix 4). The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed retaining wall structures, cut slopes, and other facilities (e.g., drainage conveyance) can feasibly be constructed as long as (1) geotechnical remediation measures are implemented prior to and during construction and (2) final geotechnical planning is completed during the final design and review process. The existing, previously rough graded alignment will be finish graded and committed to roadway uses. Remedial cut and fill programs for various segments of the alignment will likely be balanced on -site; if required,, soils will be exported to local fill sites. Only minor demolition is required. The scope of the proposed grading program was determined to be relatively minor; fault hazard and geotechnical impacts were determined to be significant but subject to effective mitigation (Class 11 effects). Please refer to Appendix 4 for more information about the rationale for this conclusion. Preliminary soil borings and seismic analysis of the specific design conditions within the project boundary have been addressed in a preliminary geotechnical report. Therefore, mitigation measures related to geological planning will be required. However, on the basis of literature review as well as field and laboratory testing for construction conducted on adjacent properties, no known adverse geologic conditions exist within the property boundary that will prevent implementation of any required remediation measures. VII. Hazards The proposed project will not result in any land use with the potential to result in the storage and use of hazardous and controlled materials. No uses considered potential sources of hazard both to human health and to the environment are involved in the development of the roadway. The impacts resulting from risk of upset conditions are considered insignificant (a Class IV impact). Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -7 VIII. Water Resources: Hydrology, Debris Transport, and Surface and Groundwater Water Quality The proposed use of the area to be impacted by the project as a roadway will not require any major modifications to the existing flood and stormwater collection structures in the area; this finding will need to be confirmed by further hydrologic analysis which is required as a Mitigation Measure for the project. A preliminary hydrologic analysis was completed by the City (contained in Appendix 5). This analysis indicates that while minor modifications to collection and conveyance will be required (these design measures have been incorp ry orated into the prelimina design), no up- sizing of downstream conveyance devices is necessary. Impacts associated with drainage planning are considered minor but potentially significant and therefore Mitigation measures have been required for this concern (a Class 11 impact). With the construction of hardscape as proposed over a significant percentage of the roadbed, the proposed project will not result in significant potential for on -site erosion or sedimentation except during the brief period of time between completion of finish grading and installation of hardsca Impacts associated with debris movement and erosion are considered Pe significant, even during the construction period, due to the small scale nature non - project (a Class IV impact). ure of the Based on available information, it is predicted that the implementation of the development will not modify the hydraulics of the immediate area; this predicted finding will be confirmed by a pre- construction hydraulic analysis (if required by the City Engineer or Caltrans). Silt discharge is not anticipated occur except during the initial grading phase. The use of appropriate best available technology to intercept oil and gas residues should prevent any downstream contamination to the Arroyo Simi. As long as onsite drainage is appropriately captured and disposed of, the potential for changing stream gradients or impacting downstream areas is remote. Impacts related to surface water flow, dispersion, runoff, and related effects would be very minor, short term effects were determined to be non si nific Class III impact) and therefore no mitigation measures have been required. g ant (a Based on available data, potentially significant flooding, drainage, and soil contamination related impacts will not occur coincident with development of this road widening. Impacts resulting from grading, landform modifications, drainage changes, and related effects can be Expanded initial Study: Impact Analysis -8 avoided or minimized by the incorporation of conventional roadway design measures into the project when more detailed engineering is conceived for the alignment. Impacts related to these issues are considered non- significant (Class III impacts). IX. Aesthetics: Light and Glare and Impacts on View Corridors The project will not result in the addition of any potentially significant exterior night lighting in the vicinity. Lighting exists presently within the roadway and no changes are anticipated in the existing lighting program. Therefore, light and glare related impacts are projected to be insignificant (a Class IV impact). Once the proposed landscaping improvements associated with the project are implemented, the impacts of the project on local aesthetics should be beneficial rather than adverse. X. Mineral Resources The proposed project site does not contain any unique or energy significant mineral resources. Mineral extraction has never occurred on the project site or on surrounding lands. No remainder rights for mineral extraction will exist once the land use on the property is dedicated to residential uses. No impacts related to important mineral resources are anticipated as a result of project development (a Class IV impact). XI. Noise The proximity and concentration of people in an urban setting creates a substantial and continuous sound; when these sounds become intrusive, they are defined as noise. Ambient (background) noise levels covary with population density; therefore, as modern transportation systems expand and communities develop, noise becomes an increasingly annoying and pervasive condition. Physical health, psychological stability, social cohesion, property values, and economic productivity are all affected adversely by excessive amounts of noise. The significance of noise effects are directly related to the intensity and duration of noise sources. In evaluating noise effects, audible changes associated with a specific project are often difficult (or impossible) to measure quantitatively unless a noise impact is relatively severe. Noise models based on traffic volumes permit at least partial delineation of project specific noise Expanded Initial Study., Impact Analysis -8 impacts associated with an increment of change in noise volumes. Noise models reflect the following generally accepted audibility criteria: (1) Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, an increase or decrease of only 9 decibel (dBA) cannot be perceived. (2) Outside the laboratory, a 3 dBA increase or decrease is considered a barely perceivable change. (3) An increase or decrease of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in noise levels would be widely perceived. (4) A 10 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of noise volume. In the "Caltrans Noise Abatement Programs" from the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1100, published by Caltrans, a "Substantial increase" in noise level is defined to be 3 dBA from an existing noise level; this standard is considered the significance threshold for requiring implementation of noise mitigation for residential noise abatement programs. Short -Term Construction Noise The dominant sources of construction noise associated with development of the project would result from site clearing, demolition, grading, soil and debris export, construction of required project utilities, infrastructure, footing creation, framing, roadway construction and related activities will all be noise generating. These noise sources would result in relatively short -term increases in ambient noise levels. Potentially significant short term increases in ambient noise levels will be perceived by adjacent land uses as a result of: (1) construction vehicle ingress and egress to the project site, (2) activities in construction staging yards; (3) the operation of temporary on -site generators and pneumatic tools; (4) daily construction worker ingress and egress to the project site; (5) a brief period of finish grading, and (6) , road construction activities. Noise generated by construction equipment, especially diesel - powered equipment including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach intrusive levels. Based on EPA Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -l0 data, the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 dBA to 91 dBA (at 50 feet from the source). The loudest construction -type activities may require more than 1,000 feet of distance between a source and a nearby receiver to reduce the average 91 dBA source strength to a generally acceptable 60 dBA exterior exposure level (from stationary equipment). The residential areas in the project vicinity are sufficiently close to the project location that noise sensitive uses in nearby residential areas may experience substantial short term noise impacts (a Class II impact). Noise inconvenience is a universal phenomenon for any urban development construction program and is not unique to the proposed project. The potential for noise inconvenience is considered a potentially adverse impact of short duration which is subject to effective mitigation (Class 11). Normally, construction hours are limited to daylight hours, Monday through Friday. To prevent construction premium costs, evening or weekend construction is not planned. Since off -hour construction is not contemplated, conflicts with and inconvenience to nearby residential areas will be avoided. Construction impacts have the potential to result in periodic and short term disturbances to local residents, a short term impact requiring mitigation planning. Refer to measures included in the CEQA Mitigation Measures section of this document. Vehicle Related Noise Impacts Associated with Occupation of the Development A formal vehicle related noise analysis of the proposed project has not yet been undertaken since the proposed roadway alignment has not been engineered. Further, the City's General Plan EIR indicates that future cumulative noise volumes within the roadway are within threshold values presently and will continue to remain within acceptable limits with continuing General Plan buildout. From the perspective of contributing to changes in CNEL volumes (related to traffic volumes on the street system averaged over a 24 hour period), the amount of traffic that will be generated by the project is predicted to be insignificant as a noise generation source. However, widening of the roadway may result in the need to construct specific noise barriers for individual homes. Until more detailed plans are available for the proposed construction program, the details of noise mitigation for this project cannot be determined. However, impacts from project related noise sources were determined to be generally insignificant except for homes in close proximity to the revised right -of -way (a Class II impact). Additional mitigation planning for noise issues related to specific homes along the right -of -way will be required in the future. Expanded Initial Study: Impact Analysis -11 XII. Population and Housing The proposed project will not generate demands for rental or sale housing. The levels of employment anticipated for the project can be accommodated given the available housing stock in the City and adjacent unincorporated areas. Impacts related to housing demand related to employment generation are not anticipated to be significant (a Class 111 impact). However, the project may result in the need to acquire several residential properties and provide relocation assistance for owner occupants or tenant occupants. State law governs the relocation process for these residents. XIII. Public Services The proposed road widening program will not create any unanticipated demands on local service providers. Fixed utility providers have not expressed any objections to the proposed undertaking. The County police and fire departments which provide contract services to the City have reviewed and commented on the proposed project and indicated that the roadway an be widened without changing service demands on existing service personnel. The project will not result in any impacts on service providers (a Class IV impact). XIV. Recreation The project will not result in any significant new demands for recreational opportunities for t residents of the City. The proposed use would not have an effect on recreational o he on either a local or regional basis. As a road widening' undertaking, opportunities kmg, impacts related to demands on recreational facilities were determined to be insignificant (a Class IV impact). XV. Traffic Circulation and Parking The proposed project is designed to improve regional and local circulation. Resolution of the existing traffic circulation problems in the City of Moorpark will require widening and improvement Of major arterials and collectors. The proposed improvement program is designed to enhance safety and roadway capacity. As such, the project will solve rather than create problems related to traffic movements and local and regional circulation. The project will not result in a significant traffic circulation impacts (a Class IV effect). ny Expanded Initial Study. impact Analysis -12 XVI. Utilities The project will not result in any unanticipated demands on existing utilities or public infrastructure. The development is consistent with the available energy supplies in the local and regional grid. Impacts on utilities and infrastructure would be insignificant (Class III impacts). Expanded Initial Study. Impact Analysis -13 Comments and Responses Los Angeles Avenue East Improvement Program Comments on the Los Angeles Avenue East Widening and Rehabilitation project were received from the following individuals, agencies, and associations: R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 30th, 1999 In addition to these written comments, testimony related to the project was presented at a public hearing on the adequacy of the environmental document. Copies of these minutes are attached. None of the comments included in these minutes addressed the adequacy of the environmental document and therefore no responses are provided. In response to comments, minor modifications have been made in the Adopted MND; these changes are identified in the Adopted MND version in italic print. Please refer to the revised Expanded Initial Study Analysis and Mitigation Measures in the Adopted MND for revisions. Comments and Responses °F�F PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY unt IF *9 .,,...n Director Of ua tura f ti„ F Arthur E. Goulet Representing Ex- officio: Deputy Directors of Public Works V;i,t,, :.n ", a c t , Dinricts Wm B. Britt i y Tf Imt . Fox John C. Crowley For. CdnV ;roue n ster Managemer , Agency Water Resources & engineennq_ AB939 Focal Task Fore March 8, 1999 Recycling Market Development•Zene Kay Martin Solid Waste Management Ken Gilbert Paul W. Ruffin Central Services Director of Public Works Alex Sheydayi City of Moorpark Flood Control 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: .Mitigated Negative Declaration Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement Dear Mr. Gilbert: Thank you for including the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (District) in the environmental review process for the City of Moorpark's Capital Improvement Project - Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement. Based on the information received, we have the following comments: Page 3 of the Project Synopsis identifies the various utility providers. Please be advised that the District is the water purveyor and not Calleguas Municipal Water District. Also, sewage is the District's responsibility and not the City of Moorpark. The District does have water and sewer lines within the project boundaries. It is conceivable that appurtenances like valves or manholes might have to be adjusted to match new grades and fire hydrants relocated. The District facilities will be impacted depending on how the rehabilitation project is implemented. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 584 - 4830. Very truly yours, R"C' HVED R. R. Pakala, Manager MAR 10 1999 Water and Sanitation Services Division CITY O CCRPARK Water Resources and Engineering Department PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMENT RRP: ec {. . word /dist. I /LAA vewidening 7150 Walnut Canyon Road • P.O. Box 250 • Moorpark, CA 93020 • (805) 584 -4829 • Fax: (805) 529 -7542 ��� Comment: R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. Changes have been made as requested clarifying the utility providers for water and sewer service. Refer to the amended text of the Adopted MND for clarification. The location of all utilities within and immediately adjacent to the right -of -way will be identified during the design process. The City will ensure that the proposed design of the rehabilitated and widened street will comply with standard engineering practice regarding buried water and sewer transmission pipelines. All effected utility providers will be notified and consulted prior to initiating construction activities. Plans will be forwarded for Agency review prior to the initiation of construction. The proposed construction program will not modify any existing easement rights that may be exercised by the Agency. Comments and Responses I`IHK- lb=lyyy 15� �5 NMH h'LHNN1Nu 010o b:>4 Jbt�J r. bd • PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY o TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Traffic and Planning & Administration • s MEMORANDUM February 24, 1999 TO: Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Attention: Joseph Eisenhut l FROM: Robert B. Brownie, al En 'nee SUBJECT: Review of Document 99-026 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study 1) Los Angeles AvenueBeltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement 2)' Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement Lead Agency: The City of Moorpark, Department of Public 'Works The Transportation Department has reviewed the subject Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) and Expanded Initial Study for 1) Los Angeles Avenue/Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement and 2) Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement as proposed by the City of Moorpark Department of Public Works. We do not concur with the subject Draft MNDs and Expanded Initial Studies for those area under our purview. The project description in the Los Angeles Avenue East document states that right -of- way will be required for the ultimate construction of a four -lane road for the Los Angeles Avenue East project: Increasing the capacity oLa road creates a potentially significant growth inducing impact. Increasing the capacity of a road can also create a potentially significant air quality impact. These issues have not been addressed in the subject Draft MNDs. These projects may have a significant adverse impact on the Counties Regional Road Network Therefore, we have no alternative but to find these projects inconsistent with the Ventura County General Plan transportation policies. Unless the City of Moorpark addresses these issues in the Final MNDs and mitigates any significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels, the County General Plan requires that the Transportation Department oppose these projects. Please call me at 654 -2080 with questions. a Richard Herrera Duane Flaten Carole Trigg RM/RHORP -..ar f--k -- «t*wq)OAWPwin%emm\99 -026.m m ZO :Z qd 66A 5Z 83.E TOTAL P.02 Comment: Robert Browne, Principal Engineer Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 The comments provided in this set of remarks address two separate MNDs which were released simultaneously. Presumably the growth inducement comments in the second paragraph address both projects. Growth inducement Issues The proposed improvements which are the subject of this document have been designed to increase capacity not to generate growth. The intensity of residential growth in a City is-* governed by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Making improvements which are consistent with the City's adopted Circulation Element are designed to ensure that planned growth and infrastructure are properly balanced. Roadway improvements proposed within the vicinity of the project have been programmed to improve traffic safety, roadway capacity, and pedestrian separation from existing travel lanes. By making such improvements which are consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, the City is merely implementing improvements which are required to provide adequate levels of Service to accommodate General Plan buildout. While the City is aware of the need to consider the County's General Plan transportation policies, it is, rather, the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the long term infrastructure needs and policies envisioned in this document that govern circulation improvements within incorporated areas. Air Quality Impacts Regarding air quality concerns, primary air quality impacts within the City's boundary are attributable to poor levels of service at constrained intersections. The roadway segment proposed to be improved in this case does not involve any actions that will decrease intersection capacity. Since the affected roadway portion to be improved is not situated at or immediate) adjacent to a signalized intersection, Caline modelling for carbon monoxide concentrations is not required under either State California Air Resources Board or local Air Quality Guidelines. Issues regarding air quality growth inducement related impacts have been previously addressed in the preceding comment. Comments and Responses STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, ADVANCE PLANNING IGR OFFICE 1 -10C 120 SO, SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 TEL: (213) 897 -6536 ATSS: 8- 647 -6536 FAX: (213) 897 -8906 L F E- mail: NYedanian/D07 /Caltrans/CagLA T Mr. Ken Gilbert Director of P.W. City Of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA. 93012 Re:IGR/CEQA 990252NY LosAngeles Avenue East Widening March 30, 1999 SCH# 98121011 Dear Mr. Gilbert: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Los Angeles Avenue East widening project. According to the facts presented in the document received, no state highway is involved in this project. We would like to remind you that any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires the use of oversized - transport vehicles on State highways will require a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend that large size truck trips be limited to off -peak commute periods. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Yerjanian at (213) 897 -6536 and refer to IGR/CEQA 990252NY. Sincerely, STEPHEN J. BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager Transportation Planning Office District 7 Coment. Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 30th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. These remarks do not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The City is aware that a transportation permit from Caltrans may be required to implement the project. The design of the street will also comply with Caltrans design standards because Los Angeles Avenue is also a State Highway (Route 118). Comments and Responses CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES I. Land Use and Planning (�) The City shall develop parcel specific mitigation plans for all properties within the right -of- way that may have access restrictions or have modifications to access as a result of the proposed construction. Restoration of access in a manner than does not interfere with the through traffic objectives of the improvement program shall be prioritized. In cases where access cannot be restored, proper compensation shall be provided to the affected landowners through eminent domain proceedings. 11. Air Quality (�) All material excavated or, graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (2) All clearing, filling, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during period of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Construction grading shall be discontinued on days forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the County APCD air quality monitoring station closest to the City of Moorpark. Grading and excavation operations shall not resume until the first stage smog alert expires. (3) If any soil material is transported to or from the site, this material shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Fill materials, to the degree feasible, shall be obtained from appropriate sources close to the site to minimize construction emissions. A haul plan (including routes and hours of delivery) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to commencement of any fill or disposal program. (4) Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. (5) Construction vehicles entering and exiting unpaved roads onto paved roads during the grading period shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Residual Effects: not significant. Mitigation Measures -1 VI. Geophysical Impacts (1) A final geotechnical and soils report shall be prepared by the City prior to the initiation of construction. This report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer. The report shall address site preparation requirements for the design of all structures, including` storm water conveyance facilities, retaining walls, planning for settlement compensation, and all other aspects of site specific engineering deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The report shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. Residual Effects: not significant. VIII. Water Resources /Hydrology Drainage and Water Quality (1) If determined necessary by the City Engineer (as determined by the City Engineer in his sole discretion), a drainage conveyance study shall be prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer for the review and acceptance by the City Engineer. Hydraulic design shall conform to the current Hydraulic Design Manual of the Los Angeles County. The study shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. (2) The City should be required to comply with all NPDES and stormwater conveyance facility conditions deemed necessary by the Public Works Director or City Engineer. Residual Effects: not significant. XI. Noise (�) To minimize construction noise effects, all stationary construction noise sources shall be sheltered or enclosed to minimize adverse effects on adjacent neighborhoods. When feasible, generators and pneumatic compressors shall be placed in a manner to minimize noise inconvenience on adjacent residences. Construction shall be prohibited between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays (including Saturday) and no construction shall occur on Sunday. (2) All contractors involved in the construction program shall provide a written noise construction effects strategy to be submitted with building of suppression used will vary on a case by case baser Dum sters, pr The types construction tasks, and materials storage shall be limited to defined pre- assembly ,prescribed areas. Mitigation Measures -2 Materials storage and work areas shall be situated to the degree feasible, on portions of parcels that will minimize impacts on nearby commercial and residential areas. Adjacent commercial tenants shall be notified of the construction schedule for the project. (3) Once the final alignment of the roadway is determined, the City shall prepare an accoustical report to determine what types of noise barriers may be required for individual homes and businesses that may be impacted by the relocation of traffic closer to residential locations. Residual Effects: not significant. Mitigation Measures -3 Mitigation Monitoring Program AB 3180 (Stats 1988, ch. 1232) which became effective on January 1989 and has been codified as Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, now requires that, along with the adoption of the findings specified in an EIR or MND, the lead agency must also adopt a "reporting /monitoring program to ensure compliance during project implementation." A mitigation monitoring program has been prepared and is presented in table format on the following pages. Mitigation Monitoring Program MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN: LOS ANGELES AVENUEJEAST WIDENING activity to cease grading period during periods of AND RECONSTRUCTION high winds Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance I. Land Use and Planning (1) The City shall develop parcel specific mitigation plans for all properties within the right -of -way that may have City to complete Continuous activit access restrictions or have modifications to access as a result of the proposed construction. access relocation and acquisition y until acquisition Completion of all legally required Restoration of access in a manner than does not interfere with the planning consistent has been completed p acquisition through traffic objectives of the improvement program shall be In with state law and applicable procedures resulting in .prioritized. cases where access cannot be restored, proper compensation shall be provided redevelopment City possession of to the effected landowners through eminent domain procedures needed right -of -way proceedings. (where relevant) IL Air Quality (1) All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (2) All clearing, filling, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during period of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Construction grading shall be discontinued on days forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration of 0.20 ppn-i) as indicated at the County APCD air quality monitoring station closest to the City of Moorpark. Grading and excavation operations shall not resume until the first stage smog alert expires. Field watering to Continuous occur during during initial grading period grading period Dust generating Continuous during activity to cease grading period during periods of (until asphalt high winds completion) Field verification of compliance by City Public Works/ Building Inspectors Same as (1) above Mitigation Monitoring Program - 1 February 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance (3) If any soil material is transported to or from the site, this material shall be either sufficiently Dust suppression to be verified for Continuous during Same as (1) above watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Fill materials, to the degree all transported or the grading period feasible, shall be obtained from a appropriate sources imported soils close to the site to minimize construction emissions. A haul plan (including routes and hours of delivery) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to commencement of any fill or disposal program. (4) Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated Sweeping of streets Continuous Same as (1) above from construction activities so as to prevent to occur on an as necessary duri ng r excessive amounts of dust. needed basis during the grading grading. program (5) Construction vehicles entering and exiting unpaved roads onto paved roads during the grading period shall be washed off prior to leaving the Contractors to provide for vehicle Same as (4) above Same as (1) above site. clean -up during VI. Geophysical Impacts (1) A final geotechnical report shall be prepared by the City Public Works prior to the initiation of construction. This report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer. Department to One time activity ],,I (if deemed necesseview City Engineer to and approve The report shall address site preparation requirements for the design of all structures, including contract for preparation of by the City Engineny during the planninor required soils sls storm water conveyance facilities, retaining walls, planning for soils and phase prior to geotechnical reports p settlement compensation, and all other aspects of geotechnical report review of grading site specific engineering deemed necessary by the City and construction Engineer. The report shall be subject to the approval plans of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 2 February 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure VIII. Water Resources /Hydrology Drainaae and Water Quality (1) If determined necessary by the City Engineer (as determined by the City Engineer in his sole discretion), a drainage conveyance study shall be prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer for the review and acceptance by the City Engineer. Hydraulic design shall conform to the current Hydraulic Design Manual of the Ventura County. The study shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. (2) The City should be required to comply with all NPDES and stormwater conveyance facility conditions deemed necessary by the Public Works Director or City Engineer. XI. Noise (1) To minimize construction noise effects, all stationary construction noise sources shall be sheltered or enclosed to minimize adverse effects on adjacent neighborhoods. When feasible, generators and pneumatic compressors shall be placed in a manner to minimize noise inconvenience on adjacent residences. Construction shall be prohibited between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays (including Saturday) and no construction shall occur on Sunday. Monitoring Actions Verification of Frequency Compliance City to prepare One time activity required hydrology during plan Field verification and drainage design preparation of construction consistent with reports plans by City Public Works and /or Building NP DES compliance One time activity Same as (1) above during construction during construction phase consistent with Best Management Practices (BMP) Enclose noise sources (if feasible) and limit construction hours Continuous activity Field verification during construction by City Engineer program and /or Public Works Inspectors Mitigation Monitoring Program - 3 February 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure I Monitoring Actions I Frequency (2) All contractors involved in the construction program shall provide a written noise construction effects Contractors to One time activity strategy to be submitted with building permit applications. The types prepare written prior to initiation of suppression used will vary on a case by case basis. noise effects of construction Dumpsters, pre - assembly construction tasks, and materials reduction plan for City Public of the project storage shall be limited to defined, prescribed areas. Materials storage and work areas shall be situated to Works Department the degree feasible, on portions of parcels that will review minimize impacts on nearby commercial and residential reduction. areas. Adjacent commercial tenants shall be notified of the construction schedule for the project. (3) Once the final alignment of the roadway is determined, City to contract the City shall prepare an acoustical report to One time activity determine what types of noise barriers may be required for acoustical prior to implementation for individual homes that may be impacted by the study and implement of the project relocation of traffic closer to residential locations. recommendations for interior and exterior noise reduction. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 Verification of Compliance City Public Works or Building Inspectors to verify compliance Plan check verification of acoustical mitigations; field verification by Public Works Inspectors or designee. February 17, 1999 Appendix 1 Descriptive Exhibits (Schematic Improvement Plans, Right -of -way Acquisition Areas, and Related Exhibits) 0 CITY OF MOORPARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELS AVENUE EAST REHABILITATION STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN LOCATION MAP N.TA. gm ilE gIAN11BEq SINIWN dN iMS RAN ARE ONLY M E9111NIE, ANO APE fOR IN/OUNIMNI pR.Y. R 6111E OONR4WTOR'S RE3POlSBBJTY Tll VEPBY AIL<E IAIIIBEItq. NERIIFk TMmROELSSTW ENCREFR (DFA) INS PEJ7OlSaRRy PpL THE N)CURV,y OP CONSTRUCTION NOTES QUANTITY O eat sTR m PAVD4Dd PER sap. Rum. ® SANCTA OW. PAVO/ENT. 0 MUM EXIST. FENCE O MUM Exist, CURS. © OOISTIMICT RENDER~ WALL PER rALTRVS SRI. PLAN 53-1. ® RELOCATE EMST. Tom HImw. ® RFEDGTE EXIST. STREET UGIUt, COISIRIICT 4- P.QC. OMEMAY. ® NSOU RIM SIGN PER CµTRV11 1RAFf1C WHIM 4-11. AND WARD ON A 4'.0 RIDROOD POST. 0 AQAIST WM E mu To BRIDE REM Da3T. CURB AND OUTER ® REAM E70ST. WEpLNt 0 RaMTE 001T. pOWN POE 0�j Rom ow wits. 0 RPEDGTE Elan. LwL BEE 0 REIDGIE DGST. Posm Sam ® REIDVE MOST DROP. [AEC ✓u \JV Nz LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST LL (n ; a INDEX MAP N.T.S. //<1� V O Z Via. RaaT 191 tANl 01s[ anAO I a1 IN_ DEX_ TO SHEETS FAw�aT 1 SMELT Na CONDaf DvS:W —llDl1 1 TITLE SHEET . PoaR NDGRQI AIVm IR PIK11 t♦y1 ro t 2 PLAN AND PROFILE r -le pEa1) ELEVATION: SDLTa etm 3 PLAN AND 1'pOFILE E EITEabfcila N a OA TYPICAL STR ET cc 4 PLAN+ AD PROF: LE YE, J0.d NESTOF M CT ION. S PIAN Np PROFILE 10.4 SIAiM FRR JIi O' WAY PLAN a xalTx FROM , R.Y IROI TIE eaT a A T a11Art w WA( MAN f M CONCRETE CORE 1e' SIAISLwpjm - S RIGHT Or MY PLAN 0 RIOT OF WAY PLAN �� NgAwm 411 d No4.NEe auR® T.T. mw T.T. 4M FN.IIQO_ R CITY OF MOORPARK Z 0 Z Q nU 0- G Q U a- RI01.11. GENERAL NOES! i. All TIOtlI m1oAx NFIEdI Ellµl x CgBTIBic'rto IR AD-m tl Sm EDITION WITH LA N$ FOR P16LIC R01O3 CONSTR11CT141 1001 EDITION WITH TEST SUPPLE301T5, i,E APPL, IISNL[ PLANS AND SI+ECIFI GTIOS FOR THE Cin tK NDORPARK Alp 11E VEC� /CI /CI PI10V18lon. 2. 'HE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUFIONyry 1EASM 1 PROTECP NIL ITI�3 Alp STRUCTURES FOUp AT TIE f11[, IT SNW.L r. TIE CINNIRACIOR S RE3POIS IBILIn TO /pilFY TIE ORIEI6 aF T, 11TIL ItI[3 OR fTRUC110E5 CONCEtaED BErORE STMi1ND 1VORK. (a 1101.85 NDnCE REa1RED.) J. THE IXISTENCE AND LOCATION O' ANYEOpEpCIp1Rp ATIL ITI[S PIPE OF R SIRUCII.RES SIgMI ON THESE PLAN$ HERE OBTAINED BY A SEVK. OF AVAILABLE RECO1p3, 10 TIE EEST Di OIA IO[NE.EDOE All IXIfTIP UTILITIES ARE SHOW1ON THESE PLAI14, pE Cp1TRACTp1 DIAL ASCERTAIN TIE TRUE tOCATIONANY�UpERppp,Rp VTILITI[S AN UTILITIES SHDNI OR110T SICAN HEREON. ANY PIATLIC OR PRMAT 4. CDNiRACTOI SINLL PROTECT ALL IXISTIHA PROP[IITICS FIIOY DANAO[ ,• AOJ�ACDNT�TgWALL AREASOa A0111� Q SSPEO. ACCESS T0. 31W-L aE WIIRAIKD AT All TPRO CIE a' A RE OIWTpL fINLI COIFdY 7D Nl 1'110V1 ST 615TPOED CIVIL ENGINEER. igt711E�Di�jR4PT5G gE +TfRIURIC IIILtWIN6 CCNSTRIprION eC1EpA,E- SUBJECT 10 MPRpyAL Oi iLE C1T' ENGIKER, CIINSTRUCTION wAE011N0 OEVICEB. 61ONS. ETC „HALL COK011 WI7N STATE W Cµ iFORN1A. OEPMTAENT a TRANSPORTATId1 (G1LtRA16 STAIDAMS AND TIE SPECIAL NRNOVISIRAS. B. ALL PAVDENT JOIN LINES SNµI BE SAW {'Ur IN Sm IONr LIMEf E1TlEt PARALLEL ID liE LTAU OR AT RIWT ANO.ES TO THE ALIdeFJ4r OF TN EIDENALN. ). ASPHALT CONCRETE SUVA IN PLACED PER SPECIFICATIONS AND SOILB REPORT. 0. A.C. PAVFEENr LINDIIWINµ JOIN LINES SINLL K COATRICTEp AT 7H EDGES a TRAFFIC WIES. .0116'W1LL NOT BE 1'EINITTED IRDER TN SiHE PATHS a VExIC1FS. 0. A TAO( CGT SHV.L BE APPLIED AT ALL SAW-( AND JOIN LINES U GEI, 77E A.C. OVERLAYS A9 SPECIFIED IN SECTION 302 -0.1 OF STANIAR, SIN:CIFIGrlON3. 10. COLD JOINING OF ADJACEM A.C. OVERUYS WILL fpT BE AO;EprEp. ADJOINIINO OKRtAYS WILL BE PERFORLED CO6[CUrL..Lll I1. A PRECOSTRUCTIO/ OOIFEPENCE OPAL EE � INTEPESIEO PARTIES 91µL IIfLD PRIOR 70 ANY NNSTRUCTION. TIE 00NiNlCTOfl SIIALI EIANJIT A ACOORDAIAE WITX SI.BSEECTION a1a STR11CTlO1 OONFFTRFNCE IN OONSTIWLTION PCRIOD, 91PIID iOl TIE FMIRE 12, OONiRACTOR S1NLl OBTAIN PEA113410N TROY QFNFR FOI 81RAO[ a EWIREM ND INTFRIALS DN, PEAPERT PRIOR TO UTaRIND ETIUIWENT. 13. RESET SLTER NAINNOCS, STORM DRAIN AVEDLE3, TARTER ILWgL[f AND WATER VµVES TO NE I, STOW DRAKE d' t1E PAVDAN• 14. PRIOR TO DOSTRUCr ION THE CONTRACTOR SMALL CONMCT SFINICE ALERT ((U.S.I.) TOLL FREE AT 1- SOD - 122 -4/17 PRIOR TO ANY WORT . IS. RIOT OF SHEET WERE NECESSARY, WILL BE REQUIRED FROM ALL PROPERTY GIERS. le. ALL TREES TO BE CHECKED BY THE Cl ENGINEER OFINp '. IYNSTp11CT1ON'.. FOR WED OF ROOT PRLWINO. TRILAH T ETC. - Olmy 00wmam w.t.r. INt.y w1.1.11A. et.1.l•l w: t pOtI R'N. Eire ma ne.s R.ee. AATw.1.WN�r1/F1.w111wG 1.061 � IMw Pq.Atlllwy i. NV1lww alEE.Gi:� c.�"P WrIA tinbt M. t t77d tttwA►wraw. - - (we1N V.IIq, G AWI6 j u6Ftp --_ ��Ytaw MITI. FII Q►MI ma RANI Aran. w., Eta 81.1 wty. G i]011 m a. tlwnw OR[Ip10� C +) Oil►rtR tm ' ttwlR4 Elll lwlAl it hin ib«�y OtA.. G 11411 y .... Yw Ie�S�w1i�oa .�Jr wn� RR Ilaw GWLA m n1 ��� I«A q % twlw . i:ao >��e'io-Ka« h3.�°.rl NIH 1wtRp (! ntrte urnlnw NW 01«n1t�rIM11EM« OtN.1.1 ��•�� E11EtM►w'. TbwlmF ar., G nEr. ���� IAaereu -u�J” - Les tw ►e - - t�tw ►tnRw 1eW.�►.I..w LOS ANGELES AVENUE EA 8T STREET REHADWrA7M PLANS _ s TITLE SIiER_T 41AW1I r flit. : { f I J(7}�J +r i_ , ,..,_ f ..,_...�..,_. -_ - : {.._.,.I -..i -• ,� Ifi,Ji�' "� `ii V j I 1_111_q. , f ri ' PROHpSED ' x. x$— F-#—.L '' J ..1. I ,.. 4... j - ( I I f - ... F I f "' ! `�. • -..,.. J... ! 1 i j j j- . r ,Y ....... / `�` `fir \� i\� J t � _ � k� �\ � /��j✓f' r. Q• � >"� tip.. r ,` i, � � �.....� -j' _sY \, jsr' 'ter^'- -'.�^• \ �. 1 I% CL '.:: � �. � r ,� � �- , - -- 'a° --- -- _ �— "..�'' �' `•w:�: � �c�_� , r —�. -R0. � r l S ANGVE / NU z yy d oN,racrt opt i _ %1. r 1` r` j wxnno 77+iiw rxinua sm t r 111 .... .... ... .' S5 LECE7p n''` AI "4�1� ®w�nE em..vis. ( Q vnaoosm \' fii N /; m-m-= MCITY OF dos :� C -_ ,..� ANGELES AVENUE EAST STA 0+77.19 TO STA. 11 +12.49 STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS �. z- 4 4 -ti LOS AI ■ l n a no no �iHIS UNION t P nLE So ROME 51 10-225 0 �' eta 80, 52 CONSTRUCTION NOTES _5.!( 5-WAff EW — PAVD�— LEGEND- r EW FDM Humaw WLL Pat mm� Wm ptm mnowt Dw. SMW,.,. PAO omm IGE LES-AVENUE- 0 Woo n 0— PtI- wim am kv W—M tmr..oars, Hare. TT pN11 Z T. CITY OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE 2.49 TO SrA :;BF STREET IMPROVEMENT MOORPARK SM 11+1 1 PLANS I- - - - -� .___���aa�a:�e�_ � �a����� _ _ a as a _ a�aaaa�a�aaaa�aaa.:" :.� m E 001 s"I 'QW Z:> Z-A U _Vjl" V\ wo L t9. LE T A290CIAIM rt ftww, ' CITY OF cos mmft Ell E!3 kgN MOORPARK 19 +25.80 To UE STREET IMPROVEMENT 29+ Jo PAS SNVId 1N3VGAONdnI 133815 00*00+9'! VIS 01 00.00+6z vis AlVdHOOPY LSV3 3nN3AV S3130W Sol Jo IAIIO .... ....... SV3 30N3W S313. S6-1-- .-Fly i'01 L 4Q -7 0 00 M1w an aMLLM mw Tm 4wwq 4p /V S 310N _NOL1M1_-ISN-/ 1-7— L LI.Ij___.j.. _77 77-7fl—i. —ki D11011 1 j r' J" T-777 3s 31U + 17-t-R4 iL �_r 7 14 F P 41 JI ttil. [ ' 1 T Jr- IJ _j T f" j,-4 1 4 1 1 jj_ j- i -4 JJ kq T__A f. TA I IF Lf I J j J �(I}} _ r • o- 80, 22p- 512 -0- 160 -170 1g ` $1?` a �, f,..r'' nw en It 16$ Q'5 ' %'A a /ld $12— cep 0- 160-01 0 512 -0- 160 -635 y y -^ 512 -0- 160 -525 512 -0- 160 -300 C n 512-0-160-730 512 -0- 160 -655 0 0 5j2�0�760y5$ U LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST LEGEND PIED Mr ®ML Mm auiuy ®mr �aa omm rr. qty t]. u� CITY OF °°°"° LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST MOORPARK STA. 0 +77.19 7-0 STA. 11 +12.49 RIGHT OF WAY PLANS a-- w�� an r imrrp T.T. CITY OF Lo MOORPARK s ANGELES AvENuE EAST .� _ ^a+"> STA. 11 +12.49 TO STA. 19+25.80 r 9 • RIGHT OF WAY PLANS �••- LEGEND ® ru Rm w�� an r imrrp T.T. CITY OF Lo MOORPARK s ANGELES AvENuE EAST .� _ ^a+"> STA. 11 +12.49 TO STA. 19+25.80 r 9 • RIGHT OF WAY PLANS �••- LEGEND ® rnorosm kv ® art aac LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST IHIID (RI6 WpPyp ' __ _ CITY OF LOS ANGELES -- AVENUE EgST „� �- -- MOORPARK ^� -TA- 19 +25.80 TO STA 2g +00.00 9 D�I"!LJT ne wev ei Ame. LEGEND apt �IafO}t �iE1. a@. ppq,m T.T, uNn TT__._ oen® CITY OF ,� LoS ANc ' -- MOORPARK EKES AVENUE EAST „e sra 2s +oo.00 TO sra sa +oo.00 nlP-uT d" — nc wev DI AKi F I . Vi vi VV /ALL 5.86 ft Visible " °a tt Visible 19 1 7 ft Visible Wall Height Wall Height Wall Height 16.53 ft Visible l e Vi able 6.78 ft Visible al eigh H 1.25 ft Visible Wall Height all eight all Height 4.91 ft Visible Wall Height 3.55 all Heighitible BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL \ 1 +00 1 +50 FOOTING ACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL 2 +00 2 +50 3 +00 3 +50 4 +p0 4 +50 5 +00 TOP OF WALL 7.93 ft Visible 5,08 ft Visible Woll Height 4.36 ft Visible 6.36 ft Visible Wall Height Wall Height V a.1 Height 4.06 ft Visible Wall Height 5 +50 6 +00 6 +50 7 +00 7 +50 12.86 ft Visible 17.17 ft Visible 4.08 ft Visible all Height all Height 15:13 ft Visible all Height all Height TOP OF ALL 7.32 ft Visible all Height 4.73 ft Visible all Height�� BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL \ 0,6If ft Visible FOOTING Wall Height 10 +00 10 +50 11 +00 BACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL 11 +50 12 +00 12 +50 13 +00 ff $ 13 +50 7 5041 hi�sible TOP OFgWALL Wall Heigh {sible _ 0.84 ft Visible 5.18 ft Visible all Height all Height BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WA 1.12 ft Visible �� TOP OF ALL Wall Height 15 +00 DOTING ACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL 15 +50 16 +00 16 +50 DOTING BACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL 16 +50 17 +00 17 +50 Mrw� m v m.r.o P.L1® -- LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST ... 10.23 ft Visible 2.11 ft Visible all Height 1.36 ft Visible 1.36 ft Visible all Height 13.80 ft Visible all Height all Height Wall Height TOP OF ALL 23 +50 24 +00 24 +50 25 +00 25 +50 13.16 ft Visible 5.60 ft Visible 7.60 ft Visible all Height 10.80 ft Visible Wall Height._. all Height all Height 1.1 4 ft Visible 9.41 ft Visible all Height TOP OF ALL Wall Height BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL `FOOTING BACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL 27 +50 28 +00 28 +50 29 +00 29 +50 30 +00 11.70 ft Visible 11.88 ft Visible 10.73 ft Visible 6.11 ft Visible Wall Height Wall Height 9.93 ft Visible 9.23 ft Visible Wall Height Wall Height 8.83 ft Visible 8.43 ft Visible Wall Height 9 Wall Height Wall Height 8.11 ft Visible TOP OF WALL 9 Wall Height Wall Height TOP OF WALL BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL-/' ALL \ `FOOTING BACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL FOOTING 32 +50 33 +00 33 +50 34 +00 34 +50 BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL 35 +00 35 +50 36 +00 36 +50 7.82 ft Visible 6.47 ft Visible Wall Height Wall Height 6.14 ft Visible Wall Height BACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL 37 +00 37 +50 38 +00 wrwam an a Ymw�wc 4LmLOU r UOpN T.T. T.T. CITY OF "` LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST '- 23 +50.00 TO STA. 38 +00.00 F r ? ?0- 9 69 j 60`02 i 6 r'. 512 -0- 160 -525 v 512 -0 -160 -170 mn .n S 512 -0 -160 -635 y - N 512 -0- 160 -730 512 -0- 160 -655 0 0 N 1 � n 160 -300 _ O n N 0-1 60— y ....7= o ~� nom/ N LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST o LEGEND v ® ni sort D .vnao on s Yon.iwc eoam T.T. LT. e�m F wCITY OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST MOORPAt 14 STA. 0 +77.19 To Sra 11 +12.49 I Ql loom mr r �muvwn i LEGEND art mrt CITY OF R� LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST .o-z_ MOORPARK ^° "° STA. 11+12.49 TO STA. 19 +25.80 '-�-- IJI � 0 116 118 >>5 1 s J3Q 90 0 1g ) 5 09 B \ \ ' \ w >g 81 83 85 86 p � Z LEGE- m m ® an ■cry N � Icy ]IOI[ LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST m N o �wwm on s w��yy - -- CITY OF �p GEL LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST .o �— MOORPARK �� S 10 TO 29 +OO.on / ,ITT• ��_` ormm "°� °° - - --. � CITY OF � p LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST •o MOORPARK ^°� ° sra 29 +00.00 70 sra. 38 +00.00 RIGHT OF Wev QI eAle d LEGEND ® mpA • v ® ar UaE RT 2002 -36 02.0 COUNTY OF VENTURA - ASSESSOR'S OFFICE DATE: 11/16/95 22:20 NUMERIC INDEX: PAGE NR: 3( TRA PARCEL NUMBER NAME - VC225C _ _ -- - _ __ _ ADDRESS_ 10066 5 2 Q 5fl -205 GO%tDEi _ DATE 4314 MARINAsCITY DR 06/30/95 MARINA.. DEL REY CA 10066 512 -0- 150 -245 PACIFIC TEL -TEL CO 90292 95007769 * ** ATTN SUPERVISOR OF TAXES 140 NEW MONTGOMERY SAN FRANCISCO ST 12/31/69 10066 5 2 0 15fl 32Q CHEVRON'U S A INC ; CALIF 94105 3601 177 ATTN PRQ$ERTY_ iAX.DEPT P:O Bt3X 285 HOUSTON TX 02tE33/77. 100 67 512 0 -150 3313 Ci ;�i S EVE20N. A: 77001 4764 888 ATTN PROPERTY TAX DEPT P 85 0 2 HOUSTON: TX 02/03j77 10076 512-0-150-435 GOLDEN FOREST PROP INC 77001 4764 $g$ 10fl<76 512 fl 150 445 VENTURA CC }LINTY 4314 MARINA CITY DR MARINA DEL REY CA 06/30/95 90292 95007769° FL :GYRE DIST AGENT VCTORIA. AVE VENTURA.,CALIF 04/28/75 10067 512 -0- 150 -525 B', ALLEN R 93.0Q9 4396 734 7713 HASKELL�AV VAN NUYS CA 09/06/89 10054 512-0-150-565 VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL DIST * 91406 89014016 ATTN R W. AGENT 800 S VICTORIA _AV VETURA:CA 12/19/80 1QQ54 512 Q 150 585 VEN'1`URA..COUNT.Y FL CTRL:. DIST 930Q9: 5798 892. ATTN R�6i <. AGENT .: 80i 3 VICTORIAA AV ` VENTURA CA. 12/19/80 10057 512 -0 -150 -605 SIMI- MOORPARK FREEWAY PROP 93009'5798 892 ATTN MADGE PATTERSON SANTA MONICA CA 2800 28TH ST CA 12/31/68 I0054 Q S12 I5a 635E VEN`I'TiRA COUNTY: FL-17M. L DIST *'� * 90405 3422 281 ATTN R W AGENT; 800 S VICTORIA AV VENTURAA 09/2 ? /83 10066 512.0 75I 65.HENTOR�f .tft]NALf VIR:GINTA 93009:830107494 605 : LAGiNl� DR; . SIMI VALLEY CA 02;/05%85 10066 512 -0- 150 -675 NHD PARTNERS 93065 85001156E ATTN EAGLE PROPERTY MGMT 5301 COMMERCE AV #D MOORPARK CA 07/25/85 30066 5120 15Gf 690:: PADS .CALIF DEV CORF 93021 85007937 MOC}RFARIC PLAZA : FAM PART 530 'E LOS: ANGELES AV MOORP:RK CA #21.25 ::. 07/07/92 10067 512 -0- 150 -700 PARS CALIF DEV CORP 93021 92011903E MOORPARK PLAZA FAM PART 530 E LOS ANGELES AV MOORPARK CA 42125 07/07/92 10067 512. -0 150 710 VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL DIST 93021 92011903 ATTN R W . AGENT:' 800 S VICTORIA AV VENTURA. CA 03/20/87 10007,::51-2-04415,01 735 VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL. DIST 93:0.09 87004141E ATTN .::R W AGENT 800 `S VICTORIA... VENTURA. CA 03/13/75 10067 512 -0- 150 -745 VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL DIST 800 X3009 4379 168 ATTN R W AGENT S VICTORIA AV VENTURA CA 03/13/75 ...10066_:512- - -fl I5€7;755 ; VENTURA CE3UNTY FL CTRE, DIST 93009 4 379 168 ATTN W 1CiENT 800 S VICTORIA:.AV VENTURA CA 03/13/75 10007 512 -0 15 3 -765. ORIt LQEiiS J s 93:OQ9 43-79-168 BORICK JUANITA A "?78(1ti. WOODLEY . VAN NUYS CA 04/24 10007 512 -0- 150 -775 CALIFORNIA STATE OF °* 91406 504153E BLANK I0065 51Z 0 15fl -05a V. A Cp TRANSPQRTATION CC7 BL BLANK 02/02/95 93021 95001338: 35flOUNTi: SQiJA DR<. #207' YEN CA TURA 09/27/91 10067 5i2iQ 16 „R_r , O_i70RIDDLE ROBERT - SHARON TR 93003 91014311' 17304 GRACE CT GRASS VALLEY CA 06/20/95 10066.512-071507125 FOUNTAINWOOD AGOURA 95949 95007239. 8383 WILSHIRE BL SUITE BEVERLY HI 1036 07/14/78 1Ofl61 :512 fl 160.:14fl E ITiTRA COUNTY O.F' ,LS CA 90211 5162' 541 ATTN .:R W #GENT 800 S ;VICTORIA AVE YENTIIRA CALIF 7/14/7a 93(309, 000 00 RT 2002 -36 02.0 COUNTY OF VENTURA - ASSESSOR'S OFFICE DATE: 11/16/95 22:20 NUMERIC INDEX PAGE NR: 305 TRA PARCEL NUMBER NAME VC22507 ADDRESS -- = -_ DATE 10007 5:12 -0160 1B5 KdfZNLAN3 BITILDING' =- $222 MELROSE AV ' LOS: 10/02/84 90046 840109246 10005 512 -0- 160 -160 WHITE RONALD K- CAROLYN S 29535 WENGLER HILL RD 100E}7 52 it 160"3 -'t1 Ix2Y CLIFFORD C CHFciSTZNE REDDINGS CA 11/11/77 96088 4991 009 D. 13853 E: LOS; ANGELES MOORPARK CA 'IF AVE 01/12/77 100 ;9 512 0' l 0_215 UNOCAL-:> 2 930 .1 4749 446 ATTN TAX DIVISION :: P 0.BdX:.760CE: LOS ANGELES CA 12/31/90 10067 512 -0- 160 -225 UNOCAL 90051 900192244 ATTN TAX DIVISION P O BOX 7600 LOS ANGELES CA 12/31/90 101165 522 b -160 25fl CASTRd STEVEN:J PAMELA - 90051 900192244 45fl CHARLES ST Mt]dRPARK CA 04/24/89 10005512 -0- 160- 30b,'CHAIDEZ ISMAEL- VICTORIA 93021 890057596 13931 LOS ANGELES A.V MOORPARK CA 04/09/92 10039 512-0-160-515 CLEMMONS JAMES L -MARY 93021 920060613 1271 TARA ST BARSTOW CA 11/06/68 ' 100E}5 512 -Q -1.60 525 FflUNTAINIiFOOD- AGaURA ..: 92311 :3394 486 8383 W_IE:SH:IRE BL SUITE 1036. 07/14/78 BEVERLY.-HILLS CA 10005 512 -0- 160- 545.FOUNTAINWOOD- AGOURA 90211 5162 541 8383 WILSHIRE BL BEVERLY HILLS CA 11/17/78 90021 10005 512 0 -160 555 FOUNTAINWOOD AGOURA 5263 023 83$3 WI;SHIRE:BL BEVERLY HILLS. CA 22/17/78 900215263: 10066 512--0 - 160 -5$5 UTlLI:T..Y ,BUPPL;Y GROUP:: INC P 023: .. Q .BaX WACO TX 06/02/94 10066 512-0-160-595 CONSOLIDATED ROCK PROD CO BOX 76714 940094765 .2950 TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES CALIF 03/25/70 10066 512 -0 -16Q 6BS VENTURA COUNTY FL CTRL.DT; '�'� * 800.:5 90054 3639 494 ATTN R W":. VIC.TORiA AVE VENTURA CALIF 04/07/75 10005 512 -0- 160 -611 TONAS WILLIAM 93009'438:328 P O BOX 15256 LAS VEGAS NV 09/30/76 10005 512 -0 -160 -612 DELURGIO DENISE N ET AL 89114 4681 518 4929 CALLE DE ARBOLES TORRANCE.CA 02/16/88 10005 512 -0 -160 -613 VA IL PETER 90505 >>880019483 _. . 306;:5 BAYFRONT BAL_BOA ISLAND CA 05/30/85 92662 850055861 10005 512 -0- 160 -616 ESCALLIER BARBARA TR ET AL 7900 W 83RD ATTN MOORPARK RANCH LTD ST PLAYA DEL REY CA -0 7/19/82 10005 512 -0 -160 617_HEDRICR SANGER:.:C JR ET AL 90291 820066197 100,05: 512:;0 160. 625'YENTURA.COUNTY.FL P O:BOX:789 ;,. SANTA PAULA CA 07/16/90 93Q60'300I05249 CTRL D:IST:. *'� * ATTN R -W AGENT 800. S VICTORIA:: AFlE:,= 09/18/75 10067 512-0-160-635 CONEJO READY MIX INC VENTURA CALIF 93009 4463 471 15203 OXNARD ST VAN NUYS CA 02/24/89 i0a5`7 532'0 16j 648 �TL'NTIJRA COUNTY FL 'CTRL 91411 893000000 DIET ATTN R W AGENT - 800 5 VIG`3'QRIA: AVE VENTiiRA CALIF 10067 512 -0 160...655E "RIDDLE ROBERT - SHARON TR 93009 '4485.51 10067 X512 0 160= �9SJENTURA 17304 GRACE CT GRASS VALLEY CA 06/20/95 95949 950072392 COUNTY FL CTRL DIST xx� ATTN R W AGENT 800 S VICTORIA AVE 10/30/75 It3067 512'Q 160 =675 VENTURA VENTURA CALIF 93Qfl9''4485 51.4 * * *; COUNTY FL CTRL DST ATTN::R W .AGENT.:: 800 `S VICTORIA AYE0/3II1.75. VENTURA CALIF ,. . 9.30Q9,: 4485" -514 , i 0 RT 2002 -36 02.0 DATE: 11/16/95 22 :20 PAGE NR: 3 i CHARLES MOORPARKCA 9T 04/14/89 93021 89005759 10066 512 -0- 172 -045 KOROS TIBOR B- CARMEN E TR ?Ac, -..- MOORPARK CA 9302 890193684 02/05/91 ?___.910015018 93021 830021873 1:;>� _ ::09/27/84 173134 GRA�.E. Cl' li4 10067 512-0-160-745 HART RICHARD T- LILLIAN GRASS VALLEY CA 06/20/95 95949 95007239, M TR 17827 RIDGEWAY RD AGOURA HILLS CA 91 301 1Qfl66 32.fl X64�ONEJE3 I2EAIY MIS GRANADA HILLS CA 91344 90006165E II1C X5203 O�NA�2F} 5T 10007 512 -0 -171 -165 HOROWITZ MIKE TIRE VAN NUYS CA 91411. 02/2x4/8. 893aQi3ae SERVICE I' 996 CALLE RUIZ 10007 512-0-171-185 SHERG JANET K THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 11/1x/94 94 018226E LOGAN DAVIII G :J{iAN >TR UST RANT AV KULP CHUNG p ..AVE VENTURA CALIF "` 10fl(37 512 0 171 205 MVS INC C OS:TA MESA 32626 .06/18.91 91{308 fll 3QQ'ESPLANADE DR FL �1 ' 10006 10006 512 -0 -171 -215 MVS INC OXAIARDA 93030 1i3/25/8g` 890.I. :'7064 10025 512 0 17 2 025 300 ESPLANADE DR FL OXNARD CA 21 /25 064 SCRTENER {ENNE.TH L SHARON HOTCHKIS S. DEIdNIS 5 54 <FLZAIN A 93030 89017 a B iiIANE 10Q:66 512 =fl 1 ] MOORPARI CA MC DONALDS CORPORATION <10/2(3/77< 10066 512 -0- 172 -045 KOROS TIBOR B- CARMEN E TR ?Ac, -..- MOORPARK CA 9302 890193684 02/05/91 ?___.910015018 93021 830021873 1:;>� _ ::09/27/84 9537 BERTRAND D R Ofl66:512 Q 180';045 :VEN T2A CONY FL AGOURA HILLS CA 91 301 940099 079 > CTRL DIST ATTN £ W AGENT SQO S VCTEJRIAR IOi766 `:512 0 18fl' Q55 �TENTU RA CQITNTY VENTURA CALIF 93009 03/12/75 4378 780 RL ATTN R —W FL CT DIST AGENT 800 S : -VI 10066 512 -0- 180 -060 KULP CHUNG p ..AVE VENTURA CALIF "` 9 0 3 09 0$/29/7:4: 4306 8 59 BELLAGIO CT 935 1 1066 512 0 =18£3 D70 AiDERS£iN STEPHEN R OAK PARK, CA 91301 05/15/89 890076108 . TR 4875 NE7£?RPARK RII 10066 512 -0- 180 -080 MC DONALDS CORPORATION gOQRpARK CA: �30Z1 920144 Q8/18/�2 888 10066 512 0 190 015 ATT N Ni O NE ONE MC DONALDS PLAZA OAK BROOK IL 08/19,93 SMITH RONNIE L SUSAN 6 0521 930152538 . 1Qfl66 5.12 0 19 507 SPRING MQORPA K GAE2D 09/19 /89 RT 2002 -36 02.0 COUNTY OF VENTURA — DATE: 11/16/95 22:20 ASSESSOR'S OFFICE PAGE NUMERIC TRA PARCEL NUMBER INDEX NR: 307 NAME VC22507 ADDRESS 1�3fl56r 5.12 (3 19L3 tJ35 C�HEN HC3WARi3— JE�Y�i � _ — Y . DATE. =- P33ARR J.OiiN P O BOX 156 10066 512 -0- 190 -045 CHARNAY JANE E G3i3�fN1SON C ©. 06/0i/9p 8130. 90t3;0821�J2 4039 MARINER CR 3Ofl65 52 {3 39i� X55 RTNA LCiIS i� W AK.E VILLAGE CA 91361 5267 911 5I1 MOORPA3'.f� RD #5 19.tiEi�i 5>;2 � ; _�9fl 11.65 $QpKIN :JUbi�'t� ANid, Mi30R.PARK CA 06/24/93 98•EJ21 9303,15{39'5 10066 512 -0- 190 -075 LAFARR WAYNE .53:;3. SPRING 7�i1 Uti1I' MOORPARK CA #6 ;: ' ' 08/1.5/95:!` 93021 950029941 C— DEBORAH M 11 SPRING RD # 7 1Qii6Ez 512 t3 I9fl 085 MA3TIN G1:2ECORY P CAPIIL.� MOORPARK CA 12/27/89 93021 890204634 � 10066 512 -0 -190 -095 M�3a3�PARK CA �36/�3/95 _ . ;93 021: MEIIDOZA GLAI)YS V 950 E369291. ; 10066 512 0 190 105 HOLMES DOUGLAS 517 SPRING RD #12 MOORPARK CA 12/29/94 " 93021 940205254 E 829 RD 10fl66 5l fl 10 li5 GIZATULLN FARUK * TRACY C CA3ARI LE L. CR CA 03/16/95 93012: 9 50031330 <.: 10066 512 -0- 190 -125 BARRANCA RD CAMARILI.Q CA 09/1.4/87 �3Qi2..<:87fl147787 CREPS ROBERT A— ELSINA C TR CREPS SHARON D 24.537 DRY CANYON COLD 1fl0�6 512:' fl 190 135. REDI3C3CH JULIUS CALABASAS C CREEK 10/01/91 91302 910145306 W >: 10i3�6 512: -{3 19:0 I45 L,OH FAMII� 3 893 CINCO AMIGOS SANTA BARBARA CA (381`22/90 9:3015 9013128238 �R��T 686. PIRQPO CT; 10066 512-0-190-155 TRILLING THOMAS—ELK E CAMARILLO CA `< 93010 880093504 . 10066 512 0 1913 155' GRISWIOL33 0 INGLEWOOD BL LOS ANGELES CA 12/26/79 0066 5566 HARI,ES L SYL VIA J 1646: LA J�LLA DR 696 10066 512 -0 -190 -175 SWARENS CRAIG W. THOUSAND 0AK CA 05/23/80 9126{1 5659 1129 SWARENS`EARL W— BETTY J 10066 512 0 190 -185 137 VERDE'VISTA DR THOUSAND OAKS CA 12/18/86 91360 LAVIN ANITA E 860185288 10fl66 512 0 19O 195 BRADY AMY:S 527 SPRING RD #18 MOORPARK CA 05/11/93 93021 930083796; _ 10066 512-0-190— BRUNET LAURIE 527 N SPRING RD #19 310ORAARK CA 01,26/93. 93:(321 9:30015132 J 1288 CADIZ DR 10fl66; 512 fl 190215 W3 LH3a,M KARLF EI:zZAB2'H SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 5658 920 '11 9 05 ELWIT RD Ii3f366:: 5I.2...0 1913: -2-25 LA17ER3'Y MICHAEL J MOO RPARK ifl/2'1/89 9 3 1321 891317229.1 x863 .STOGF :ST 10066 512 0 190 -235 HOFFMAN DONALD J SIMI CA 93063 880147474 1'Ofl66 512 a 190 :245 RISE : MARC3E 0 BOX 6097 THOUSAND OAKS CA 06/26/92 91359 920112674 M M'OE3N RANDY S 525 SI?}ZING RD #105 10066 512 -0- 190 -255 BRANCATI THOMAS- I'ATRICIA MOORPARK CA 03/28/95 93021 950034643: TR 1730 SHETLAND PL " 10.066 512 0 -190 265 GIL JOHNNY g WESTLAKE VILLAGE CA 07/23/91 91361 910105654 RT 2002 -36 02.0 COUNTY OF VENTURA - ASSESSOR'S OFFICE DATE: 11/16/95 22:20 11/08/9 93021 94L31803 NUMERIC INDEX TNAME 06/08/9 33021 9301034 _-- ADD]OEMTP.N STAYER DENNSS C- MARSHA �l�W'IN � :C'IrAU.UTA �� 2844 BA�t�tES`'. ASUNSflN CHF2i5TINE M ::. ;: S1� 2 �ALLE Y. G� 1 512 -0- 220 -015 FETHER KENNETH G -JANE A 876 WARREN CR 100:21 .5:1:2 0 ;220 .195 ES-.TR ADA, .ALES : tARIE: O MO RPARK C o A 113021 512 0 -22fl (325 GRUEL GEORG # sl 10021 512 0 221 215 L3GAN BONNIE L MObY� ARK CA 1Ofl21..512 (i�220 ..CBS GARNO M VII�CE 3'OY�.E ., :.; 10021 512 -0- 220 -225 COLLINS CHARLES R VIRGID MOORPARK CA 10021 512 -0- 220 -045 ALLEN LYLE R- GARNETT E TRUST 783 CHAPT.Rq em PAGE NR: 3 VC225 nuuLleaNK CA 93025 9 MOORPARK �A.. > 10021 512 -0 -220 -095 JONES REX- DENISE 845 CHARLES ST MOORPARV rn 11/25/8 93021 8701900 11/08/9 93021 94L31803 04f30/$ 93021 8400471. 06/08/9 33021 9301034 nuuLleaNK CA 93025 9 MOORPARK �A.. > 10021 512 -0 -220 -095 JONES REX- DENISE 845 CHARLES ST MOORPARV rn 11/25/8 AQ(1 Prnvr nxm ..m MOORPARK CA 02/25/8, 93021 8600220' E33/09/8. 93023: 8400.60 12/18/8' 93021 8702015. 93021 8400328• 3021; 40x60 -? 93020 9400793 94022 9000603' 10:021 101321 52.2 0 -220 1D5 512 0 -220 l5 CARTON f�NIfiA 'L TR LE.BLAN� J05�FH F ::PATS;. 10021 512 -0- 220 -125 CUENCO MARIA B 10021 512 0 220 135 DOI ASAC F.ANNE R ; 10021 512 -0 -220 -145 GARCIA HECTOR -NORMA 10021 5127.0-220-155 STAYER DENNSS C- MARSHA 0.0 21 512 .0 2:20 15 ASUNSflN CHF2i5TINE M 10021 512 -0- 220 -175 SHIVELY DONALD J -MARY K 10021 fl0 1$.5 B ANi1REW LBARBARA 100:21 .5:1:2 0 ;220 .195 ES-.TR ADA, .ALES : tARIE: O ' 10021 512 -0 -220 -205 PAGE JAMES I- MAUREEN f 10021 512 0 221 215 GOLPAS Air ( iILSE3N S FRE 10021 512 -0- 220 -225 COLLINS CHARLES R VIRGID !� 10021 512 0 COLLINS RICHARD A 220 235 YOUNG MICHAEL J- MARIA_E_., 11/25/8 AQ(1 Prnvr nxm ..m MOORPARK CA 02/25/8, 93021 8600220' E33/09/8. 93023: 8400.60 12/18/8' 93021 8702015. 93021 8400328• 3021; 40x60 -? 93020 9400793 94022 9000603' RT 2002 -36 02.0 COUNTY OF VENTURA - ASSESSOR'S . M _: DATE: 11 /16/95 22:20 10021 512 -0 -220 -315 AMORELLI RICHARD -PAULA OFFICE PAGE NR: 313 TRA PARCEL NUMBER NUMERIC INDEX MOORPARK CA 03/30/84 9 g 1 3021 400349 3 M 10021 512.0 2fl 335 TAMAYO RASA NAME 03/28/84 93023 '84C1032g23 VC22507 633:LUCILLE CR MQQRPARK.�A 06/24/93 93021.. >934215269 - - _ - ADDRESS 09/16/93 I0021 52 0 2217 25 COOK PARI�IA C — DATE D5/29 92 9.3021 32009255 .7.. HEDRICH CATHERINE T 10021 693 <; LUCILLE CR MOORPARK CA 7�0 CHA�tLES �T 512 -0 231 015 PHAN HUNG VAN -HONG THU 10021 512 -0 -220 -265 WEST D AVID W- CATHERINE MQC7RPARK CA - 0/07/ 93021 34fl�.I,4; 31Cl.; S:;IRMA.B 10021 512 -0 -231 -035 721-:'S IR GEORGE CT MOORPARK CA C 758 CHARLES ST 10(321 512 C7 22fl 275 TIVEEiI ?MA'ItKH. NANT1rar:: m� MOORPARK CA 08/29/94 93021 940140229 4 zsa t sS N ZIQUGLAB 8 LAURA -694 Li�O'ILLE: :GIB 10021 512 -0- 220 -295 KOPROWSKI THOMAS A JR -SHERI MOORPARK CA 672 LUCILLE CR 10021 512 0 22{7 3a5 AI,Lf3IS HECTQR I€ PATRICIA MOORPARK CA 23 92 93021 920046777 . M _: 656 LUCILLE CR 10021 512 -0 -220 -315 AMORELLI RICHARD -PAULA CA . 04/D2/85 53021.,:860038922: A K 6�C3Ri�ARK 4 LUCILLE CR 10021 512 0 220 325 CARDIEL JOSE D_ LETICIA MOORPARK CA 03/30/84 9 g 1 3021 400349 3 M 10021 512.0 2fl 335 TAMAYO RASA 611 LUCILLE CT MO�RPARK CA 03/28/84 93023 '84C1032g23 E ;:. 10021 512 -0- 220 -345 PUCCIO DANIEL 633:LUCILLE CR MQQRPARK.�A 06/24/93 93021.. >934215269 D PUCCIO MERRILEE J 10021 655 LUCILLE CR MOORPARK CA 09/16/93 512: -fl 22fl 355. KRAMER 1d:,LIAM G . 93021 930171217 1(7021 512 4 220 365<ANHALT PEGGY 671 LUCILLE CR. MOORPARI CA D5/29 92 9.3021 32009255 .7.. HEDRICH CATHERINE T 10021 693 <; LUCILLE CR MOORPARK CA 11/17/.:94 512 -0 231 015 PHAN HUNG VAN -HONG THU 302 6 .. 1 9 4018528 100.21 512.;0 231 025 :STANLEY MARK 707 SIR GEORGE CT MOORPARK CA - 09/29/88 93021 880143097 S:;IRMA.B 10021 512 -0 -231 -035 721-:'S IR GEORGE CT MOORPARK CA P/87 93.021 MC ALEVEY RICHARD- YOLANDE N:70 870076:$15 10021 512 0 231 -045 MARTINEZ 735 SIR GEORGE CT MOORPARK CA 12/11/87 93021 870197358 JOSE F* ICING KAREN':A 749 SIR GERRGE CT 10021 512 0 231.E 055 LEE RICHA2D CAR£?L MOORPARK CA 93021 93014674$ 10021 512 -0 -231 -065 VON 7 63 SIR GEORGET MOORPARK CA QE/01/83 93.021 RUEDEN CHARLES -JUDY - 838055923,.:: 10021: 5123 2307�r f2IOS EFREN <.ET 777 SIR GEORGE CT MOORPARK CA 10/11/85 1 85 g 011598 AL X0021 .5.12 .;a 231-= 085.';�iAILFII+TGER;JAMES' SIB GEORGE 12f24/92 93(?21 g2.02342�5 D WEIfDY I, ,�57�6��II'T P 10021 512 -0 -231 -095 DE MATTEO JOHN W MOORPARK 93021 830147593 TONG MONYOU 1002I. `512 fl- 231 105 778 SIR GEORG CT 07/06/$3 93021 LIEDTi ELLEN ',�'R: 830072242 10021 512 0- 231 -115 ITURZAETA -764 SI:R GEORGE Ma0RPA13iC cA 93�323 RICHARD F -NANCY A 736 �5�7018668 10021 512 0- 231 125 ABBEY LEWIS SIR GEORGECT MOORPARR CA 09/14/87 930 9 C I0021 512 0'. 722. SIR GEORGE CT gORPARK CA- 09/15/932 :: AAiFID &..:ADD ; ":. .:::.::: ;•< ... ::.....: :::..::.;...;.•.::: >:.:::::::.: ; ... 10007 513 -0- 010 -054 UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIF 10007 513 7707 01022 CRAWFORD JOHN- DOROTHY 10006 513 -0 -022 -035 CALIFORNIA STATE OF '�� ATTN DEPT OF TRANSP 1013E3 513: -Q 022 065_: CALI:F QRN1A STATE ©E- CALTRANS M PO BOX 7600 LOS ANGELES CALIF PAGE NR: 317 VC22507 DATE 90054 0000 10/20/94 000 800 S .VICTORIA,::. AV VEtTURA`:GAL30Q9 01/.04/79 373.: 1450f1 L(18 AN t MOORPARK CA 93201 820097848 13991 LOS ANGELES AV MOORPARK CA 05/11/92 93021 920082698 14221 LOS ANGLES AV 04/1/82 MOORPARK CALIF 9302I 821303432. 1218 SOUTH G ST OXNARD CA 08/10/94 93033 940132540 14110 LOS ANGELES AV MOORPARK CA 03/01/89 J3021 : =$90E7 1145 112T N STREET SACRAMENTO CA3TF 11/1$/71 :. 0::091 120 S SPRING ST LOS ANGELES CA 06/27/90 90012 900095252 1120 .N STREET: SACRAMENTO CAi;1F ;11/1$/71 9$14 091 P O'BOX T01 MOORPARK CA 10/28/91 93021 910158423 120 S SPRING ST LOS ANGELES CA_ 11/12/91 90012 91o166152 142'21 LOS: ANGELES AV MOORPARK CALI I E39f14/59 21 930 :1777._418;.,.. 86 HARRY ST MOORPARK CALIF 04/18/70 93021 3706 352 P 0 BOX 3860 LAKE,: CA 05/10/79 9324{0 :5387 :::706 14276 LOS; ANGELES A3T MOORPARK CA (17/16f84 93[121. 8 A :Q778.Q.8: 14276 LOS ANGELES AV MOORPARK CA 07/16/84 93021 840077808 1428$ L OSANGELES MOQI2FARK OA 93(321 ?;555;;5:52 4 1294 LOSANGEES AST: MOORPARK CA 02/25/91 93021 910023461 751 NOGALES AVE MOORPARK CALIF 05/23/63 93021 2327 377_. 30055 TR�i�NF1? DR OAI PARK, CA £33.,/1,9I93 9I301 93t�009493.; 726 NOGALES AV MOORPARK CA 02/08/91 93021 91.0016394 726 NOGALES AV NOOORPARK A 02/08/91 3fl2 02008/91 > X05 OCEAN pR OXNARD CA 02J01/91 .. 93.Q35 97fl013411 r RT 2002 -36 02.0 COU NTY OF VENTURA - ASSESSOR'S OFFICE DATE: 11/16/95 22:20 NUM PAGE NR: ERIC INDEX 10066 513 -0 -031 -035 CH APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY OF FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS P O BOX 201 MOORPARK CALIF 93021 1114248 10066F513 0 -032 015 PRIETO ALBERT ET MOORPARK CA :..: ubT3j$ 93021 8600734 AL 10066 513 �} 032 X325OTO GtTAUALOtRE 14314 LOS ANGELES AV MOORPARK CA 12/04/9; 93021 9202205' E AL 1434Q L� ANGELES AV lOQ6:6 513 =£3 032 X35GEL 10066 513 0- 032 -035 LOPEZ SUSANO M(70RFliRK Chi 93021 939069G 10066 513 0 032 055;ARTIAGA 736 NOGALES AV MOORPARK CA 07/18/89 93021 8400789E 4007 ANTONIA V 4484 COLONIA AV VENTi NTY'.F�, rmzxr nrn,,, „.�.. 10!166 513 Q 0132 065 LOPEZ GAL R MOORE?ARK CA 10/19/88 93021 880:15832. 10066 513 -0- 032 -085 1:4152- ANGELES AVE HflORPARI CALIF . 02/21157 •:93023. BETANCOURT OSCAR- BELINDA HER LEONARD CELIA 3851 HITCH BL 3Ia.7 40:2 10066 513 Q 032 135 CALIFORNIA STATE MOO MOORPARK CA 93021 8801 OF.CALTRANS 1120P N STREIIT 10:066 513 {1 Q321:5 >AGiITRRE :LUPE:;::A SACRAIiENTO LIF 09/15/88s 95814 00003 OQC) 10066 513 0- 032 -155 HERNANDEZ 14452 I,S AAIGELES : ?AV MOORPARK CALIF 06727/77' 93021 4881 790 MANUEL S 14474 LOS ANGELES AVE 100:66 513 (1 OB2 185 WHITE S'T`EVEN P LORNA MOORPARK. CALIF 05/13/71 93021 3814 540 M 10066 513 -0- 032 -195 HERRERA JOSE 11305 E FITTMAN AV POa.ERVILLE CA 02/2$/95. 93257'95Q02313 R 191 FIRST ST 10066 513-0-032-205 HERRERA JOSE R MOORPARK CA 06/16/94 93021 940 10259' 191 FIRST ST 1006b 513 0 032 215`ELLETT LEE E G:ILLIAN MDORPARKCA 06/16/94 93021 >9401QZ59 14455 AVENIDA. COL, iNIA 10066 513 -0- 032 -225 *� VENTURA COUNTY FL MOQRPARI...CA 09f.3Q/8$. 93021 0143901 CTRL DIST ATTN R W AGENT 800 S VICTORIA AV lOQ6:6 513 =£3 032 X35GEL JtSE V ET VENTURA CA 93009 5231 851 100.5.6 513:0 02 245:: ATr:. 1 4 354 LOS ANG��ES Aw M3QRPAA 07/1/88: 9 3 VENTi NTY'.F�, rmzxr nrn,,, „.�.. 021 8801.F1 i 4z 2 Y 0 a 10066 W** -- =032 265'VENTURA COUNTY Fr. TAMASULO- LO+DOLCE JUDY IF - _ u.: 93009 52 BOOS VICTORIA AV u nirmrr. -.� _._ MOORPARK-C--A-. 80 cr O MOORPARK 2 09 m 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 9302# (805) 529 -6864 40 9 September 11, 1997 Lillian D. Jewell Hamner, Jewell & Associates Government Real Estate Services 3639 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 210 Ventura CA 93001 RE: Los Angeles Avenue East Dear Ms. Jewell: Enclosed is the information we discussed pertaining to the Los Angeles Avenue East ri ht -of -wa acquisition efforts. As we discussed, please submit a ro g y If you need to speak with me please call. p posal for services at your earliest convenience. Sin Kenneth C. Gilbert Director of Public Works PW/KCG9713I /LTRjoq /1 1/97 _ ■ PATRICKHUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Mayor Pro Tem CHRISTOPHER EVANS .DEBBIE RODGERS TEASLEY Councifinember JOHN E. WOZNIAK Councilmember Councilmember LOS Angeles Avenue East R —O —W Acquisiotion Page 1 Codes for Additional Easemen s R wired a 1 -Wall Only -- No Slope Easement 2 - Slope Easement Required 3 —Wall plus Slope Easement R -O -W Code Ap Number Re wired Area Take S. F Additional Easements Constr. Easemnt. A 512 -0- 160 -070 Yes See Codes See Codes) Required (Width) Owner Address ?� None ? Remarks Riddle,. Robert and Sharon 17304 Grace Ct Grass Valley, CA 95949 B 512 -0- 160 -730 No N/A None ? Riddle, Robert and Sharon 17304 Grace Ct C Grass Valley, CA 95949 512 -0- 160 -655 No N/A j None ? Riddle, Robert and Sharon 17304 Grace Ct D Grass Valley, CA 95949 512 -0- 160 -665 No N/A None ? VCFCD E 512 -0- 160 -645 No N/A None � VCFCD F 512 -0- 160 -635 - No NSA None � Conejo Ready Mix, Inc. 15203 Oxnard St Van Nuys CA 91411 G 512 -0- 160 -755 Yes 2 Conejo Ready Mix, Inca 15203 Oxnard St Van Nuys CA 91411 49 513 -0- 022 -015 Yes 7� 50 1 51 Patton, Patrick S 14110 E Los Angeles Ave, Moorpark, CA 93021 t t i. f Los Angeles Avenue East R -O -W Acquisiotion Page 2 .t Codes for Additional Ease nts R ired $ 1 - Wall only -- No Slope Easement 2 - Slope Easement Required 3 - Wall plus Slope Easement Additional Code AP Number R-O -W Take Easements Constr. Easemnt. ?? wired Area S.F See Codes Re uired (Widths Owner Address 52 513 -0- 022.100 ? ?? �� Remarks ' 53 2 ( ?) ? City of Moorpark City Parcel [93- 075577] Check width of R -O -W retained by Caltrans. More Needed? Need to Vacate? 54 513 -0- 022 -090 Yes ?? 513 -0- 022 -120 None ? City of Moorpark Future La Falda Ave [96-088341] 55 513 -0- 022 -110 Yes ?? Need to Vacate .some R -O -W to L A Ave? - 56 513 -0 -022 -065 2 ? Caltrans 57 513 -0- 022 -085 Freeway Property. La -Falda under the 58 513 -0- 022 -075* freeway no longer exists. Need to have 59 513 -0- 022 -075* Assessor change AP Map. 60 513 -0- 022 -xxx 6 6 0 -024 _ 5 _ 13 xxx Assessor shows. parcel City. Sig 67 513 -0- 022 -xxx Caltrans. 69 513 -0- 024 -135 Yes ?? 2 !. Carpenter, Charles 405 Ocean Dr Oxnard, CA 93035 71 513 -0- 024 -105 Yes ? ?` i 73 2 Hartman, Donald and Susan 75 t 77 30055 Triunfo Ave f 79 Oak Park, CA 91301 81 [ 83 513 -0- 024 -025 Yes ?? 2 ? Roman, Antonio and Maria 14276 E Los Angeles Ave { Moorpark, CA 93021 Los Angeles Avenue East r R —O -W Acquisiotion Page 3 e uired Codes for Additional Easements R a 1 - Wall Only -- No Slope Easement 2 - Slope Easement Required 3 - Wall plus Slope Easement Code R-O -W AP Number Re uired Take Area S.F Additional Easements See Codes Constr. Easemnt. Re 85 513 -0- 024-035 yes 7? �� uired_ (Widj Owner Address Remarks . 86 2 No Roman, Antonio and Maria 14276 E Los Angeles Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 88 513 -0- 024 -045 No N/A None No Rodriquez, Ernest 14288 E Los Angeles ave Moorpark, CA 93021 89 513 -0- 024 -075 No N/A None No Lopez, Pete 4294 E Los Angeles Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 90 91 513 -0- 032 -015 No N/A None No Prieto, Albert i 14314 E Los Angeles Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 92 513 -0- 032 -025 No N/A None NO Soto, Guadalupe, et al 14340 Los Angeles Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 95 513 -0- 032 -055 No N/A None No Artiaga, Antonia 14484 Avenida Colonia Moorpark, CA 93021 96 513 -0- 032 -065 No N/A None N0 Lopez, Gil 14352 E Los Ave Angeles g Moorpark, CA 93021 Los Angeles Avenue R —O -W Acquisiotion East Page 4 C 1-odes for Additional Easements Re wired - 1 Wall Only -- No Slope Easement 2 - Slope Easement Required 3 - Wall plus Slope Easement Code AP Number R -O -W Take Re wired Area Ar —S.� F Additional Easements fSee Codes Constr. Easemnt. Required 97 513 =0- 032 -235 No NSA ired (Wig , Owner / Address Remarks None No Rangel, Jose, et al 14364 E Los Angeles Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 101 513 -0- 032 -285 No 102 N/A None No Main, Douglas and Carol 14387 Avenida Colonia Moorpark, CA 93021 103 513 -0- 032 -265 No 104 N/A None No VCFCD 105 513 -0 -032 -215 No N/A None No Ellett, Lee and Gillian 14455 Avenida Colonic Moorpark, CA 93021 106 513 -0- 032 -145 No N/A None No Aguirre, Lupe 14452 Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 107 - 513- - 0 032 155 No N/A None No Hernandz, Manual 14474 E Los Angeles Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 108 513 -0- 032 -185 No N/A None No White, Steven nd Lorna 1005 E Putmam Ave Portervi•lle, CA 93257 H 513 -0- 010 -215 Yes ?? 1 ? Kavli, Fred 14501 E Los angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 d Los Angeles Avenue East R -O -W Acquisiotion Page 5 Codes for Additional Easements Re uired 1 - Wall Only -- No Slope Easement 2 - Slope Easement Required 3 - Wall plus Slope Easement Code AP Number R -aW Take Re aired Area S.F Additional Easements Constr. Easemnt. See Codes Required I 513 -0- 010 -205 R) ?? (Widthl Owner Address Remarks 1 VCFCD or Kavli 38' of R -O -W conveyed to the City (see 96- 069474). Is there a need to acquire 111 513 -0- 031 -025 Yes ?? more or vacate surplus? 112 113 3 ? Church, Apostolic Assembly of Faith in Christ Jesus P. 0. Box 201 Moorpark, CA 93021 114 513 -0- 031 -045 Yes ?? 3 ? Joyce, Randolf and Judith 31606 Saddeltree Drive Westlake Village, CA 91361 115 513 -0- 031 -065 Yes ?? 3 ? Villanueva, Roy nd Nora y 4886 Maureen Lane Size of parcel to be vacated? Moorpark, CA 93021 116 513 -0- 023 -035 Yes ?2 3 ? City of Moorpark See Report re: Tax Default Acquisition dated 2- 19 -97. R -O-W to be severed from 117 513 -0- 023 -025 Yes ?? remaining propoerty. 118 1 Lopez, Joe 86 Harry Street Moorpark, CA 93021 119 513 -0- 023 -015 No NSA 3 Velador, Albert and Raul 14221 E Los Angeles Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 J 513 -0- 020 -025 Yes ?7 1 ? Same as Parcel 119 ' Los Angeles Avenue East R -O —W Acquisiotion Page 6 Codes for Additional Easements R uired ' - 1 Wall Only -- No Slope Easement 2 - Slope Easement Required 3 - Wall plus Slope Easement CodeAP Nt�nber R -O -W Take Re uired Area S.F Additional Easements Constr. Easemnt, See Codes Required R 513 -0- 020 -035 Yes ?? Width) Owner Address ----- �_ Remarks 1 ? Hinostro, Robert & Vera 1218 S. "Gn St Oxnard, CA 93033 L N/A Yes ?? 1 120 N/A Caltrans Ref. 90- 0112055 Yes �� 3 � M Caltrans Ref. 90- 0177031 N/A Yes ?? 1 ? N Caltrans -Ref. 92- 0125616 513 -0- 010 -225 Yes ?? 3 _ ? Crawford, John and Dorothy 13991 E. Los Angeles Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 O 512 -0- 160 -300 Yes ?? 3 ? Chaidez, Ismael and Victoria 13931 E. Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 P 512 -0- 160 -525 Yes ?? 3 ? Fountainwood- Agoura 8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1036 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 4 512 -0- 160 -170 Yes ?? 3 ? May, Clifford and Christine 13853 E.-Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 R 512 -0 -220 -185 Yes ?? 3 Burg, Andrew and Barbara 800 Hedyland Ct le_e_troyr Moorpark, CA 93021 ` vvz - TO lb 7At i o ;3 Mkt 1L: ✓ u 13A �b fv 1 a Yn one S ZS O Co 03 3A 1 ION ' llt �1� Cf� i' 11 42` > q-TV4. 1 bl� .N o o � 3 .aj 4�1 i to d0 � < !Tt / I o• 190 P • s1 ?�0- 512 -0- 160_525 512 -0 -160 -170 0` 512 pay -- 220, las oa .n 512 -0-- 160 -300 512- 0-16p102 p 512 -0- —_- .160 -635 C y y 512`0 - 160 -730 ` 512 -0 -160 -655 0 0 rn 512-0-160-75.5 �+ 2 y LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST llcr- - •- .��. � -•-~= ^� �_______ ,.�,� CITY OF .� A LOS ANGELES AVENl1F deer -- MnnRpaQ� --� - .�. - - c 0 0 512-0-160 -300 eM I=u — tip CA 5'3-0-010-225 920125616 WIN 52 53 1 — I � — 54 56 57 58 MIND LOS ANGELES AVENUE AST af CAJ t .. ....... .. CITY LQ:; ilijjlp;ELES AVENUE EAST STA. 11+12.49 -M lZrA - _ -- LEEGEIo ® want. LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST CITY OF LOS ANGELES AV;7w.r- �.,_ LECEM ® M anc usorr i.TM m e000 ?t � T CITY OF "`" MOORPARK L05 ANGELES AVENUE EAST �— ""` "' sm 19+00.00 TO Sm. 38+00.00 �. — RIGHT OF WAY PLANS f- lJOH. 1 RAC 1- L NA HO SIMI, POR. SEC 4 M "' 5 /3 30 r T 2N.,R.19t�! .'57936 ' x/05 96 l'Laraioa AVE. Tax Rate Area q 512 0-0 // N76 °30E2B979 100c65 10005 . --16 '' 10066 )0006 8 \ ` ? o "'A —Z ,t� rrPM23 V4Cor. f 10067 /0007 n ;+ In See. o a • _'I �. 24 - 54 " 6.10 Ac X646(5A, a� ^I 7.56Ac. 10039 41.82Ac. e s9't,Eira scHEq�LE s� �. q Y 63 \�seafti s 10061 eEAR, d% �. %✓6'.9./7 5 l F. /Jb• L -oc?v D°I Sd w. 329. 2 N37°J9S9£ 1 SSE 872- 56 -24 -6 �6s' f +:\ m�a. y 20 J N3z°ooktw bz. O 18.06Ac. a1.Ir 1.37��ry 15446 � \ 4 3. /r./eJ• Je16 920' o`rr,,,.�� / °.y♦ 7 SM Si Ie'W 3z06' so°w'` 16 1©1694/24/ \ \`3c'i 4ez m \ o3irW S O _ 0•0 %N +3o/z ,9 2 20.0 z 780.6 2' <36 075 2.07Ac. h 3.49Ac. 6 ` to �01 \ e sn•J3YlW slsi' �9 — �- ��8 76 aoo• NJt3° ?0' M �. \ 9 se9•z1191 a.9 p O.53) ) s/s -1 +m rotsc• •� �.� •' H��n Te' I5.61Ac. > ° 6L3�5 Ac.s, ti DETAIL r: .'� : e 67 Nsewr Zw �� �' tYGSD•2i /) w (SIR LANCE) S86'872 56-24- O7 ti ti-MDYLANO COURT I •^I` 72 e = V '• I ry0 ^ II-- •�, \ ' Sid, tO.\. I h r_ \\ �22 66130 I I 910 TRACT ° .'. 70.86A-- 3B At -Z 58 0 I T coJ�t 1 I � - •� • Act � N j" X713. J' 2723 TRac r DETA1�. r 4095 Scale ! -200 51 0 7..D3.j� 14 SIR GEORGE C J - (`lJr� �; 17 !u .... S.OAc. -..- "" L _. - NW cot o _ 153. _ mot-" _27D3.90 74 ✓ b` -�' SP1?1N i I 74 Aa It 15 1 U 7 s ° °• _ 1 so »'ft't 12 S•�Ac � a + +' � 1� 2 MOOR 1� R ' NE Cor, Lo/ 19, 5 RM 37 � r. 6 3 'o t zx KECuPot / PARK RD. 11yJ+ �/p�) � ! ® m b ii 2/ c - o � 600' 4 0l A O3 3a9e' 00'1.97Ac, o so I oo• 17 Iz1.J1 •. H + °JL I 60 MOfS'PRN �r ss I S.W. con. Lpry In W 2 hOre: /ssESSpq►Anc2t.3sr x T� d.IEO�M�77m p�p�1�COkTifNWt EGA�5LOTS o, Poindexter Sub , Por• TractL ,RanchoS1mi,R.M.BkS,Ag•Svv1E„as � roSR arsoFV,cEOn too, Rancho Simi, R.M,Qk.3,Pg•7 CITY OF. C 1 Fry 9'oce N Urnb . . Asses !Np 5/2 �A _�- ...._. Assessor,5 aorta/ Numbers Shown In fu/vses P Bk. , Pg.16 (ALL PAIZC�) Assessor• o C,,,' County Of s M•agrpl 4V"T'6 s Shown in Ventura, Calif s Gam` POR. TRACT J, RANCHO SIMI POR SEC. 3, T 2 N. R.19 W Tax Rate Area 10067 513-01 33 3a. 10007:. SIMI VALLEY FREEWAY 1 "• (HWY 300• . ll8) 32RS 38 taosr sz6 _Y!�' Ne7 •.!'Se'e _ 677.1 . 'i M13.01 .0�C 6U,10 ^!M 1730' • =IN NID•J6'► �• i\ 1619 6M.26' M11•t616i !! �� • q DOVf RD. _.. 310.26 4 ry Q a° 4.78Ac, a ne 52.81 AC L`s7 —j ^ �1 / TRACT O6 3492. h� 2 j. M01•!JT 4.0 LOS W 021 ►; 1 / $rt�'.� J' NeD•!i'y JOT. 11' n� (� ,``MRICS O / ! •mot >.. 'n u �'� A 0-$ 003 99.6> ♦ _= N61.06'2e'C afmo DOS c• �'• . � �J Mef•!1'w JOD' RLfJO= 66CR0076 153.00S. 2Stl DOVE RD J $ J6q oos 3101 MORNING ANGELES �- RESLIB 02 0 1 COLONIA -j Lay CITY OF M00RPARK VIRGINIA 1 03 TRACT All �'�15) VLnturo County Airs Mop. � '� �AnlDww; Aroci M'm°6r* S+ww� N Er' 2` Aubsat AINWW Ak.,,,. tz a hpy Par. Rancho ORAwN 5pq"` Bk. 3 Pg, 7 REDRA,3N T L CNEtxED Simi R. M. -1 Norc �tuesson »I��s DATF a. 0N[pC yt0e6T1rt/ti t0Ti ( I rNKEC T L )6'BT n�rI11Ne dw1aN ro YOits °•Dlc! oR IEFFECTIVEBZ_ga KRIa I PREVIOUS BK. 513. AG. O' f L C°mo S B* i lv., rr. ry W. b, d, d. c% lvi. _....:. 10066 5,0 .. 10006 513 -0-020-035 0 I J Visfc Dr vocored Per 820034372 h \ryh /zo w < ^" n /O! o Foo \�' tin ra SGr! HWT PER 9MI77031 • W 0 N s .IOfl YFI 31 RS 65 Z¢ 31 RS 65 ~s �•. IR.J75 _q5 5Y /YBT 7;irJ 1'ry: 1 1 •.a s. •. �NS•n h `l I / LO 1 stirs , n.en as rc J,I,.Jr•�a� /Ja, J ANGELES ,...� ,o .a. Yra, 1, f; ' /s i !/•r.� to ]n i J: ; ii✓y •U. AJ/ ra.r .te.r 1 f...r .. e, 1: rr� ✓r- + o'- `,F. 023 �yQ _ _ tss •_a'm_� j 010 I . 12. , 11 !� O O I V v0.kc.°. 'r'rw r •Yi �.r�^ 6b0 /mod• O S/2 a vl 50 5/ H SI of 53 •S4 �S5 S6 57 5d *� 59 ✓'~ /i.;; •• 7 �Y �. i'.4 aooil� 49 \I O 11 �i ` y er I 1 fi 1. sol 02 P �� « • �y,/ �' 6 �,. 13 0`•ra:r LA FAL` ©A AVE. , / �ti 6� .F. •'..t J.v z:r'a/.c,. . ' k1 jI% / .., • ) 1 ' /r .. �.. .r .!fir .. %�•ti � tt �5/ �3 /,• = V -.,, . ``y, � 0 g e �` rro sr r,wv P[R b l_ 50/ 6/ 1 1 rz soosa t 52 I 5A $�2 F ° /£ornp^ / \ >�yy / �^ - J� .:� •°' sr e e i.. 6'c QVF �,., 1 �'.,/ 6° \ de "j z.o9Ac%��:r ,'' r <). '�, AVE. HWY 118 / V104 •cr,• I /4 `'7 y/ Comp. 02 4 P) . ++��t.,.1,•k., /h \ +, t Vs 03 LQ ,n(�1 tr r+� %� it �d �6 / `� 0 es. i R r�i.li�Y� - 9•� / `4/ d 1d /b' �h0 11y 0ed80 iQ / o 8 ♦ 1 FIQom' 11 � � � � 1 S A '67 12 • lU '� COLON/A C l r CAu. PARC_F.S Rancho Simi, R.M. Sk. 3, Pg.7 NOTE: ASSESSORPARCEISSHOWKpNTHI3PAOE .�"� YE°E z.RI`.` ° "S'fT ° "`E " " °TT CITY OF MOORPARK CHECK WITH OOUHrY SURVEYOR'S. OFrICE OR PIAHHMO DIVISION TO VERIFY Colonic Virginia Tr. Re -Sub. , R. M. Bk. 20, Pg. 33 Assessor' is M0P Bk.513 , Pp. 02 NOTE- Assessors 610ck Numbers Sho. n in Ellipses Assessor's Parcel Numbers Shorn in OlrcleT County of Ventura, Calif. QL M POR. TR. /,RANCHO SIMI l• r� POR. SEC. 3 , T 2 N. R. /9 W. S B. B. & A4. Tax Rate Area leee6 513-o3 0/ 70066 NB9 "P/ w, /AO 507. ,3'/ • - ' 31 Rq 6.q V © O 03/ Y3 31R ^sn li Z , "•,a / TRACT �D All 4 N O /p 1/2 31 RS 6 \�� O i:v'ta7 t • t r Y I' `,� _ M1 JI ° MORNING ROAD 0 a • 4%I J7: 1 Nay. , , LOS •.2/ E. 3nJ.n 4f2o �,sJ.a o.oi ' ANGELES `n. AVE. !3 B, • yc. 10 * se' I .sn - so se .ra �' .rna a `� .s•: p•/"� ,h •�� l3 O O 22 4 1/01 1 h .rn I O v K ` � � * O � 5 • 1 �' b�® 'UF� ' ` .t : /p3 0 +, . 21 • O l�0 ; /0 9/ 4 Q° 2 I I 3492 Q 9 2 / ry - 30 X0 ! I 104 O 10 I0 AVENlDA OB 032 rOLONIA 9 & r•• 111 1 0 2 c1 0 �.•, fz fn COLON/A " 35 : AI Vi cl• .6 IJ „• Jv 3° J Jl.Ia Jt. � 1 e•elA?Q /9 A Vdo El8 N Ih D! r A Jo � r1 r � 9 z 10 12 6 so Jrt7 n O lr r2 to 79 13 as h 4 033 6 H 15 ' .J / % t, •, •�•,o � • a.1 e, s,t • .. a R .of•Ut+1•7•7�.7 f ' - t 20 s• ^ �n Y`xT n f ^ J re S•PR.R• R1w (ALL PAeCELS) 05 • Rancho Simi R.hi Bk. 3,0g. 7 r+o, e. �sewon vµ�tl.s s,aMn . yy,x¢t Colonia , Vir ginia +witon. Tr. Re -Sub. AMM =YG ..,l.,;,, 'o qm�r: v XX OR R. M. Bk. 20, Pg. 33 - -.•- - CITY OF MOORPARIC Assessors Mop Bk.513 , Pg. 03 County of Ventura, Calif. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Steve Kueny, City Manager FROM: Ken Gilbert Director of Public Works DATE; June 21, 1997 SUBJECT; L A East 1. Final Draft Design is 99% complete. 2. I would like to take the design to the Street Comm July 28. The purpose of the meeting would be ittee on discuss and explain the design; describe the La Falda access road construction; [I have asked Dirk for an ASA -co for the cost to design] La Falda access road construction to the describe an option which would eliminate the reconstruct the driveway need to relocating their access to L r Iron Mt Forge by approval .describe efforts required . to a seek and obtain Caltrans of the construction to occur within the freeway right -of -way (under the describe the location and extend of the cut slopes fill slopes; pes and describe the location and height of the retaining etaining describe location and extent of the required right-of- 3, ht way acquisition; g of- 3. It is my plan to distribute copies of the draft desi n the committee (and to Council) on July 23; g to �. If all goes well at the Committee level I would ho take this to the City Council in August for a hope to of the preliminary design and authorization to proceed l with right -of -way acquisition. proceed with 5. In a.. separate Memo relinquishment is disto you the matter of Highway necessar cussed. I .believe that it is y to complete that transaction before we can Proceed with the subject project. stv\la est retain Appendix 2 Los Angeles Avenue East Alignment Study NOV i CITY OF MOORPARK OFFICE OF CITY MA"I_A�_j LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST ALIGNMENT STUDY FROM STATION 0 +51 TO STATION 37 +67 (FROM 1500 FEET EAST OF SPRING ROAD TO HAPPY CAMP CANYON) FOR ( THE CITY OF MOORPARK — -- — — — -- SIMI VALLEY ANGELES 1 HIGH ST PRO, Zo a SITE LOS ANGELS N NEW AV ANGELS August 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS t. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......... 1 II. INTRODUCTION r A. Background ........................................... 1 B. Scope........ ... .................. ............3 i 1111. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT I ............................. ..... 3 A. Topography ....... ............................... 3 B. Design Criteria ......................................... 4 IV. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 4 A. Description and Purpose ........................... .R 4 1. Alignment Alternative 1 ............................... 2. Alignment Alternative 2 5 ..... 3. Interim Roadway Section 5 B. ................. ..... Other Alignment Alternatives 5 C. .......... . . . . . Cost Estimate 5 D. ......... ............................... Summary 8 .. ............................... 9 V. CONCLUSIONS IRECOMIIENDATIONS LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map Figure 2: ............... Typical Sections (Alternative 1) 2 Figure 3: ......... .... Typical Sections (Alternative 2) g ......... , , 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary Preliminary Cost Estimate ......................... g \028059B.RPT\dc i j APPENDIX A. Alignment Plan (Alternative 1) Right -of -Way Plan (Alternative 1) Alignment Plan (Alternative 2) Right -of -Way Plan (Alternative 2) B. Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate, Ultimate (Alternative ) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate, Interim (Alternative 1) Preliminary Right -of -Way Cost Estimate (Alternative 1) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate, Ultimate (Alternative 2) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate, Interim (Alternative 2) Preliminary Right -of -Way Cost Estimate (Alternative 2) C. Preliminary Hydrology Study and Storm Drain Design D. Geotechnical Investigation Report 1991, with only one lane in each direction and a two way left turn lane. This portion and the remaining easterly 1,800 feet is proposed to be re- aligned and widened (see project location map). B. Scope The objective of this study is to evaluate different alignment alternatives and recommend the most feasible one to the City, along with sufficient information so that a sound decision can be made on which course of action to take in improving the traffic flow and capacity. The following tasks were performed to obtain information necessary for the study: Review of available data, maps, as well as the plans and specifications approved for construction for the westerly 1,900 feet of the subject project. For the easterly 1,800 feet, perform field survey to generate a topography and to obtain all existing features. For the westerly 1,900 feet, use available maps and plans from City and County. For the easterly 1,800 feet, perform geotechnical investigation including sampling and laboratory testing to determine required soil properties, and make recommendations on pavement thickness; retaining wall design; and excavation and embankment requirements. For the westerly 1,900 feet, use available reports and information. Develop an alignment which best meet the technical, economical, and environmental criteria. Prepare a preliminary hydrology study to determine the drainage improvements required. Develop preliminary right -of -way required including area of each parcel to be acquired and search for ownership information. Prepare .preliminary right -of -way and construction cost estimate. Ill. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT A. Topography �3 The subject highway, which runs east and west, is located in a mountainous \028059B.RPT \dc 3 r area that contains a series of hills and canyons with elevation differentials reaching to approximately 100 feet between top of slopes on the north and toe of slopes on the south. Existing topography slopes steeply from the north side of the highway to the south up to about 100 %0 (1 horizontal to 1 vertical). Homes adjacent to the highway are built in a traditional manner. , In most cases, those on the north side requires a cut into the existing slope, and those on the south side requires a fill onto the existing slope due to the steepness of the original grade and the large pad area necessary for the ' individual house. B. Design Criteria In order to satisfy the agencies involved, the design criteria includes • An ultimate section of four lane divided roadway with 88 feet right -of- way, which includes a 14 -foot median, four 12 -foot lanes, two 8 -foot parking lanes and two 5 -foot sidewalks. • An interim section of two lane roadway with two 12 -foot lanes a two i way left turn lane and two 8 -foot right shoulders. • To meet road standards of both the City and Caltrans. • To meet design speed peed and sight distance standards of Caltrans. • To meet - drainage standards of the City, Ventura C Control District and Caltrans. ounty Flood • To minimize impact to existing residences es along the highway. To minimize removal and re- construction, and make full use of constructed items in all stages of improvement. W. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS A. Description and Purpose The following is a discussion of two viable alignment alternatives for the ' improvement of the highway that will increase the roadway capacity and improve the ease of driving: \0280598. RP'r\dc 4 1 1. Alignment Alternative 1 The layout for this option, as can be seen on the map, basically follows the existing alignment of the highway. This alignment will maintain the same curve radii but will widen the roadway equally to both north and south of the existing centerline to provide a four lane roadway throughout the entire length. Design speed and sight distance will be the same as the existing highway. 2. Alignment Alternative 2 The layout for this option as shown on the map generally will widen from the existing southerly right -of -way to the north in some places and widen to both sides in others to provide a four lane roadway throughout the entire length. Most curve radii will be improved so as the design speed and the sight distance. 3. Interim Roadway Section An interim roadway section for both alignment alternatives will provide a two lane roadway with right shoulders, and a median two way left turn lane for left turn movements into cross streets and driveways. The width of the existing right -of -way of the westerly 1,400 feet (Sta 0 +51 to Sta 14 +50) is 60 feet which is wide enough to accommodate the interim section (54 feet), the remaining 2,300 feet (Sta 14 +50 to Sta 37 +67) has only a width of 50 feet, so additional right -of -way is necessary for the interim improvement. More right -of -way is required for the ultimate improvement (88 feet), areas required from each parcel for different alignments are shown on the maps. B. Other Alignment Alternatives There are other alignments that were examined during the process of this study, but the extra costs, the inability to construct, extensive impact on existing homes, and other physical and environmental constraints did not warrant further review. \02805913.RPT \dc 5 FIGURE 2 E RAW 88' RAW EXISTING 241 8' 12' 14' 12' 8' 10' HL T.L. TWLT T.L. SHL INTERIM SECTION R/W 88' RAW ;51 ;PK. :12' 12' 14' 12' :12:' 8' ' T.L. T.L. TWLT T.L. T.L. PK. ULTIMATE SECTION ALTERNATE 1 TYPICAL SECTIONS LOS ANGELES AVE. EAST 6 s FIGURE 3 R/W 88' R/W VARIES 14 xl TIN 27' 8' j 12' 14' 1 12' 8' 7• MAX. tHL T.L. TWLT IT.L. I rHLIf Ir STA 0 +51.03 TO 8 +30.92 INTERIM SECTION R/W 88' R/W EXISTING 11 VARIES 7' 8' L, 12' 1, 14' 1, 12 8' 27' HL T.L. TWLT T.L. SHL �MAX. STA 10 +56.83TO 19 +67.65 INTERIM SECTION R/W 88' R/W 5' 8' 12' 12' 14' 12' 12' 8' PK. T.L. T.L. TWLT T.L. T.L. PK. STA 0 +51.03 TO 8 +31.89 ULTIMATE SECTION R/W 88' R/W 12' 12' 8' PK. T.L. T.L. TWLT T.L. T.L. PK. STA 10 +59.70 TO 19 +63.90 ULTIMATE SECTION R/W 88' R /y� VAF EXISTING V S -144* 1 8' 11 12' 1, 14' 12' 8' 30 IN H( T.L. TWLT T.L. SHL MIN. STA 19 +67.65 TO 24 +00 INTERIM SECTION R/W 88' R/W VARIES XI TIN 'ARIES 30' 8' 12' 14' 12' 8' MIN. HL T.L. TWLT T.L. HL MI 4. STA 26 +00 TO 37 +67.65 INTERIM SECTION R/W 88' R/W 2' 12' 8' P T.L. T.L. TWLT T.L. K. T.L. PK. STA 19 +67.65 TO 24 +00 ULTIMATE SECTION R/W 88' R/W 5' 8' 12' 12' 14' 12' 12' 8' T.L. j TWLT T.L. T.L. JPK. STA 26 +00 TO 37 +67.65 ULTIMATE SECTION ALTERNATE 2 - TYPICAL SECTIONS LOS ANGELES AVE. EAST 7 Lam.,: •� �: �� cam! • \tJ Jam. C. Cost Estimate tion and The following table shows a comparison of the relative co str ccosts for right -of -way costs of the two alignment alternatives. Detail construction, and right -of -way cost for individual parcels are shown in the appendix. Incidental costs, which may occur during the processing y of these alternatives, are not included at this early stage because f the I determining exactly what costs may apply. The estimates are based strictly on tangible costs incurred by each option. TABLE 1 SUMMARY PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Alignment Alternative 1 Item Description Total Cost Interim Ultimate Construction $1,936,068 $3,201,956 Right -of -way $2,667,725 $2,667,725 Total: $4,603,793 $5,869,681 (including Interim) Alignment Alternative 2 Item Description Total Cost ( Interim Ultimate Construction $2,204,205 $3,472,679 Right -of -way $1,790,248 $1,790,248 Total $3,994,453 $5,262,927 ncding Interim) Note: 1) Unit costs developed using 1994 Contract Cost Data of Caltrans. 2) Right-of-way unit costs ollar value, adjustments must be made to obtain future dollar 3) All costs are 1995 value. \028059B.RPT \dc 8 i i D. Summary ! There are various arguments that can be made for any of the two alternatives presented. The following summary of advantages and disadvantages gives some insight to the principal concerns and issues: Alternative 1: i Advantages: • minimizes excavation into the existing slopes (15,499 cubic yards); minimizes the amount of retaining walls (1,070 linear feet); minimizes the average square footage of right -of -way to be acquired from privately owned properties (2,559 square feet per parcel); and lower construction cost. Disadvantages: lower design speed due to smaller curve radii; • more privately owned properties affected (48 parcels); seven building structures will have to be demolished, rebuilt, or relocated; and • higher right -of -way cost. Alternative 2: Advantages: higher design speed due to larger curve radii; less privately owned properties affected (27 parcels); no demolition of homes; and • lower right -of -way cost and overall costs. Disadvantages: • more excavation into the existing slopes(21,008 cubic yards); more retaining walls (1,555 linear feet); • higher average square footage of right -of -way to be acquired from privately owned properties (4,846 square feet per parcel); and • higher construction cost. \028059B.RPT \dc 9 V. CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS Through this study, the feasibility of widening the existing highway is determined, advantages and disadvantages of different alignment alternatives are compared. It is judged ed that a four lane divided roadway can be constructed to better i 9 serve the area by increasing capacity, and improving the ease of driving. s a Although alignment alternative 1 is a possible means of addressing the problem, it requires demolition of four existing homes, and a higher overall cost, it is, therefore, recommended that alignment alternative 2 be used to improve this stretch of highway. it is also recommended that right -of -way be acquired to the ultimate width even for the interim improvement in order to save time and to avoid repeated effort. \028059B.RPT\dc 10 v M E M O R A N D U M The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of p DATE: ub11c Works November 151 1995 SUBJECT: LOS Angeles Avenue Alignment Study [East] SIP,, �- Introduction Attached is a reconstruction of Los of the draft Alignment Stud 1500' east of S Angeles Avenue from a p for the southerly Spring Road to a Point approximately end of Condor Drive, point in the vicinity of the Discussion A. Summar of Stud .Contents 1• Prior. Project: The stud Angeles Avenue which was ythe esubject aof that the construction of a center turning or pion of Los the cement batch prior project for of due to conflicts with , That pro g lane in the vicinity ed project was never constructed freeway connector project. 2. Limits: The limits of the stud easterly end of the full width street area extend from the Of Chuey� to the s restaurant, easterly p menu Condor Drive. dust east improvements at the south end of full width street 3. Alternates: The stud summarized as follows: y Includes two alternate alignments • Alternate #1: Alternate #2; existing centerline unchanged • north to ultimate centerline to be lessen the requirement for moved to the residential properties on the south side Ofh the tstree of 4• Alignment.: Included in the stud t (Sheet 1 & 2) showing the alignment for Alternate full. plan sheets plan sheets (Sheet 1 & 2) showing the alignment for 5• Right -of -Way; Also included in the study .sheets (Sheet 3 & 4 dy are two .full Alternate #1 and two full showing the right-Of-way Plan the right -of_wa plan sheets (Sheet 3 required ) sho for y required for Alternate #2, ) showing la_esU Los Angeles Avenue [East] Alignment Study November 1995 Page 2 6. Right -of -Way Needs: • The existing right -of -way in the study area is fifty and sixty feet (50' 601) wide. • The width of the recommended full width street improvements is eighty -eight feet (881). The width of interim improvements (described below) is fifty -four feet (541). Note: Even though the width of the interim improvements is less than 601, the recommended alignment will requires the acquisition of right -of -way at certain locations. 7. Ultimate Improvements: Each alignment plan shows the recommended location for full width improvements within an eighty -eight feet (881) wide right -of -way. The recommend street improvements are described as follows four 12' wide travel lanes; one 14' wide center paved median; two 8' wide Bike Lanes; • curb and gutter and, • two 5' wide sidewalks. There are no provisions for parkways. 8. Interim Improvements: Each alignment plan also shows the recommended location for the construction of interim improvements within the proposed full width, eighty -eight feet (881) wide, right -of -way corridor. The recommended interim improvements are described as follows: • two 12' wide travel lanes; • one 14' wide center paved median; and, • two 8' wide unpaved shoulders. B. Right -of -Way Acquisition The total estimated cost for right -of -way acquisition is as follows: 1. Alternate #I: Interim: $0.3 million $2,4 million . Ultimate: $2,7 million 2. Alternate 12: Interim: $0.2 million $1.6 million . Ultimate: $1.8 million la_est2 f • Los Angeles Avenue [East] Alignment Study November 1995 Page 3 C. Construction The total estimated cost os follows: 1• Alternate 11: Interim: $1.6 million 51.6 mil7;on Ultimate: $3.2 million 2. Alternate 12: • Interim: $1.9 million 51.6 mill'on Ultimate: $3.5 million D. Total Pro'ect Cost Estimate The total estimated project cos 1. Alternate 11: R O W . Interim• construction is summarized as is summarized as follows: nstr Total 0.3 $1.6 $1.9 Ultimate: $2.7 1.6 4.0 $3.2 $5.9 mullion Interim: 2. Alternate 12: -OW Constr To 0.2 $1.9 $2.1- - Ultimate: $1.8 1.6 3.2 $3.5 $5.3 million E. Recommended Alternate Of the two studied alternate ali nments, the City staff recommend Alternate #2, Engineer and F. Two Lanes vs Four Lanes The City Traffuc engineer future traffic needs in this area performed Based on the model, which includes the existin General cursory analysis of neral Plan area plus other Possible traffic generators (i. e' - concluded that ultimate traffic olumeeonC the street would result in some relatively minor traffic con �' he has peak hours. segment When and if a second east -west arterial lstreetlis constructed (i.e. Spring Road north), reason, the additional cost oit is his Opinion that f four lanes would no longer occur. For this is not warranted.p la est2 Los Angeles Avenue [East] Alignment Study November 1995 Page 4 SUMMARY This matter will be discussed by the Transportation and Streets Committee at their next meeting. The matter will then be brought forward for City Council consideration. cc: City Manager Assistant City Engineer la esU Appendix 3 Staff Reports, Agenda Reports and Prior Council Actions TO: FROM: DATE: AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK The Honorable City Council f Kenneth C. Gilbert Director of Public Works April 13, 1999 (Council Meeting 4- 21 -99) SUBJECT: Consider Resolution No. 99 - Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for the Los Angeles Avenue [East] Widening Project. OVERVIEW This presents for approval the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for a project to widen and improve Los Angeles Avenue from South Condor Drive Westerly to a Point East of the Intersection of Spring Road and High Street. BACKGROUND On March 17, 1999, the City Council opened a public hearing on the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. Subsequent to receipt of input at the public hearing, the City Council closed the public hearing and continued the subject matter to April 21, 1999, to discuss responses to comments received and to take action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. DISCUSSION A. Project History The City Council has taken the following actions with respect to the subject project: 1. Approved the future roadway alignment for Los Angeles Avenue East to shift the centerline to the north (Alt. #2). 2. Approved a corridor width for this street segment of eighty- eight feet (88') -- a street width wide enough to accommodate possible ultimate street improvements to include the following: • four 12' wide travel lanes; • one 14' wide raised landscaped center median; l Q L. A. Ave. [East] April 13, 1999 Page 2 Negative. Declaration • two 8' wide Bike Lanes; • curb and gutter; and, • two 5' wide sidewalks. 3. Approved the conceptual design for the construction of earthwork and retaining walls for the project, sufficient to accommodate the above described ultimate improvements 4. Directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preparation of a preliminary design for the required earthwork and retaining walls, in order to determine the limits of the right -of -way acquisition required for the project. 5. Directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preliminary design for the construction of street improvements within the above described corridor, which would provide for only one travel lane in each direction, said street improvements more particularly described as following • two 12' wide travel lanes; • 8' of paved surface beyond the sideline in each direction; • one 14' wide center paved median (total pavement width of 38') ; and, • two 8' wide unpaved shoulders. 6. Considered alternative retaining wall designs (concrete retaining wall, interlocking block and crib walls) and directed the City Engineer to prepare " retaining wall easements of a size sufficient to accommodate any of the design alternates presented. 7. Directed staff to proceed with the title work, engineering work and appraisal work necessary to prepare the final Deeds for all of the right -of -way required, and to determine estimated cost of said acquisition. Project Scope This project requires the acquisition of additional street right -of -way (approximately 30 parcels) and the realignment and reconstruction of the street to provide two travel lanes, a center paved median and additional pavement width for bicycles and pedestrians. Retaining walls will be required on the north side of the street. C. Compatibility with the Circulation Element The subject Element as L_A_East2_Neg segment is designated in the City's Circulation a Rural Collector. The proposed improvements, L. A. Ave. [East] Negative Declaration April 13, 1999 Page 3 including the possible widening of the road to four lanes, is consistent with the description of a Rural Collector set forth in the Circulation Element of the Moorpark General Plan. The proposed project is, therefore, compatible with the General Plana D. Project Status 1. Retaining Wall Design: A survey has recently been completed to provide the engineer with information required to prepare the final draft design for the retaining walls. This information is required in order to determine the dimensions of the retaining wall easements to be acquired. It is anticipated that the limits of the retaining wall easements will be determined by April. 2. Record of Survey A Record of Survey is being prepared to facilitate the preparation of legal descriptions for the street right -of -way deeds and the retaining wall easements. It is anticipated that the Record of Survey will be recorded by April. 3. Deeds: Upon recordation of the Record of Survey the Engineering Department will proceed with the preparation of legal descriptions for all of the deeds for the required street right -of -way and retaining wall easements. It is anticipated that the required Deeds will be prepared by May. At that time total area of the properties to be acquired will be known and a final estimate of right -of -way acquisition costs can be determined. At present right -of- way acquisition costs are estimated to be approximately $1 million. 4. Right -of -Way Agent: It is the intent of staff to solicit proposals for, and ultimately recommend the selection of a firm to provide land acquisition services for this project. It is anticipated that a recommendation on this matter will be presented to the City Council by June 5. Title Work: It will also be necessary to retain the services of a firm to provide preliminary title reports and ultimately Policies of Title Insurance for all of the right - of -way parcels and retaining wall easements acquired. 6. Appraisals: It is anticipated that services for a property appraiser will also be required. L_A_East2_Ne9 L. A. Ave. [East] April 13, 1999 Page 4 7• Schedule: completion 06- 01 -99: 07- 01 -99: 07- 01 -99: 12- 01 -99: 06- 01 -00: 06- 01 -00: Negative Declaration A tentative schedule of the anticipated dates of for certain-tasks, is listed as follows: Record of Survey recorded; legal descriptions prepared; right -of -way agent retained; final design complete; all rights -of -way acquired; and project ready to advertise for bids. E. Negative Declaration 1• Background: The City retained a consultant (The Planning Corporation) to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment for this project. This document was prepared and distributed in a manner consistent with the requirements of both the City and State CEQA Guidelines and NEPA regulations. The document was distributed to the public on February 17, 1999. Comments were solicited from the public, relevant local and regional agencies, and from other parties that may have an interest in this matter. 2. Project Summary: The City of Moorpark Public Works Department has initiated planning and design work to implement street improvements to a portion of Los Angeles Avenue from a point east of the Spring Road /High Street intersection, easterly to Condor Drive. These improvements include pavement widening, acquisition of - right -of -way for - possible future four lanes, construction of retaining walls, street construction and overlay, installation of curb and gutter and other improvements. The programmed improvements and estimated areas of land acquisition are described and illustrated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study / Environmental Assessment. Land acquisition on portions of about 30 parcels is required to implement the project. 3• copy of Document: A copy of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment has been distributed to the City Council under separate cover. 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has also been prepared as required by CEQA guidelines. A copy of that plan is attached as Exhibit 1. 5. Document Review: The proposed undertaking is not exempt from CEQA or NEPA and is considered a project for the purposes of environmental review. Therefore, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment was prepared and circulated for a period of 30 days. L_A East2_Neg L. A. Ave. [East] Negative Declaration April 13, 1999 Page 5 6. Comments Received: All of the written comments received on the subject document are attached as Exhibit 2. 7. Responses to Comments: All of the proposed written responses to comments are included in Exhibit 2. 8. Findings: Certain Findings . are required to be made by the City Council prior to the adoption of the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. A draft list of those findings are attached as Exhibit 'A' to the approving Resolution. 9. Resolution: The attached Resolution (Exhibit 3) approves the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Assessment and adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. F. Project Budget The total project cost estimate for this project is $4,000,000. The amount budgeted for this project for FY 1998/99 is $1,028,118 [Project 8008], funded by the Los Angeles Avenue AOC Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Subsequent to a staff presentation on the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment, any written comments received and any written responses thereto, it is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Review and consider the information in the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment. 2. Review and approve the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit 1). 3. Approve the list of Findings attached as Exhibit 'A' to the Resolution (see Exhibit 3). 4. Approve the written responses to comments set forth in Exhibit 2. 5. Adopt Resolution No. 99- (Exhibit 3) approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study Environmental Assessment, finding that the document is an accurate and complete representation of the environmental effects of the project. L—A—East2—Neq MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN: LOS ANGELES AVENUE /EAST WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION Mitigation Measure Land Use and Planning (1) The City shall develop parcel specific mitigation plans for all properties within the right -of -way that may have access restrictions or have modifications to access as a result of the proposed construction. Restoration of access in a manner than does not interfere with the through traffic objectives of the improvement program shall be prioritized. In cases where access cannot be restored, proper compensation shall be provided to the effected landowners through eminent domain proceedings. II. Air Quality (1) All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (2) All clearing, filling, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during period of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Construction grading shall be discontinued on days forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the County APCD air quality monitoring station closest to the City of Moorpark. Grading and excavation operations shall not resume until the first stage smog alert expires. Monitoring Actions City to complete access relocation and acquisition planning consistent with state law and applicable redevelopment procedures (where relevant) Field watering to occur during grading period Dust generating activity to cease during periods of high winds Mitigation M gyring Program - 1 Verification of Frequency Compliance Continuous activity Completion of all until acquisition legally required has been completed acquisition procedures resulting in City possession of needed right -of -way j. Continuous during initial grading period Continuous during grading period (until asphalt completion) Field verification Of compliance by City Public Works / Building Inspectors Same as (1) above Feb y 17, 1999 1 r�l N a . 7 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Frequency Verification of Compliance (3) If any soil material is transported to or from the Dust suppression to Continuous during Same as (1) above site, this material shall be either sufficiently be verified for all the grading watered or securely covered to prevent excessive transported or period amounts of dust. Fill materials, to the degree imported soils feasible, shall be obtained from appropriate sources close to the site to minimize construction emissions. A haul plan (including routes and hours of delivery) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to commencement of any fill or disposal program. (4) Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept Sweeping of streets Continuous as Same as (1) above as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated to occur on an as necessary during from construction activities so as to prevent needed basis during the grading excessive amounts of dust. grading. program (5) Construction vehicles entering and exiting unpaved Contractors to Same as (4) above Same as (1') above roads onto paved roads during the grading period provide for vehicle shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. clean -up during VI. Geophysical Impacts (1) A final geotechnical report shall be prepared by the City Public Works One time activity City Engineer to prior to the initiation of construction. This report Department to (if deemed necessary review and approve shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer. contract for by the City Engineer) any required soils The report shall address site preparation requirements preparation of during the planning or geotechnical for the design of all structures, including storm water soils and phase prior to reports conveyance facilities, retaining walls, planning for geotechnical report review of grading settlement compensation, and all other aspects of and construction site specific engineering deemed necessary by the City plans Engineer, The report shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 2 m r' tJ February 17, 1999 --� Mitigation Measure VIII. Water Resources /Hydrology Drainage and Water Quality (1) If determined necessary by the City Engineer (as determined by the City Engineer in his sole discretion), a drainage conveyance study shall be prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer for the review and acceptance by the City Engineer. Hydraulic design shall conform to the current Hydraulic Design Manual of the Ventura County. The study shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the approved report. (2) The City should be required to comply with all NPDES and stormwater conveyance facility conditions deemed necessary by the Public Works Director or City Engineer. XI. Noise (1) To minimize construction noise effects, all stationary construction noise sources shall be sheltered or enclosed to minimize adverse effects on adjacent neighborhoods. When feasible, generators and pneumatic compressors shall be placed in a manner to minimize noise inconvenience on adjacent residences. Construction shall be prohibited between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays (including Saturday) and no construction shall occur on Sunday. Monitoring Actions City to prepare required hydrology and drainage design reports Verification of Frequency Compliance One activity Field verification during plan of construction preparation consistent with plans by City Public Works and /or Building NPDES' compliance One time activity Same as (1) above.. during construction during construction phase consistent with Best Management Practices (BMP) Enclose noise sources Continuous activity (if feasible) and during construction limit construction program hours Mitigation Mc ring Program - 3 Field verification by City Engineer and /or Public Works Inspectors J� W Feb- 17, 1999 Mitigation Measure (2) All contractors involved in the construction program shall provide a written noise construction effects strategy to be submitted with building permit applications. The types of suppression used will vary on a case by case basis. Dumpsters, pre- assembly construction tasks, and materials storage shall be limited to defined, prescribed areas. Materials storage and work areas shall be situated to the degree feasible, on portions of parcels that will minimize impacts on nearby commercial and residential areas. Adjacent commercial tenants shall be notified of the construction schedule for the project. (3) Once the final alignment of the roadway is determined, the City shall prepare an acoustical report to determine what types of noise barriers maybe required for individual homes that may be impacted by the relocation of traffic closer to residential locations. Monitoring Actions Contractors to prepare written noise effects reduction plan for City Public Works Department review Verification of Frequency Compliance One time activity City Public Works prior to initiation or Building of construction Inspectors to verify compliance 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 February 17, 1999 City to contract One time activity Plan check verification for acoustical prior to implementation of acoustical study and implement of the project mitigations; field recommendations for verification by Public interior and Works Inspectors or exterior noise designee. reduction. 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 February 17, 1999 Exhibit 2 Responses to Comments L. A. Ave East Widening Forth A: Notice of Completion Mai! to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445 9�962,1099 bt — Project Title. -0613 SCH # r Lead y: i/ 6 00.0 St eet Address: all mnnv -M • k Ay L Contact Person: ai t 64 .--� City: Mm r Don 1[ 'Q A- Phone: Lo,S` --------------------- County: el &R Project Location — — — — ---- - -- - - - - -- County: / City/Nearest Community: O rw A Cross Streets: l c Awm -a''- - - t C oC rti 4 r =__ _ :)�ta Assessor's Parcel No. n s 7ip Code: Total Acres: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy Section: . TwP• Range: Base: Waterways: Airports: Railways: Schools: -- ----- Document Type — Tr' .� — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CEOA: D NOP ❑ SupplemenVSubsegttent D Ear! Cons Y � EIR (Prior SCH No.) NEPA: �Cii 99 .1 ! ONOI• �, Other. C) Joint Document �eg Dec D Other � C1Dt�.D Ef �iS D Final Document ❑ raft EIR - D Other ;., D FONSI - - - -- --------- Local Action Type —._ — _-- _ - - ----- - - -- -- D General Plan Update D Specific Plan D General Plan Amendment D Master Plan Rezone D Annexation ❑ Prezone ❑ General Plan Element D Planned Unit Development D Use permit ❑Redevelopment D Community Plan ❑ Coastal Permit D Site Plan ❑ L and Division (Subdivision, ❑Other --------------_.----'-'------._— Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)' Development Type — — — — — - — D Residential: Units Acres • Office: SOL Acres E mployees D Water Facilities: Type MGD • ComCommercial: Soft- Acres Em • Industrial: Sq. t. ❑ Transportation: Type � 3e P ❑ Mining: Mineral Acres • Educational Employees Yp Watts • Recreational D Waste Treatment: Type D Hazardous Waste: Type D Other: ------------- Project Issues Discussed in Document ------ D Aesthetic(Visual [] Flood PlaintFloodin D ❑ F Agricultural Land Land/Fire Hazard Pores( Land Schools/Universities ❑Water Quality D Air Quality D Geologic/Seismic Seismic ❑ AroheologicaUHistoric D Septic S ystems ❑Water Supply/ Gro undwater D Sewer Capacity D Wetland/Riparian p Minerals D Coastal Zone D Noise D Soil Erosion/Com action/Gradin g D Wildlife ❑Solid Waste El Growth I nducing D Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance - D Toxic/Hazardous D Landuse • Economidlobs • Fiscal Public Services/Facilities 0 Recreatinn/ParkS El Traffic/Circulation ❑Cumulat Cumulative Effects ❑ Vegetation ---------- D Other - -_. —_ Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use - -____ — — — — — — — Project Descriptiontal5ltlQyt O� r(6jk }_OQ � �1'faoe.lt _WQ �trmi� r:t 4- -- utbpmcn lwv�{S earloirv.>�ar� o--�- tt,,vvtt��ihecr _ 0'��t,u- A"`°JE,kL% A0-- kb T^Gw1 L inbfiwltcritart � �vuo�rntud lavtl¢�it real( nwte �oqL vt�•carr�� cm16irw oh o� 1>a5 av,ck�, r<olkt =o4-w iR6�4lt road{ i+ro�iF�t 5�ri.PPi`�9(kt tasAtvottlLSAUCt�r[s win }W vl State Clearinghouse Contact: DeLicia Wynn Project Sent to the following State Agencies (916) 445 -0613 State Review Began:. ¢ _ °JC/ X Resources State/Consumer Svcs Boatin g General Services Dept. Review to Agency � __� � _ tt _ _ Coastal Comm Cal EPA _ Coastal Consv ARB Agency Rev to SCH -Z -' _2L — Colorado Rvr Bd _ CA Waste Mgmt Bd Conservation SWRCB: — Clean Wtr Prog � SCH COMPLIANCE 3 tc X Fish &Game # _ SWRCB: Delta Unit — Delta Protection SWRCB: Wtr Quality _ Forestry _ S WRCB: Wtr Righ Historic Preservation X Reg. WQCB Z Please note State Clearinghouse Number X Parks & Rec _ Toxic Sub Ctrl -CTC (SCH #) on all Comments Reclamation YthlAdtt corrections _ Bay Cons & Dev Comm _ Corrections SCH# � Q 0 q q - D`'I'R Independent Comm Please forward late comments directly o the Y Energy Commission Lead Agency Bus T ransp Hous X NAHC _ Aeronautics Public Utilities Comm J�— CHP AQMD /APCD 53 (Resources: /It _ Santa Monica Mms X Caltrans #-4- X State Lands Comm - Trans Planning _ Tahoe Rgl Plan _ Housing & Devel Food & Agriculture Other. Health & WeIfare _ Other• Z . � Comments and Responses Los Angeles Avenue East Improvement Program Comments on the Los Angeles Avenue East Widening and Rehabilitation project were received from the following individuals, agencies, and associations: R. Pakala, Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1999 Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 30th, 1999 In addition to these written comments, testimony related to the project was presented at a public hearing on the adequacy of the environmental document. Copies of these minutes are attached. None of the comments included in these minutes addressed the adequacy of the environmental document and therefore no responses are provided. In response to comments, minor modifications have been made in the Adopted MND; these changes are identified in the Adopted MND version in italic print. Please refer to the revised Expanded Initial Study Analysis and Mitigation Measures in the Adopted MND for revisions. Comments and Responses 03/30/1999 17:59 818- 597 -7352 CITY OF AGOURA HILLS HAUL 15 LQ PUBLIC WpRKS A GENCY 2.2 unty "r . ... ....... __� n tura Director Representing Ex officio: Arthur E. Gou(et J. •nl:a..t :lt.,;r•:+.:en t,.;;,,; t, Deputy DireCtors.of PUbli[ Works WM B. Britt i r,x ! .utYc:n (RrilltlJm.ttt+r MgrM<JM qx,I 4tlnnCy 4r;,J19 focal lrot !once John e. Cr ltcry <hn {i tio-,rknt t ,i Wafer Restwrtics & fn Crowley March 8, 1999 4 „! Kay Martin Ken Gilbert cord waste Matutnn nn,.t Director of Public Works Paul w. emp s (enlrnl ervk.y City Of Moorpark Alox Sheydayi 799 Moorpark Avenue Flood Control Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: .Mitigated Negative Declaration Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement Dear Mr. Gilbert: 'I'hat><lc you for including the Ventura County Waterworks District environmental review process for the City of Moorpark,s Capital Irnprrovement t p oct) ><n the Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement. Ject Los Based on the information received, we have the folio ' wing comments: Page 3 of the Project Synopsis identifies tile various utility the District is the water purveyor and not Calleguas Municipal roviders, Please be advised that the District's responsibility and not the City of Moorpark, p Water District. Also, sewage is The District does have water and sewer lines within the project boundaries. that appurtenances . like valves or m � undaries• It is conceivable fire hydrants relocated, manholes f might have to be adjusted to match new grades and rehabilitation project is implemented. uict facilities will be impacted depending on how the If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 584 -4830. Very truly yours, 1 i= IVED R. R. Pakala, Manager MAR 10 1999 Water and Sanitation Services Division Water Resources and Engineering Department PUBLIC CITY OP Nl�?ORPARK WORKS DEPARMENT RRP: ec _ wordldist.1/LAAvewidening 7150 Walnut Canyon Road • P.O. Box 250 • Moorpark, CA 93020*' 3020 • (804) 584.4829 . Fax: (805) 529.7542 MAR 30 '99 18:26 818 597 7352 PAGE.15 03/30!1999 17:59 818- 597 -7352 CITY OF AGOURA.HILLS PAGE 15 Comment.' R Paka/e, Manger Water and Sanitation Services Division County of Ventura Letter dated March 8th, 1,999 Comments acknowledged. Changes have been made as requested clarifying for water and sewer service. Refer to the amended text of the Adopted ND for claril� providers ficatron. The location of all utilities within and immediately adjacent to the ri ht -of-wa during the l ®sign process. The City g Y will be identified ty will ensure that the proposed design of the rehabilitated and Widened street will comply with standard engineering practice regar�ding buried wet transmission pipelines. All effected utility water and sewer tY providers will be notified and consulted prior to initiating construction activities. Plana will be forwarded for Agency review prior to the initiation construction. The proposed construction Program t ation of that may be exercised by the Agency p gram will not modify arty existing easement rights Comments and Responses MAR 30 '99 18 :26 818 597 7352 PAGE.16 I'1HK- 1b -1yJ`J 15; �5 XMH t''LHNN 1 NU 4, dUD b'4 5bb..5 r. Ue PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Traffic and Planning & Administration MEMORANDUM February 24, 1999 TO: Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Attention: Joseph Eisenhut FROM: Robert B. Brownie, Principal Engineer tf` " P b'r SUBJECT: Review of Document 99 -026 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Expanded Initial Study 1) Los Angeles Avenue/Beltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement 2)' Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement Lead Agency: The City of Moorpark, Department of Public Works The Transportation Department has reviewed the subject Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MAYO) and Expanded Initial Study for 1) Los Angeles AvenueBeltramo Road Street Rehabilitation and Improvement and -2) -Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Rehabilitation and Improvement as proposed by the City of Moorpark Department of Public Works. We do not concur with the subject Draft MNDs and Expanded Initial Studies for those areas under our purview. The project description in the Los Angeles Avenue East document states that right -of- way will be required for the ultimate construction of a four -lane road for the .Los Angeles Avenue East project. Increasing the capacity of,a road creates a potentially significant growth inducing impact. Increasing the capacity of a road can also create a potentially significant air quality impact. These issues have not been addressed in the subject Draft MNDs. These projects may have a significant adverse impact on the Counties Regional Road Network Therefore, we have no alternative but to find these projects inconsistent with the Ventura County General Plan transportation policies. Unless the City of Moorpark addresses these issues in the Final MNDs and mitigates any significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels, the County General Plan requires that the Transportation Department oppose these projects. Please call me at 654 -2080 with questions. c: Richard Herrera Duane Flaten Carole Trigg f` � ,a,�ane�o,+wpw��n�roevs -026.nen, Ze=Z wd ra& 5-9 833 2.3 MAP 16 '99 15:24 TOTAL P,02 Comment. Robert Brownie, Principal Engineer Resource ManagementAgency, Planning Division Letter dated February 24th, 1999 The comments provided in this set of remarks address two separate MNDs which were released simultaneously. Presumably the growth inducement comments in the second paragraph address . both projects. Growth Inducement Issues The proposed improvements which are the subject of this document have been designed to increase capacity not to generate growth. The intensity of residential growth in a City is:governed by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Making improvements which are consistent with the City's adopted Circulation Element are designed to ensure that planned growth and infrastructure are properly balanced. Roadway improvements .proposed within the vicinity of the project have been programmed to improve traffic safety, roadway capacity, and pedestrian separation from existing travel lanes. By making such improvements which are consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, the City is merely implementing improvements which are required to provide adequate Levels of Service to accommodate General Plartbuifdout. While the City is aware of the need to consider the County's General Plan transportation policies, it is, rather, the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the long term infrastructure needs and policies envisioned in this document that govern circulation improvements within incorporated areas. Air Quality I mpactS Regarding air quality concerns, primary air quality impacts within the City's boundary are attributable . to poor levels of service at constrained intersections. The roadway segment proposed to be improved in this case does not involve any actions that will decrease intersection capacity. Since the affected roadway portion to be improved is not situated at or immediately adjacent to a signalized intersection, Caline modelling for carbon monoxide concentrations is not required under either State California Air Resources Board or local Air Quality Guidelines. Issues regarding air quality growth inducement related impacts have been previously addressed in the preceding comment. Comments and Responses STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, ADVANCE PLANNING IGR OFFICE 1 -10C 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 TEL: (213) 897 -6536 ATSS: 8- 647 -6536 FAX: (213) 897 -8906 E -mail: Werianian /D07 /Caltrans/Ca�ov(a�Df)T Mr. Ken Gilbert Director of P_ W. City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA. 93012 March 30, 1999 Dear Mr. Gilbert: AGENCY: Re:IGR/CEQA 990252NY LosAngeles Avenue East Widening SCH #98121011 -2, q PETE WILSON, Govern., Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Los Angeles Avenue East widening project. According to the facts presented in the document received, no state highway is involved in this project. We would like to remind you that any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires the use of oversized- transport vehicles on State highways will require a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend that large size truck trips be limited to off -peak commute periods. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Yerjanian at (213) 897 -6536 and refer to IGR/CEQA 990252NY. Sincerely, STEPHEN J. BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager Transportation Planning Office District 7 Coment: Stephen Buswell, CEQA Program Manager Caltrans District 7 Letter dated March 30th, 1999 Comments acknowledged. These remarks do not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The City is aware that a transportation permit from Caltrans may be required to implement the project. The design of the street will also comply with Caltrans design standards because Los Angeles Avenue is also a State Highway (Route 118). Comments and Responses S TO: EROM: 11ATE : MOORPAR K 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 MEMORANDUM KEN GILBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRK LOVETT, ASST. CITY ENGINEER July 23, 1992 0 W qUBJECT: Los Angeles Ave. East conceptual alignment study ASA 92-17E. Attached for your review is a sketch illustrating a feasible alignment for a future 88, R-O-W on Los Angeles Ave. East between the Calmat and Kavlico properties. The criteria used in the preparation of this sketch include adequate width to meet Caltrans standards, turning lanes, and shoulders (see cross section sketch). The alignment attempts to keep the R-O-W away from the homes Opposite to Kavlico and as close as Possible to Conejo Ready Mix while, at the same time, protecting existing structures and topography. The alignment will require additional R-O-W on most of the south side of Los Angeles Ave— Some additional R-O-W will be required along the north side. The alignment attempts to follow the existing toe Of slope, where possible, to avoid extra grading and retaining walls. Retaining structures or additional R-O-W may be necessary where the R-O-W will either cut into the northerly abutments or fill on to the southerly abutments as shown on the sketch. Caltran's freeway columns will be avoided at the new interchange. This sketch was prepared using the beat information available I on file. Any further details will require title reports and a right- Of-way survey. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. CC: Steve Kueny PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTC30MERY ROY E Mayor Mayor Pro Tem -: E. TALLEY JR, 7 JOHN E. WOZNIAK ROY Councilmernber Counclimernber -► 805 529 8270 ;# 2/ 3 WVT BY :DWIGffr FRENCH & ASSOC. ;10 -25 -95 ;10' 11AM ;D1Y113ETT FRF1VCli & ASOC MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Kueny City Manager n FROM: John Whitman ffie Engineer '1'ra DATE: October 17,1995 SUBJECT: Los Angeles Avenue East - Alignment Study In response to your questions of 10/11/95`' During our meeting of last Wednesday, October 11, you asked two questions regarding the Los Angeles Avenue East Alignment Study. The following paragraphs restate your question with my response to each question ibllowing the respective question. QUESTION 1 Will the City ever need to construct the ultimate four lane facility now that SR23 /11 S are connected? RESPONSE 1 The Moorpark Area 'Transportation Model developed by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. provides 1994 traffic count,- and projected average daily traffic (ADT) for 2000 and 2010. ADTs are provided at the following three locations. I . for a lotion jwit east of Spring Road; 2. a location south of SRI 1 S; and 3. a location where Los Angeles Avenue East passes under SR23. SiNT BY :DWIGU FRM & ASSOC. CI0-25 -95 ;10:12AM ;D>Q!( iT F'R90 &486C4.. 805 529 8270 ;# 3/ 8 The following table shows the traffic volumes at the three locations. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VoL[.11VIFS ON LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST EAST OF SPRING- YEAR ROAD AT SR 23 SOUTH OF SRI IS 1994 9,000 not given 7,000 2000 15,000 15,000 13,000 201 a 6,000 5,000 8,000 The MATM projects peak volumes on Los Angeles Avenuo East in the period prior to construction of the extension of Route l l g to a point west of Moorpark. Thy peak hour traffic volumes during this period are estimated to be 15,000 x .10 -1,500 vehicles per hour. The capacity is 1,300 vehicles per hour for a two-lane roadway assuming five Percent trucks and 7,400 vehicles per hour for a.four -lane roadway. (The MATM used a one hear capacity of 700 vehicles per hour in each direction for a two lane, two way collector.) - Therefore, based on projected traffic volumes from MATM., Los Angeles Avenue East built as an interim two lane facility would not provide a 1,evel of Service (LOS) = C during projected am and pm peak hours beginning within the next three to five years and continuing until SRI 18 is constructed to a point west of Moorpark. Los Angeles Avenue East would function at I,OS -1) for the peak hours and at/or above LOS C during the remaining 22 hours each day. In my opinion, the additional cost of the resulting benefit in the peak hours is not great enough to justify $1.27 million to develop the ultimate four lane facility. Congestion will be relieved by any new east -west facility. For example, after construction of SRI 18, Los Angeles Avenue East as a two lane, two way roadway would function at a LOS = B at peak hours and LOS = A during off peak hours. QUESTION 2 If the ultimate facility is not needed, which alternate alignment should the City choose? RESPONSE 2 The City should choose Alternate Alignment #2 which widens the roadway from the existing sough right Of way limit to the north cutting into the existing slopes to avoid cxistiug ridentidl dwellings if the City determines that the ultimate four lane facility is not needed. interim alignment #2 has the higher construction cost, but the lower total cost. Interim Alignment fit is the least disruptive to existing residential dwellings and Kati the better horizontal alignment, cc: 1Xrk Lovett Ken Gilbert Ct• • AGENDA REPORT C = TY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: February 11, 1997 (Council Meeting 2-19 -97) SUBJECT: Consider Approval of the Purchase of Certain Tax Default Property on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue West of Nogales Avenue [513 -0- 023 -035] DISCUSSION A. Background In June of 1996 the City Council approved the future realignment of Los Angeles Avenue east of High Street and directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preparation of the preliminary design for a project to widen and realign the street. That design will: determine the location of the future right -of -way 'lines for an eighty - eight feet (881) wide corridor; • define the scope and nature of retaining walls to be constructed along the northerly right -of -way line; and, call for the construction of interim street improvements consisting of two twelve feet (121) wide travel lanes, a fourteen feet (141) wide paved median and two eight feet (8' ) wide unpaved shoulders. Note: The proposed eighty -eight feet ,(881) wide street corridor will accommodate a future street widening project to allow: • four twelve feet (121) wide travel lanes, • one fourteen feet (141) paved median, • two eight feet (81) wide bike lanes; and, • two five feet (51) wide sidewalks. The action taken by the City Council lust June, -also directed staff to proceed with efforts necessary to determine right -of- way costs (preparation of deeds, title reports, appraisals, etc.) for this project and report those cost estimates to the City Council prior to proceeding with right -of -way acquisition efforts. 1&_esta Purchase of Tax Default Property Los Angeles Avenue East Widening February 19, 1997 ,Page 2 = _ B. Sidewalks Bike Lanes At a recent Town Hall Meeting there was discussion of the Possible need for sidewalks and Bike Lanes through this segment Of street. As mentioned above, the approved for interim street improvements does not include sidewalks design lor Bike Lanes. The City Engineer has been asked to develop a cost estimate for a change to the Interim Street Improvement plans to widen the pavement to allow for a combination eight feet (8' wide paved bike lane / walking surface beyond the limits of the painted side line. The estimated amount of additional desi n and construction costs for these g will be provided to the City Councilswithinbthe next few weeks. C. Right -of -Way Acauisition The Conceptual Plan for the roadway realignment project included an estimate of the amount of right -of -way required for this project. That estimate indicated that approximately square feet of street right-of-way ddional a as fo 0 slope easements, must be acquired from pa us additional areas for (39) separate properties. Using a range POf Possible approximately thirty -nine $2.00 to $10.00 per square foot, the estimated Sc cost tosacquire this additional needed street right-of-way ranges from $270,000 to $1,350,000. This amount does not include costs for title work, appraisal, land acquisition services, etc. D. Sub-iect Property The location of the subject J property is shown on Exhibit I. The approximate size of this parcel is 41,400 square feet. It will be necessary for the City to acquire a y feet of street right -of -way from the soh side of this p square" (see Exhibit 2). However, it will also be necessary to acquire an additional area for a slope easement. In that the total area required is estimated to be approximately 20,742 square feet, the City Engineer has recommended that the entire property be acquired. E. Minimum Bid The minimum bid required to acquire the entire parcel via tax default sale is $9,900. le_esu ....._.. _.... Purchase of Tax Default Property Los Angeles Avenue East Widening February 19, 1997 Page 3 - RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions; 1. ,Direct staff to proceed with steps necessary to acquire the subject property via Tax Default sale. 2. Direct staff to prepare and present a resolution amending the FY 1996/97 Budget to fund this acquisition, when all costs are fully determined. 1"St4 1 •�••rr31 K S Jtf ••r• ••. ♦•t� .... • .. . • • • • .AF LJ • •r C or r •-r C • • • 95 f r • • • l 0 1 C it Q T r- n -r- r' O AD � IR IN I RS 65 co R 7PM23 i ' 2 R �F COLONY a J P� 10 PM 4 ! '•• RS pr on pF� J 38 PM i -MOM ------ cn a r • 'Li0 • �, s" __ � 4 L. MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Streets Committee Councilmember Rodgers Teasley Councilmember Evans FROM: Dirk Lovett, Assistant City 'Engineer DATE: July 27, 1997 (Meeting of July 28, 1997) SUBJECT: Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Introduction A conceptual widening and realignment plan has been prepared for Los Angeles Avenue East between Spring Road and Happy Camp Canyon. The purpose of the design is to flatten the curve radii and provide a wider paved cross section. It is anticipated that 4 lanes of traffic may be necessary at some time in the future but the increased cost and current traffic volumes do not warrant full improvements now. As such, an interim plan has been developed with improvements which will meet the City's immediate needs and budget. The construction will be done within an ultimate right -of -way in such a way that the full improvements can be constructed at a dater date with minimal extra costs. Discussion Ultimate Improvements The ultimate right -of -way will be 88 feet. This right -of -way will provide adequate width for 4 -12 foot travel lanes, a 14 foot .center median, 2 -8 foot bicycle /emergency parking lanes and 2 -5 foot sidewalks. Because the existing right -of -way is much narrower than the ultimate, additional right -of -way will be necessary to construct the ultimate improvements. The proposed plan attempts to protects the existing buildings along this section of road while minimizing cut, fill and retaining structures. Interim improvements The interim design provides a 14 foot median, 2 -12 foot travel lanes and 2 -8 foot bike /emergency parking lanes within the ultimate 88 foot right -of -way discussed above. It is proposed that the ultimate right -of -way be obtained and that the ultimate slopes and retaining structures be constructed with the interim improvements. Doing so will minimize the extra costs of the ultimate construction in the future by - avoiding the need to relocate the necessary retaining structures. Seventeen foot dirt shoulders will remain on each side until the ultimate improvements are constructed. Attached for the committee's review are the conceptual plans showing existing pavement and right -of -way, proposed ultimate right -of -way, slopes and retaining structures, and the proposed interim paved road section. For additional reference, a profile showing the elevations of the proposed retaining walls has been provided (Exhibit A). It should be noted that the retaining walls range up to 18 feet high. In addition to the design parameters discussed above, there are specific issues that will be required to be addressed in the final design as they relate to existing. public and private improvements. These items are listed by location and property owner in Exhibit B. This report is submitted to the Transportation and Streets Committee to receive the Committee's input as it relates to the conceptual interim design, proposed ultimate right -of -way needs and the items to be addressed in the final design as shown in Exhibit C. The ,Committee's comments will be incorporated into the final design prior to submission to the City Council for approval. Recommendation Direct staff, as deemed appropriate Attachments CC: chron 83.420 INTERIM AND ULTIMATE SECTION f r�nl /D a1J -uu'L-105 NMIWN 21]6SF f1S +13 -0- 03/ -OBS 3728 Sf - - - -- 77 f s1J -0 -024-1 3 HAROAAN� 3I0 5F ' 1305 SF 513 -0-0 0 42 SF Is I 3 3-0 -024 -105 {up(Nµ 2 B SF _ �x 513-0 -024 -10y t284 SF SI -0- 023 -023 lOPF3 -1 SF. ry N SIJ -010- 13 KA1M1! 5457 S1J- 0- Oio -2os V.C.F.C.O. 000. g RQIECi SfTE 1 110 LOCATION MAP 7 +� LEGEND N. — \ \ T -6 113 LoT 4 / A -b C_3. afs- o.oto -na T -g 3 1fa 114 113 113 In / IA T-8 - '- - - 110 ot 101 Ip too 4 y las IN F4 N N N 3 M I $Q N „ 02 N 10 t02 1p i LOS ANGELES A VENUE EAST T -6 Backhoe will dig a trench approx. 3' wide, 10 -20' long, 10' deep E will be backfilled some day, probably within several hours after digging. C -3 A truck, about the size of asmall moving van, will push a 2 ". diem. Probe approx. 30 feet into the ground, and then remove probe and backfill SECIIpI N 105 TO CL M9 LANE SWANa slats OISIANCE 4441 —, e CITY OF u AVENUE REALIGNMENT MOORPARK ALTERNATIVE 2 — RIOH7 OF WAY PLAN •�• � I I I I ;4., ,,, i r, jai TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M The Honorable City Council Ken Gilbert, Director of public Works March 10, 1338 Letter from Cliff Improvement Project May Los Angeles Avenue [East] r ose This memo is to provide information and a st atus City Council with background Background SummarT g the subject project. The City Council has a � for this approved the alignment and Project. The. design calls for thereliminary design additional street right -of -way to increase the width of t from acquisition of fifty feet (50') to ei ht he street construction will include the construction of retaining the north side of the street at the right -of -wa }• Initial improvements described .as follows: g walls along y line and street two 121 wide paved travel lanes; 8 of paved surface beyond the sideline in each dir • one 14 wide center one and paved median (total. pavement action; width. of • two 8' wide unpaved shoulders. The eighty -eight feet (88� accommodate the future widening of the street wide street right-of-way four lanes without the need to y will retaining walls. d if necessary, to demolish and reconstruct the is summarized as follows: for those possible future improvements • four 12' wide travel lanes; • one 141 wide raised two, .8, / landscaped center median; Wide Bike Lanes; • curb -and gutter; and two 5' wide sidewalks. The first major task will b way from a , the acquisition of street rights -of- between pproximately properties at $1,000,000 to $2,500,000. an estimated cost of Los Angeles Avenue - -East March 10, 1998 Page 2 Project Status I. The preliminary design is 98% complete. 2. CAA is in the process of preparing a_design for the retaining walls for the project. It is anticipated that this work will be completed this month. Future Tasks I. Finalize preliminary design: CAA to amend the preliminary design to improve the transition between the proposed improvements and the existing improvements at the west end of the project. [It is anticipated that this wor$ will be completed within three months.] 2. Environmental clearance: Staff will be working on the preparation of a Categorical Exemption or a Negative Declaration for the project. [Anticipated to be completed within four months]. 3. Right -of -way acquisition: a) Retain the services of a Right -of -Way Agent to assist in the acquisition of the street right -of -way; b) Obtain Preliminary Title Reports; c) City staff , the City Engineer and the surveyor to discuss and determine best approach to use in preparing the Legal descriptions for-the right -of -way parcels to*be acquired; d) Prepare Legal descriptions; e) proceed with price offers, etc. 4. Final Design : - At or near the final stages of right -of -way acquisition, An Engineer will be retained to prepare the final plans and specifications. Project Schedule It is anticipated that the work described above to bring this project to a "ready -to- build" stage, will require approximately, 1k to 2 years to complete. cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager vp \rpt \1a�.ee5t.ntc TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGEIaTDA REpO C =TY CAF' MOpR ARK The Honorable city-council Kenneth C. Gilbert , Director of Public Works April 3, 1999 (council Meeting 4 -15 -98 ITEM I�.� 7 �i Consider �� Retaining pproval of the Conceptual Design Los g Walls to be Constructed on gn for the Angeles Avenue West of South the North Side of Angeles Avenue East] Condor Drive [Los EXECUTIVE SCARY As you may recall,. additional street rghthof_wa project requires the .acquisition of the construction of retaining y on the north side of the street and Of the easements required fo rthe retaining wall the t accommodate same. The area type of construction used. s is dependent upon determine the type of construction the Purpose f• this report is to the legal descriptions for the easements can retaining walls so that BACKGROUND be defined. The City Council has taken the following act' the subject project: ions with respect to 2. Approved the future roadway Avenue East to shift the centerline to th for e north os Angeles 2 Approved a corridor width (Alt. #2); eighty- eight feet for this street segment of accommodate ($g�) a street width wide enough to Possible ultimate include the following: street improvements to • four 12' wide travel lanes; • one 14' wide raised • two 8' /landscaped center wide Bike :Lanes; median; • curb and gutter; and, • two 5' wide sidewalks; 3. Approved the conceptual design earthwork and retaining for the construction of to accommodate the g walls for the project above .described ultimate improvements; 4. Directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preliminary design for the preparation retaining walls, in order to required earthwork and right- of_way acquisition required for the e limits of the project. la_est6 00CIo &I Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Retaining Wall Design April 15, 1998 Page 2 5. Also directed the City Engineer to proceed with the preliminary design for the construction of street improvements within the above described corridor, which would to provide for only one travel Zane in each direction, said street improvements more particularly described as following. • two 12' wide travel lanes; •' 8' of paved surface beyond the sideline in each direction; one 14' wide center paved median (total pavement width of 381); and, • two 8' wide unpaved shoulders; 6. Directed staff to proceed with the title work, engineering work and appraisal work necessary to prepare the final Deeds for all of the right -of -way required, and to determine estimated cost of said acquisition; and, 7. Directed staff to report back to the City Council" when these efforts are completed, to seek authorization to proceed with right -of -way acquisition. DISCUSSION A. Retaining Walls -- General Description As shown on the Retaining Wall Profiles attached as Exhibit 1, the right -of -way "take" on the north side of the street will require the removal of a portion of the "natural" hillside in this area and the construction of retaining walls 'ranging in height from approximately one foot (11) to approximately nineteen feet (191). B. Design Alternatives la est6 1. Type 1 Reinforced Concrete Wall: This is a standard steel reinforced concrete wall. As stated above, the retaining walls will have a vertical face ranging from one foot high to over nineteen feet (191) high. The retaining walls are to be located immediately adjacent to the street right -of- way line, within a perpetual easement for the placement and maintenance of the walls. When and if the roadway is ever widened to four lanes, the then existing walls would be located adjacent to a five feet (51) sidewalk. GO C1082 0 C. Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Retaining Wall Design April 15, 1998 Page 3 2. Inter.Z 3. ockzng Bloch Wall. .Under a se to the City Council with the separate Memo distributed Council has been provided with agenda materials, company which manufactures an interlockin block the City the construction of retaining copy °f a brochure from a a number of applications walls. This brochure shows brochure, Pplications of this product. manner which allows it block wall As shown in the to be is constructed in a The resulting anchored into the hillside. g wall is slightly less than vertical with a texture resulting from a_- combination of the rough surface Of the blocks and the interlocking pattern. Crib Wail: Also included in the above mentioned the City Council is a which manufactures crib wall mat vi brochure from a Memo to shows numerous a company construction method. applications This brochure also As shown on available using this this construction technique allows age 14 of the brochure, the cribs into the q for the integration of vertical, but is constructed with ha resulting relief from the imposing 1 slope to allow some g vertical face of the Type 1 wall. Cost Com arison The City Engineering cost g Departments "rough' estimate for summarized as follows: each of these types of the walls is Type 1 reinforced Concrete Wall ' Interlockin g Block $875,000 Wall , • Crib Wall - - $706,000 ' - $740,000 D- Aesthetic Considerations A comparison of certain other aesthetic icconsiderations is as Z. Type I Retaining Wall: ' Impact: high, five feet i5 , vertical wall next to possible future ' Visual Relief: wide Sidewalk; Surface: . vertical, high, imposing, flat surface g, flat surface; treatment is • unless an expensive surface • Graffiti: added; and, easy target for graffiti. la_est6 OM0 83 Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Retaining Wall Design April 15, 1998 Page 4 ` 2. Interlocking Block Wall: • Impact: slight angle Visual Relief: not as much relief as crib wall, but more than retaining wall; • Surface: rough interlocking block wall surface; and, • Graffiti: not an easy target 3. Crib Wall: • Impact: 800 angle • Visual Relief: sloped varied surface • Surface cells may be filled with dirt, gravel, concrete or landscaping • Graffiti: not an easy target E. Additional Width of Easement As shown on the cross section attached as Exhibit 2, the crib wall alternative may require a wider easement. CONCLUSIONS 1. It not recommended that Type 1 concrete retaining walls be constructed for this project. It is the view of staff that the other two options discussed in this report are preferable. 2. The depth of the area required for the construction of either the crib wall or the inter- locking block wall is about the same. Either type of construction will require about the same width of an easement. Given that one of these two construction methods is to be used, there is no need to choose one over the other at this time. It may even be preferable to require bids for both of these options at the time the City is ready to proceed with construction. 3. It is necessary at this time, however, to determine the width of the easements required for the required retaining walls. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to acquire retaining wall easements sufficient to accommodate the width of either crib wall or inter - locking block wall construction, for the retaining walls required for the subject project. la_est6 10.23 ft Visible 1.36 ft Visible l.36 ft Visible 2.11 ft Visible oll Height all Hei ht all Height 9 all Height 13.80 ft Visible TOP OF ALL Wall Height 23 +50 24 +00 24 +50 25 +00 25 +50 5.60 ft Visible 13.16 ft Visible all Heigh.t.;, 7.60 ft Visible all Height 10.80 ft Visible 1.14 ft Visible oIt Height all Height all Height TOP OF ALL 9.41 ft Visible Wall Height BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL \ 27 +50 `FO OTING N f BACKFILL ELEVATION 28 +00 2E +50 N FRONT OF WALL 29-1-00 29 +50 30 +00 11.70 ft Visible 6.11 ft Visible Wall Height 11' ll ft Visible 10.73 ft Visible 9 t Wall Height 9.93 ft Visible Wall Height Wall Height Woll Height 9.23 ft Visible Wall Height 8.83 ft Visible Wall ft Visible TOP OF WALL Wall Height 8,'11 ft Visible Wall Height Nall Height 9ACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL \ TOP OF WALL 32 +50 `FOOTING BACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRO LL 33 +00 33 +50 NT OF WALL FOOTING -/� 34 +50 35 +00 BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL . 35 +50 36 +00 36 +50 7.82 ft Visible 6.47 ft Visible Wall Height Wall Height 6.14 ft Visible Wall Height BACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL 37 +00 37 +50 38 +00 CITY OF Kenno o a lots ,— - LOS ANGELES AVENUE - sra sa +so.00 ro sra ae +oo.00...:„ ., (m' � :T ' 5.86 ft oluie Iy.I / It Visible Wall JH , 16.53 ft Visible eight Wall Height K Visible Wall Height Wall Height 4.91 ft Visible 3.55 ft Visible Uslhtr'S TU 5 4 (t Visible 6 78 ft Visible Height 1 25 ft Visible Wall :Height Wall Height I all oll Height oil Height _ 31 E EXISTING 'On SKAI-L Inca AM BACKFILC ELEVATION BEHIND WALL FOOTING ACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL PRIVATE ROV�ERM. . rues. 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00 2 +50. 3 +00 3 +50 4 +00 4 +50 _ 5 +00 LL PRMI- : M SIDED EET ROtlt. TM cm L COW" GURAILS) TOP OF WALL ES ri NT OF nnim E 7.93 ft Visible 5.08 ft Visible 4.36 ft. Visible 6.36 ft Visible SOILS Wall Height all Height Wall Height Wall Height 4.06 ft Visible ED AT THE - uou THE !ES UNDER STANDARD Wall Height MXEP . $HILL UNIT r C FMIRE 6 +50 7 +00 7 +50 5 +50 6 +00 U11 AND 17.17 ft Visible 12,86 ft Visible oil Height 15,13 ft Visible 44 MRS all Height all Height ROM Au 4.08 ft Visible TOP OF ALL 7.32 ft Visible TRUOr1oR all Height all Height 4.73 ft Visible all Height 0.66 ft Visible Woll Height BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL FOOTING BACKFILC ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL ,t 10 +00 10 +50 11 +00 11 +50 12 +00 12 +50 13 +00 13 +50 7 50 {t VI ible alI Heigh �2H ft Visible Wdl eight 0.84.ft Vi$ible Sal$ Heightible TOP OF WALL_ all eight 1.12 ft Visible TOP OF ALL Wall Height 1 '�-7--- LL ELEVATION BEHIND WALL FOOTING ACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL BACKFILL ELEVATION BEHIND WAL OOTING BACKFILL ELEVATION IN FRONT OF WALL 15 +00 15 +50 16 +00 16 +50 16 +50 17 +00 17 +50 (.AA�mT.T. ��T.T. AST / w gyp' Inn A►Ilnfl l"n A% —.011- -A— fi C�0 :, � ' t�A 4' MAX - 1.5:1 MAX OR EXIST GROUND m _ PLANTABLE CRIS WAL ( L �/ 3• - LOFFELSTEIN' OR EQUAL) PROP Nly (SEE CALTRANS STD, C78 �' r g R/01 FOR CONST. DETAILS) PROP GL PROP Y n :a /J p3• S" 12' VAR[ PER PLAN t2 VA 1" 12' PER PLAN 5 Miy rz' FUTURE CURB, GUTTER E ST, PAVEMENT d & . � 5 SEE PLAN SIDEWALK FOR. LOCATION TYP I ALT WALLT SECTION 1.5:1 MAX�Q OR EXIST. GROUND PLANTING. AREA RET. WALL TYPE 1 PER CALTRAS STD. 83 -1 NILY N R/W PROP rLY 3 44 PROP CL 44' R/w ply 5' S7 VA_ R-'U .t2 VARIES e4p ! PER PLAN PER L- A N _ 12' B' . 7Fp� puH (yy T_I 1"q _ 211 zy_ FL �e FUTURE CURB. GUTTER E ST. PAVEMENT & SIDEWALK 5 SEE PLAN RET. WALL TYPE 1. FOR LOCATION PER CALTRAS SM.. B3 -1 ALTERNATE 1 TYPICAL WALL SECTION (N.T.S) vjv(L VQ If n M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works v4— DATE: January 20, 1999 SUBJECT: Los Angeles Avenue East Improvement Project Per the City Council's request at the January 20t`' meeting, the following is a brief summary of the status of the subject project. 1. Scope of Project: Reconstruction of Los Angeles Avenue west of Condor Drive to provide for two travel lanes, a center paved median and eight feet of paved surface beyond the side lines, within an eighty -eight foot wide right -of -way. 2. Right -of -Way Width: The eighty -eight feet (88') of right-of- way will accommodate, should the future need arise, the widening of the street to four lanes. 3. Design: The preliminary design has been completed. The engineer is finalizing construction and easement requirements for the retaining walls. 4. Environmental Clearance: It is anticipated that'the City Council will consider the Negative Declaration for this project on March 3, 1999. 5. Record of Survey: The City Engineer has retained the services of a surveyor to prepare a Record of Survey to identify the design center line of the proposed street improvements, as well as existing lot lines. This document will make it easier to prepare the legal descriptions for the street right -of -way parcels to be acquired. It is anticipated that this Record of Survey will be recorded by May 1999. 6. Legal Descriptions for Right -of -Way Deeds: As soon as enough information is known from the preliminary (unrecorded) Record of Survey, the Engineer will prepare legal descriptions for the street rights -of -way. This task will very likely start in April 1999. 7. Right -of -Way Agent: It is the intent of staff to recommend retaining the services of a right -of -way Agent to assist the City in property acquisition efforts. It is anticipated that this selection will occur prior to June 1999. �V �4 Los Angeles Avenue - East January 20, 1999 Page 2 - -__ 8. Acquisition Efforts: acquire, With approximately thirty parcels to it is not known how long the right -of -way acquisition efforts will take. 9- Appraisal Services: It is very likely that the City have to retain the services of a property ppraisea will also r. 9. Final Design; Work on the final design will be defe rred until the right -of -way acquisition efforts are near completion. 10-Retaining Walls; At the appropriate time, the City Council will be asked to a wall, concrete wall P etc.) the type d retaining walls (crib to be used. 11-Schedule: In the opinion of staff, this and is proceeding, on a schedule t project has proceeded, project. No extraordinary measures havelbe n this or of Planned to be taken, to expedite or "fast track" an are Of the project development. City resources devoted are development of all of the City's planned capital improvements are limited. Accordingly, to the simultaneous) g y� work continues on several projects e It is the view of staff that the subject project has received its fair share of attention. cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager rpt \caey_plan.ntc i � 1 NAR�9 March 8, 1998 0171 Cn 19g8 To: Mayor & City Council Members Re: Los Angeles Avenue Dear Mayor & City Council Members: I would like to take a moment and applaud your efforts in bringing the Downtown area on to Your agenda and giving it the attention it so well deserves. In addition to this, I would also like to bring your attention to the road that brings the folks to the downtown area, Los Angeles Avenue from Princeton to Spring Road. This road is ,n bad shape. To get to the downtown area you must exit the Princeton offramp and travel along Los Angeles Avenue, this includes anyone coming to Downtown Moorpark from Simi Valley and the Valley. Although the council voted and appropriated the funds to widen this road over a year ago, little has been done on this project. It appears to take a bade projects in this seat to ;other city. This is the road that connects the Campus Park area to the Downtown. (The focus of the March 11 Meeting) This road has been slated for improvement for 20 years. Children are currently pushing their bikes up ours and our neighbors driveways and cuttin g through private property to reach Campus Paris from Downtown. Why should these young residents of Moorpark East not have the. same enjoyment of riding in safe bicycle lanes that the children living in MoorparWs west areas. There are dangers involved in cutting throw h these back trails especially when the weather gets warm and the snakes come out. g We urge you to include the widening and beautification of East Los Angeles Avenue as ou develop plans to improve the Downtown Moorpark area. The downtown area of rk Moorpark historical significance and currently it is in a fragile state. It is important that all made to preserve and enhance it as soon as possible. efforts are Sincerely, Cliff May Tina May 13853 East Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 529 -5090 .... _.. -. _- r � CPQPaK C9C /� 9Q 9 MOORPARK o 9 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 99TE0 , Jyy n March 13, 1997 Cliff and Tina May 13853 East Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 re: Los Angeles Avenue East Improvement Project Dear Mr. & Mrs. May, In response to your letter of March 8, 1998, the undersigned provided the City Council with the enclosed status report on the subject project. I believe this Memo gives a good explanation of the purpose of the project, the status of recent activities and a picture of the tasks remainin How You have any questions which are not addressed .by thiseMemof, please feel free to give me a call. Since Kenneth c. Gil ert, Director of Public Works cc: The Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager PATRICK HUNTER ncoow rte.. _ Mayor I CNJLtY CHRISTOPHER EVANS BERNARDO M. PEREZ JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Proem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember ✓ OPQ.PpK C;y� � 4 o �4 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 January 28, 1999 Cliff May 13853 E. Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: Los Angeles Avenue East Widening Project Dear Cliff: At the January 20, 1999, City Council Meeting, the City Council asked staff to provide them with a memorandum describing the status of the subject project. A memo on this matter was prepared, and provided to the City Council. Mayor Hunter asked that I provide you with a copy of that memo which you will find enclosed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 529 -6864, extension 255. Sincerely, r Kenneth C. Gilbert Director of Public Works Cc: Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager - -CCVSMaawoimroy PATRICK HUNTER CHRISTOPHER EVANS Mayor Mayor Pro Teat CLINT D. HARPER bEBBIE RODGERS Councilmember JOHN E. WOZNIAI Councilmember Councilmember M-RMORAND UM TO: The Honorable City Council FRONT: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works �( DATE: January 20, 1999 SUBJECT: Los Angeles Avenue East Improvement Project Per the City Council's request at the January 2Ot`' meetin following is a brief summary of the status of the subject g' the 7 project. 1. Scope of Project: Reconstruction of Los Angeles Avenue west of Condor Drive to provide for two travel lanes, a center paved median and eight feet of paved surface beyond the side lines, within an eighty -eight foot wide right -of -way. 2. Right -of- -Way Width: The eighty -eight feet (88') of right -of- way will accommodate, should the future need arise, the widening of the street to four lanes. 3. Design: The preliminary design has been completed. The engineer is finalizing construction and easement requirements for the retaining walls. 4. Environmental Clearance: .It is anticipated that-the City Council will consider the Negative'Declaration for this project on March 3, 1999. 5. Record of Survey The City Engineer has retained the service of a surveyor to prepare a Record of Survey to identify the design center line of the proposed street improvements, as well as existing lot lines. This document will make it easier to prepare the legal descriptions for the street right-of-way parcels to be acquired. It is anticipated that this Record of Survey will be recorded by May 1999. 6. Legal Descriptions for Ri information is known from t�tp e �� preliminary � soon as enough Survey, the Engineer will prepare legal (unrecorded) forrdthe of street rights -of -way. This task will very likely start in April 1999. P 7. Right -of -Way Agent: It is the intent of staff to recommend retaining the services of a right -of -way Agent to assist the City in property acquisition efforts. It is anticipated that this selection will occur prior to June 1999. e, r, 8. AcquIsi tion Efforts: acquire, With approximately thirty parcels to it is not known how long the right -of -way acquisition efforts will take. 9• APPz'aisa.Z Services: It is very likely that the City will also have to retain the services of a property appraiser. 9. Final Design: Work on the final design will be deferred the right -of -way acquisition efforts are near completion,ntil 10-Retaining Walls: At the appropriate time, the Cit will be asked to approve the t Y Council wall, concrete wall, etc.) to be YPed f retaining walls (crib 11-Schedule: In the opinion of staff, this and is proceeding, on a schedule t and has proceeded, project. No extraordinary YPical of this type of a Planned to be taken, to expedite or have been taken, or are Of the project development. City ast track any portion development of all of the City's Y resources devoted to the are limited. Accordingly, Y Planned capital improvements simultaneous) g y' Work continues on several projects Project has r ceived its t fair share ofsattentioat the subject n. cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager rpt \caey_plan.ntc Appendix 4 Preliminary Geotechnical ................... . RMIA GFOUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR HIGHWAY 118 WIDENING MOORPARK� CA for Dwight French & Associates 1470 S. Valley Vista Drive Suite 140 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 March 4, 1994 93- 272 -01 t FRIMA Grovp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 10851 EDISON CT., RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: 909 -989 -1751: FAX 909- 989-4287 March 4, 1994 Dwight French & Associates - 1470 S. Valley Vista Drive Suite 140 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Attention: Mr. Danny Chow Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA Gentlemen: In- accordance with your request, a geotechnical investigation has been above- referenced site. The n completed for the Purpose of our investigation was to summarize the geotechnical conditions onsite and assess their potential impact on the proposed widening of Highway g ay 118. The accompanying report presents a description of our findings, as well as our conclusions s and We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to you. If You regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, u RMA Group — �� GARY W. WALLACE EG 001255 G /f/k%fG � CERTIFIED ! ENGINEERING - Gary allace, CEG N� GEOLOGIST 1255 E. Duane Lyon, P.E. `per F� President c� GE 547 No. 5�7 Exp. 12131197 ro EM _� 9lFOF GALt'c��� MA Gr0Vp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS -� RMA Job N° 93- 272 -01 D�..o J Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.00 INTRODUCTION 1 1.01 Purpose 1.02 Scope of the Investigation 1 1.03 Site Location and Description 1 1.04 Current Land Usage 1 1.05 Planned Usage 2 1.06 Investigation Methods 2 3 2.00 FINDINGS 3 2.01 Geologic Setting 2.02 Earth Materials 3 2.03 Landslides 3 2.04 Faults 4 2.05 Seismicity 5 2.06 Secondary Earthquake Hazards 5 5 - 2.07 Surface and Ground Water Conditions 2.08 Flooding Potential 6 6 3.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 3.01 General Conclusion 3.02 General Earthwork and Grading 7 3.03 Removals 7 3.04 Rippability and Oversize Materials 7 3.05 Subdrains 8 3.06 Natural Slopes 8 3.07. Cut Slopes 8 3.08 Fill Slopes 8 3.09 Foundations 9 3.10 Lateral Loads 9 3.11 Pavement Sections 10 11 -� RMA Job N° 93- 272 -01 D�..o J ai FRMA Group i GEOTECHIVICAL CONCr rr m A XTTO TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 3.:12 Utilit Utility Trench Backfill PAGE 3.13 3.14 Faulting Seismic Design Parameters 12 12 3.15 3.16 Secondary Earthquake Hazards 12 3.17 Grading Plan Review 12 Observation and Testing During Grading 13 4.00 CLOSURE 13 13 PLATES Plate 1 Index Map Plate 2 Southern California Fault Map Plate 3 Notable Faults within 100 Km Plate 4 Historical Strong Earthquakes Plate 5 Geologic Map Plate 6 Pier Capacity Chart APPENDICES Appendix A Field Investigation Appendix B Appendix C Laboratory Tests General Earthwork and Grading Al BI Appendix D Specifications References C1 D1 { RMA Job N °: 93- 272 -01 J Page ii l RMA Croup GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 1.00 INTRODUCTION Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 1.01 -Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the site, to assess their potential impact on the proposed widening of Highway 118, and to develop geotechnical design parameters. 1.02 Scope of the Investigation The general scope of this investigation included the following: • Review of published and unpublished geologic, seismic, and geotechnical literature. • Geologic mapping and sampling of bedrock materials exposed in a cut slope. • Logging, sampling and backfilling of 5 exploratory borings drilled with a Mobile B -31 drill rig. • Laboratory test of representative soil and bedrock samples. • Geotechnical evaluation of the compiled data. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. Our scope of work did not include a preliminary site assessment for the potential of hazardous materials onsite. 1.03 Site Location and Description The site is consists of a section of Highway 118, also known as Los Angeles Avenue, located in the City of Moorpark, California. The general study area expends approximately 950 feet west, and 1000 feet east of the intersection of Highway 118 g Y (Los Angeles Avenue) and Nogales Avenue. Our work was performed in the dirt shoulders on the north and south sides of the roadway. The approximate location of the site is illustrated on the accompanying Index Map (Plate 1). RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 i RMA Group GEOTECHNLCAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 Highway 118 in the study area is currently a paved, two lane roadway (one lane The existing roadway was created by cut - and -fill grading. Much of the roadwaeaa h ejection )e near the elevation of the original grade. Locally fill was placed along the south side of he road way- In some areas the fill is supported by low retaining walls (approximately 3 feet or 1 height).. Along portions. of the north side of the roadway, cut slopes were excavated into hillsides exposing bedrock materials. Elevations along and adjacent -to the study area ran approximately 555 to more than 600 feet above sea level. ge from Vegetation is absent along most of the existing shoulders. There are also trees Parallel to the existing roadway, however, we were not provided with sufficient survey some brush know whether or not these are in the existing right -of -way. �'ey data to 1.04 Current Land Usage As discussed above, Highway 118 in the study area is currently a paved, two lane roadway. To the south of the roadway are residential properties, vacant land and a portion of the Arroyo To the north of the roadway are hillsides and ravines, and existing and abandoned residential al 1.05 Planned Usage It is our understanding, based on conversations with representatives of Dwight French Associates, that the existing roadway will be widened to allow for 2 traffic lanes in each direction and a center turning lane (a total of five lanes). At the time of our study) plans o locations of the additional lanes and an alinement had not yet been prepared. A showing the topographic map of the study area was provided for our use during the field scale Dwight French and Associates. investigation by We understand that the road widening will require placement of fill (Possibly supported ort ed by retaining walls) along the southern side of the existing roadway, excavation of cut slopes and construction of retaining along the northern side of the roadway, or a combination of these cuts and fills. RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 2 W"RMa Group 1.06 Investigation Methods GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 Our investigation consisted of office research, field exploration, laboratory testing, review of the compiled data and preparation of this report. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices. Federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations, which in our professional opinion are applicable at this time, have been incorporated into the preparation of this report. Appendix A, which is attached, contains a description of the methods and equipment used in performing the field exploration and logs of each boring. Appendix B contains a description of our laboratory testing and test results. Definitions of technical terms and symbols used in this report are those of the American Society for Testing And .Materials (ASTM D653). The stratigraphic lines presented on our logs represent the approximate boundaries between earth units, and the transition may be gradual. The logs show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. Should subsurface conditions be encountered during construction that appear different from those shown in this report, this office should be notified immediately so that our recommendations may be re- evaluated. 2.00 FINDINGS 2,01 Geologic Setting The site is located in the Ventura Basin region of the Transverse Range geomorphic province. The basin is an east -west trending region that was down - warped and received thick deposits of marine sediments during much of the last 60 to 75 million years. The resultant sedimentary rocks have been tectonically deformed and partially uplifted to form hills and mountains in the region. Presently, sediments eroding from the hills and mountains are being deposited in intervening valleys, canyons and in the sea. 2.02 Earth Materials Our subsurface investigation, mapping and review of geologic literature revealed that the site is underlain by the following geologic units: RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 Page 3 AF& RMA Grovp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 • Artificial Fill (may symbol afl Artificial fill has locally been placed on the south side of the existing roadway. urface mapping and subsurface investigation suggest that the fill ranges from about 3 t S6 feet thick. Fill soils encountered in Boring 1 were found to consist of brown silty y sand with • Alluvium (map symbol Oat) Alluvial soils fill ravines on the north side of the roadway, and extend beneath the roadway and fill soils to the south side of the road. In our borings we found these soils to b composed of silty sands with gravel. e • Stream Channel De osts ma s bol sc In Boring 5 encountered stream channel deposits that originated as outwash from Cam Canyon north of the roadway. These soils were observed to be coarser grained th P or fill soils and to be composed of silty sands with gravel and cobbles. an alluvial • Sedimentary Bedrock (map svmh�l Ts) Exposed by roadcuts and outcrops along the hillsides north of the roadway is sandstone and conglomeratic sandstone bedrock. The bedrock has been classified as the Teritar age S formation by Weber and others 1973. Y g espe ( ) This unit dips to the northwest (into slope) from about 17' to 26 degrees. Regional mapping by Weber and others indicate that bedrock i capped by a terrace deposit offsite to the north. s The above materials are described in greater detail on the logs contained in approximate distribution of the mapped geologic units is y Appendix A. The graphically accompanying Geologic Map (Plate 5). depicted on the 2.03 Landslides According to regional geologic mapping by Weber and others (1973 no 1 are known to exist within the site. In addition, landslides were not encountered ddthe course of our subsurface investigation. uring RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 rd i J RMA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 2.04 Faults The site is not located within the boundaries of a special studies zone for fault rupture hazard and no faults are known to pass through the property. Consequently, the potential for surface fault rupture within the site is considered unlikely. The nearest fault is the unnamed fault located approximately 1500 feet to the northwest. Weber and others show this fault to have a mapped length of about 3500 feet and that the faulting occurs with in the sedimentary bedrock of the Sespe formation, but is concealed by younger Terrace and alluvial deposits. Of greater significance, in terms of the potential to generate large magnitude earthquakes, are the Simi, Oak Ridge, Malibu Coast and San Andreas faults, located approximately 1.5 miles to the southeast, 6.5 miles to the northwest, 18 miles to the south- southeast and 34 miles to the north- northwest, respectively. The accompanying Southern California Fault Map (Plate 2) illustrates the location of the site with respect to major faults in the region. The distance to notable faults within 100 kilometers of the site is presented on Plate 3. 2.05 Seismicity The site is located in a seismically active area, as is the case throughout Southern California. At this time it is not possible to state with certainty when and where future large magnitude earthquakes will occur, or what the magnitude of these events will be. Estimates can be made, however, based on the known tectonic setting and seismic history. Large magnitude earthquakes which have occurred in the region in historical times are listed on Plate 4. Possible maximum credible eartlquakes which could be associated with notable faults in the region are presented on Plate 3. The maximum credible earthquake is the largest earthquake a fault is believed capable of producing, with little regard give to its probability and without considering time as a factor. Within the next 100 years it is expected that the most severe ground shaking at the site would occur as a results of a large magnitude earthquake along the Simi fault. Should a maximum probable earthquake of magnitude 6.5 occur along the Simi fault at a point near the site, a maximum ground acceleration of approximately 0.668 is expected at the site (Seed and Idriss, 1982). The repeatable ground acceleration from such an event is expected to be approximately 0.438 (Ploessel and Slosson, 1974). Ground shaking originating from earthquakes along other faults in the region within the next 100 years is expected to be less, due to t from the site and /or smaller maximum probable earthquake magnitudes. heir greater distances RMA Job N -: 93- 272 -01 Paae 5 RNA Group 2.06 Secondary Earthquake Hazards GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 Considering the seismic and geologic conditions as currently known, the potential for secondary seismic hazards at the site is considered to be low. There is a slight possibility hat liquefaction could occur as a result of lateral spreading into Arroyo Simi, however the probability of affecting the proposed construction appears to be low due to the distance centerline of thcreek. is The potential for seismically induced settlement is low due to the density of the and materials and anticipated compaction of near surface soils. Seismically induced landsliding is not expected, provided the site is properly graded and developed. Tsunamis and seiches don not pose hazards due to the inland location of the site and lack of nearby bodies of standing water. 2.07 Surface and Ground Water Conditions Ground water was not encountered in any of the borings drilled for thi springs or areas of natural seepage were found. s study. Further, no Ground water was encountered in borings drilled by the California Department of Transportation in 1989 for the new Highway 118 overpass above old Highway 118 (Los Angeles n Arroyo Simi. This overpass is located at approximately the western en Ave.) )and Within Arroyo Simi, ground water was encountered at a depth of 20 feet below study area. (elevation 531). Within a ravine approximately 150 feet north of Los Angeles w existing grade boring encountered ground water 28 .feet below g s Avenue, another colluvial soils and bedrock. Fade (elevation 552) at the contact between At the time of our study, surface water was noted in Arroyo Simi south of the site. 2.08 Flooding Potential The study area is not crossed by any major drainage courses. However it borders portions Camp Canyon and Simi Arroyo drainages, and small ravines head towards the road m the hillsides to the north. Thus, control. of surface runoff originating from within way from the site should be included in design of the project. and outside of the RMA Job N 93- 272 -01 0 RNA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONS;TTT m A lVmV Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 3.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.01• General Conclusion Based on specific data and information contained in this report, our understanding of the project and our general experience in geotechnical engineering, it is our professional judgement that the proposed road widening project is geotechnically feasible. This is provided that the recommendations presented below are fully implemented during design, grading and construction. 3.02 General Earthwork and Grading All grading should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications outlined in Appendix B, unless specifically revised or amended below. Earthwork should also be in accordance with all applicable Caltrans and /or City of Moorpark requirements. Onsite earth materials encountered in this investigation are suitable for placement as fi recommendations for preparation of the existing soils and rough grading are presentedl in Our attached Appendix C. the 3.03 Remoxals Vegetation, trash and debris should be cleared from the grading area and hauled from the site. Prior to placement of compacted fills or base materials, existing ground should be scarifi a depth of at'least 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 Percent d to y maximum dry density. Over excavation of compressible soils could be necessary if eof the are proposed or if adverse soil conditions are encountered in the field. Therefore, actual removal depths will need to be determined at the time of grading when field conditions can be observed and plans are available showing the nature of the grading. If retaining structures founded on continuous or spread footings are Proposed, the removal and recompaction of the soils beneath the footings will be required. The actual depth of removal would be dependant on footing types and sizes, and nature of subsurface earth materials. removals should be evaluated once formal plans have been developed. However, for laws, Purposes it may be anticipated that the soils beneath the footings to a depth equal to the width of the footings will require removal and recompaction. width RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 rage J� RMA Grovp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening -- Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 3.04 Rippability and Oversized Materials Borings 4 and 5 reached refusal at depths of 9 and 8 feet, respectively. However, it is excepted that the materials encountered at those depths and locations can be excavated by conventional, heavy duty earthmoving equipment. Excavation into sandstone bedrock in hillside areas could be difficult. Oversized materials (greater than 12 inches in diameter) were encountered, although cobbles were encountered in stream channel deposits in Boring 5. 3.05 Subdrains Ground water and surface water were not encountered during the course of our investigation. Consequently, installation of subdrains to accommodate natural seepage are not expected to be necessary at this time. The need for such subdrains should be reviewed when grading plans are available. If retaining walls are used in the construction, these should be provided with suitable backdrains or weep holes. 3.06 Natural Slopes Since no landslides or adverse geologic structures are known to be present within the site, natural slopes that will remain adjacent to graded areas are expected to be grossly stable. 3.07 Cut Slopes Southerly facing cut slopes, if utilized, are expected to expose sandstone and conglomeratic sandstone with into slope bedding, and thus are anticipated to be grossly stable at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Geologic mapping of cut slopes during grading will be necessary to verify the anticipated geologic conditions. Revision of the above recommendations could be necessary if different conditions are exposed during grading. RMA Job N 93- 272 -01 1Q. r 7RMA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSI Ti .T a T-rme Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 3.08 Fill Slopes Fill - slopes constructed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter are ex ected to be grossly and surficially stable. This is provided that the slopes are pr compacted. operly keyed, benched and 3.09 Foundations We are providing recommendations for two alternative foundation systems for the su ort of - retaining walls; (1) continuous wall foundations, and (2) a combination of cast -in -place drilled piers and grade beams. A geotechnical investigation for widening of Highway 118 (Los Angeles Ave.) just west of our study area recommended the use of piers, apparently because the de to bedrock along that portion of the highway is fairly shallow depth our study area, bedrock is deeper except adjacent to existing cut gslopes and was not encountered In in our borings. Thus it appears that use of continuous footings is more feasible along this portion of the road. However, since grading and construction plans have not yet been prepared, an locations of retaining walls are not yet known, recommendations for pier footings are 'ro i the for use if deemed appropriate. provided Final selection of the foundation system to use should be based on economic factors which are beyond the scope of this investigation. Continuous Foundations Continuous wall footings are recommended to support the proposed retaining walls. Soils at the subject site are granular, non - plastic, and non - expansive in nature. Therefore, reinforcement of footings for expansive soil is not required. If the recommendations in the section on grading are followed and footings are established compacted fill materials or bedrock, footings may be designed using the following allowable o in 1 bearing values: Footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and established in a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade in compacted material 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by 20% for each additional foot of depth and /or width to a maximum value of 3,300 pounds per square foot. RMA Job N° 93- 272 -01 .1 RMA Grovp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 These values represent an allowable net increase in soil pressure over existing soil pressure and may be increased by one- third for considerations of short term wind or seismic loads. Maximum expected settlement of footings designed with the recommended allowable soil bearing values is expected to be on the order of 1/2 inch with differential settlements on the order of 1/4 inch. Cast -In -Place Drilled Piers Cast -in -place drilled piers may be used to support the proposed retaining walls. The attached chart, Plate 6, provides allowable pier capacities for various pier diameters. 3.10 Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and the passive resistance of the soil. The following parameters are recommended. • Passive Earth Pressure - equivalent fluid weight of 380 pcf. • Coefficient of Friction (Soil to footing) - 0.45 Retaining structures should be designed to resist the following lateral active earth pressures: Surface Slope of Retained Material Horiz. to Vert. Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Level 31 5 to 1 32 4 to 1 33 3 to 1 36 2 to 1 37 These active earth pressures are only applicable if the retained earth is allowed to strain sufficiently to achieve the active state. The required horizontal strain to achieve the active state is approximately 0.0025H. Retaining structures should be designed to resist an at rest lateral earth pressure if this horizontal strain can not be achieved. RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 Pn aP 10 rRq)MWA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 • At rest lateral earth pressure - 48 pcf The horizontal compression required to achieve the full passive earth pressure is approximately 4 times the horizontal strain required to reach the active state. The horizontal compression required to reach 1/2 the maximum passive pressure is approximately equal to the horizontal strain required to achieve the active state. The previously recommended passive pressure should be reduced accordingly if the required horizontal compression to achieve full passive pressures can not be achieved. p ores If any super- imposed loads are anticipated, this office should be notified so that a ro recommendations for earth pressures may be provided. PP prate 3.11 Pavement Sections An R- value test was performed on anticipated subgrade soils at the site in order to provide information on their soil properties for design of pavement structural sections. Structural sections were designed using the Flexible Pavements ", State of California Planning eManual outlined art 7. n Thissp oc dureauses for principle that the pavement structural section must be of adequate thickness to distribute the load from the design traffic index (TI) to the subgrade soils in such a manner that the stresses from the applied loads do not exceed the strength of the soil (R- Value). The design traffic index was supplied by the City of Moorpark. We have provided alternate structural sections for the traffic index. Selection of the final structural section should be based on economic considerations, which are beyond the scope of this investigation. Recommended Structural Section 5.0 inches of asphaltic concrete over native or 3.0 inches of asphaltic concrete over 4.0 inches of aggregate base. Prior to paving, the subgrade soils should be scarified and the moisture adjusted to within of the optimum moisture content. The subgrade soils should be compacted to a m 90% relative 0% relative compaction if an aggregate base course is used, or 95% relative compaction if aggregate base course is not used. All aggregate base courses should be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. RMA Job N -: 93- 272 -01 Page 11 RMi GrOVp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 Since considerable grading may be required to widen the existing road, we recommend that the R -value and structural pavement section design be verified at the time of grading. 3.12 Utility Trench Backfill The on -site soils are expected to be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of organic matter and cobbles over 4 inches in diameter. Trench backfill should be densified to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557 -78). On -site granular soils maybe water densified initially. Supplemental mechanical compaction methods may be required in finer ground soils to attain the required 90% relative compaction. 3.13 Faulting Since the site is not located within the boundaries of a special studies zone and no faults are known to pass through the property, surface fault rupture within the site is considered unlikely. 3.14 Seismic Design Parameters The potential damaging effects of regional earthquake activity should be considered in the design of structures. As a minimum, design should be in accordance with the latest Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association. The site is located in Seismic Zone 4 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code. Accordingly, the Seismic Zone Factor (Z) is equal to 0.40. This corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50 year period. A numerical site coefficient factor for soil (S) of 1.0 is recommended. This is based on a soil profile consisting of either rock -like material, or soils that are stiff or dense but less than 200 feet thick. Structural design should also consider other data presented in this report, local codes and any other pertinent data that may become available. 3.15 Secondary Earthquake Hazards As discussed previously in Section 2.06 of this report, aside from ground shaking, the potential for secondary seismic hazards at the site is considered to be low. Remedial measures for secondary seismic hazards other than ground shafting are therefore not expected to be necessary. - RMA Job N -: 93- 272 -01 Pa ar 17 u RM�1 Cf'OVp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 3.16 Grading Plan Review Once a formal grading plan is prepared for the subject property, this office should review th plans from a geotechnical viewpoint, comment on changes from the plan used during pre aration of this report and revise the recommendations of this report where necessary. p 3.17 Observation and Testing During Grading Soils engineering observation and testing, and geologic mapping should be conducted durin th following stages of rough grading: g e • Upon completion of clearing and grubbing. • During excavation and overexcavation in of compressible soils. • During all phases of rough g grading, including overexcavation, precompaction, benching and filling operations and cut slope excavation. • During excavation of cast -in -place piers. • When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading. A final geotechnical report summarizing conditions encountered during grading, accompanied an As- Graded Geotechnical Map, should be submitted upon completion of grading. 4.00 CLOSURE The findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. This report has been prepared for Dwight French & Associates, Inc. to be used solely for design purposes. Anyone using this report for any other purpose must draw their own conclusions regarding required construction procedures subsurface soil conditions. The geotechnical consultant should be retained during construction of the earthwork and foundation phases of the work to monitor compliance with the design concepts and recommendations, and to provide additional recommendations in the event that subsurface conditions differ from that anticipated prior to the start of construction. } RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 �. Page 13 A GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 1 : r 1 � _1-- - - - - -L w 1 i 1 i INDEX MAP _ OF HIGHWAY 118 WIDENING 1 BASE MAP: Thomas Guide RMA Job N -: 93- 272 -01 1 PT A 7v , r 1 1 1 S: T1 `r VALLEY FRW1..r. �_. �ViRC; A GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 1 : r 1 � _1-- - - - - -L w 1 i 1 i INDEX MAP _ OF HIGHWAY 118 WIDENING 1 BASE MAP: Thomas Guide RMA Job N -: 93- 272 -01 1 PT A 7v , rRgMA Croup 01 GEOTECHNICAL ('nN.Ql n .T A wrre Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 �� a�o��o�cao�cmrs clool RBARA STE •,,, BERN Rp NO w PNTO WL Q LOS ELES r � � Q Q C'� Q SAN DIEGO '9 ti MEXICO 1 � 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNL4, FAULT MAP RMA Job No. 93- 272 -01 PLATE 2 RMA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 FAULT MAXIMUM DISTANCE CREDIBLE NAME (km) EARTHQUAKE BIG PINE 59 7.50 DUARTE 96 6.50 GARLOCK EAST 74 GARLOCK WEST 58 8.00 LLANO 58 8.00 MALIBU RAYMOND HILL 29 7.00 NEWPORT INGLEWOOD 47 7.50 OAKRIDGE 10 7.50 PALOS VERDE 56 6.50 PINE MOUNTAIN 35 7.00 PITAS POINT 50 7.00 PLEITO 70 7.50 SANTA SUSANNA 13 7.00 SANTA YNEZ 38 6.50 SAN ANDREAS CENTRAL 53 7.50 SAN CAYETANO 12 8.50 SAN FRANCISQUITO 36 7.50 SAN JOSE 94 7.00 SAWPIT CANYON 79 7.00 SIERRA MADRE 32 6.50 SINII 2 7.50 WALNUT CREEK 86 6.90 WHITE WOLF 77 6.50 WHITTMR ELSINORE 98 8.00 7.50 NOTABLE FAULTS WITHIN 100 KM RMA Job N° 93- 272 -01 PLATE 3 i - J rRMMA Croup -11 f GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994' 1812 - Santa Barbara Channel - magnitude estimated at 7.1 1857 - Fort Tejon, Intensity X -XI - magnitude estimated at 8.3 1893 - Santa Susana - magnitude estimated at 5.5 1912 - Offshore - magnitude 5.0 1916 - Wheeler Ridge, Bakersfield area - magnitude 5.6 1919 - Wheeler Ridge, Bakersfield area - magnitude 5.0 1925 - Santa Barbara Channel - magnitude 6.8 1926 - Santa Barbara - magnitude 5.5 1930 - -Santa Barbara Channel - magnitude 5.0. 1930 - Santa Monica - magnitude 5.2 1933 - Long Beach magnitude 6.3 1941 Santa Barbara Channel - magnitude 6.0 1952 - Wheeler Ridge Bakersfield area - magnitude 7.7 1954 - Wheeler Ridge Bakersfield area - magnitude 5.9 1971 San Fernando - magnitude 6.6 1978 - Oxnard - magnitude 5.6 1978 - Santa. Barbara - magnitude 5.6 1987 - Rosemead magnitude 5.5 1987 - Whittier Narrows - magnitude 5.9 1990 - Upland - magnitude 5.5 1991 - Sierra Madre - magnitude 5.8 1992 - Joshua Tree - magnitude 6.1 1992 - Landers - magnitude 7.5 1992 - Big Bear - magnitude 6.6 1994 - Northridge - magnitude 6.7 HISTORICAL STRONG EARTHQUAKES RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 UT A ?'C A I � 1 , , V1:?1izT (Rrr-row MP LEGEND j9 s�o of Artifical Fill 60 r�% r 6�° 7�o Qal AIluvium 697 0 Qsc Stream Channel Deposits 6 0 Qt Terrace Deposit s9O ° '` 6 °° goo Ts Sespe Formation 6 0 �.�1 Geologic \ g Contact . Q! + V Y Bedding Attitude I 570 / 20' 210 °pO° s \� 68� g -- �-- 567 h ° o ��' ° 67 0 ��'� ' -- Boring Location i -T \ 66 =s_ 5B 17 ° Ts i 640 - Q��, 620 e4o- Ts Limit of \ �F 6' °� / Limit of stud �- study area - 25° 15° s� s.,� t y area 25- of 4 x o \ `s 561 00 CI � '° � - � EL. 589.1 X545. 5 Qal B-,5 of -4 X54T.0 o I l 5 t A� `'c �' a ❑- QSC X5470 B -2 p � �� ❑ �,5B -3 M X5410 O ❑ , ❑ Q Z ' �6 1 1'j X543.0 rn IJ r O n 549.0 X545.0 . ✓"� 1 ^3 x X54✓ \ s D(� GEOLOGIC MAP 5 X547.0 _._ HIGHWAY 118 1'� = 200' X557.0 \ ` x WIDENING — , CA MOORPARK xa f ! � 93- 272 -01 2 RMA Croup GEOTECHNICAL CONcr n m A TIMPo Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 ALLOWABLE VERTICAL LOAD VS. EMBEDMENT DEPTH CAST IN PLACE DRILLED PIER RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 ., <<+ ZO 52 36 40 44 48 EMBEDMENT DEPTH FEET r rLri1D p 22C 200 a 180 Y W m 160 -i Q 140 J D_ Q Q Cr 0 120 Li w � 100 U' J 80 0 > 60 40 20 0 GEOTECHNICAL CONcr n m A TIMPo Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 ALLOWABLE VERTICAL LOAD VS. EMBEDMENT DEPTH CAST IN PLACE DRILLED PIER RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 ., <<+ ZO 52 36 40 44 48 EMBEDMENT DEPTH FEET r rLri1D p VRMA Grovp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS RWA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSTII .T A Vrrc Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION A-1.00 FIELD EXPLORATION A -1.01 Number of Borings A total of 5 borings were drilled for this study- A-1-02 Location of Borings Exploratory borings approximately located by using the topographic features noted on h indicated in Section 1.05 of this report. Each location should be considered accurate only t plan degree implied by the methods used. Locations and depths of borings were hindered l ° the and l by the narrow width of existing shoulders and presence of underground utilities. imited A -1.03 Boring Logging A log of each boring was prepared by one of our staff. The logs contain factual info interpretation of subsurface conditions between samples. The stratum indicated on th senlogs represent the approximate boundary between earth units and the transition may be gradual. The logs of the borings are attached in this appendix. A Geologic Map showing their approximate Locations is presented as Plate 5. Identification of the soils encountered during the subsurface exploration was made using identification procedure of the Unified Soils Classification System (ASTM D2488 A legend the field indicating the symbols and definitions used in this classification system and a legend the terms used in describing the relative compaction, consistency or firmness of the soil are attached in this appendix. Bag samples of the major earth units were obtained for laborato inspection and testing. ry A -1.04 Field Mapping A geologist from our office mapped existing cut slopes along the shoulders of the road way and Plotted the geologic data on a field map. In addition, a sample of sandstone b collected from an outcrop for laboratory testing. edrock was RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 Page Al z W- RMA Grovp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTc Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 Q F� • O� �1 -1 � � `� �'� GAP o� 0 J DESCRIPTION 2.8 SM Fill (of) — Brown silty sand with grovel, fine to coorse grained, moist, piece of gloss at 2' 5.5 telephone cable at 4'. SM Alluvium (0al) — Brown sitly sand with grovel, contains less gravel and more sand than above unit, easy drilling at 5'. 10 3.7 • End of boring excavation 20 30 40 50 Boring Attitude: Vertical Excavated with: 8" Auger Dote Excavated: 2 -02 -94 Location: See Plot Plan Elevation: 559' RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 No Ground Water Encountered BORING No. 1 A2 i 4 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 Boring Attitude: Vertical Excavated with: 8" Au GEOTECHNICAL CONgT TT .T e Wrre Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 V rni tat) — Brown silty sand with medium to coarse grained sand and gravel. End of boring excavation at 1'. NOTE: Boring limited to a depth of 1' due to subsurface utility lines. ger No Ground Water Encountered Date Excavated: 2 -02 -94 Location: See Geologic Map Elevation: 569' BORING NO. 2 MA kb N 93- 272 -01 J T_ r a C H3 rRgJHWA Group -_ - _ _.r �..— a nl \ 1 0 Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 A\ G O� Fes' O� ° ti 0'L �ps1 PG S Sfi 0G5 O 0 0 J DESCRIPTION • SM Fill (of) — Brown silty sand with gravel. End of boring excavation at 1'. 10 NOTE: Boring limited to a depth of 1' due to subsurface utility lines. GEOTECHNICAT. rntvciri IV A XTnn, 20 30 40 50 --� I I I f Boring Attitude: Vertical Excavated with: 8" Auger Date Excavated: No Ground Water Encountered 2 -02 -94 Location: See Geologic Map Elevation: 574' BORING NO. 3 RMA Job N2.9 3- 272 -01 Pa e A4 fRMA-GroUp <1�1 le 4 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 Boring Attitude: Vertical Exc It GEOTECHNICAL CONRUI X a rrme 0� Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 DESCRIPTION Alluvium (Q01) — Brown silty fine sand, moist, msy drilling. )ifficult drilling below 8'. nd of boring excavation 'roctical refusal at 9'. ava ed with: S Auger No Ground Water Encountered Date Excavated: 2 -02 -94 Location: See Plot Plan BORING NO. 4 Elevation: 574' R1v1A Job N°: 93- 272 -01 Page A5. i rRHA Group GEOTECHNICAL ['nN.'QY n m A XI ,,, Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 F�• GOB �ti.• ,`.{ ,� ��. `G� 4111 DESCRIPTION SM Fill of ( ) — Tan. s • stone.) ilty sand (derived from sand— Stream Channel Deposit (Qsc. — Medium brown silty, gravelly sand with cobbles at 3' and 9'. 10 End of boring excavation Refusal at 8' due to cobbles. 20 30 40 50 Boring Attitude: Vertical Excavated with: 8" Auger Date Excavated: No Ground Water Encountered 2 -02 -94 Location: See Plot Plan Elevation: — — — — BORING NO. 5 N°' -272- 01 RMA Group GEOTECHNICAL CnNCrn Ts,.rTf. (n J LJ N J C) t— D' Q a _{ W M N N W ~ W _- N 0 oe o � 'o 0 Z z O N o FINE Dwight French & Associates GRAINED OL Highway 118 Widening SOILS Moorpark, CA (Mare Mon sox of moiWW is SUAU.ER MH March 4, 1994 MAJOR DIVISIONS SILTS AND CLAYS GROUP (ti*" "t OWA7ER Man 30) SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES inorganic days of high pl=tWtyi fat day& CLEAN GW little graded no rnp WOvW -sond mixtures. �� �IT of medium to ho Plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GRAVELS P.at GRAVELS (cattle or no roes) GP POwy Woded grow or grovN —saw mixtures, little or no rawk EM*QARY (Mare than 5Ox of UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM coarse koctan is LAP= No. slZs. GRAVELS GM Silty grovel; grow —sand —sit mixtures. TH FINES COARSE (A a ant qGC;Colary gow:. grow- sand —soy mix4,na GRAINED SOILS ' . . . (More than sox or CLEAN SW v oided .ands, VavWy sands, rtue or mot.ria b t.ARGER s Ma soo ..» SANDS (Little or no rues) SP Poorl nay f r:*d saws Or gravelly sands, little SANDS ' ' ' ' (Mon than sox of Boors, h «tia� d SWALIMf than Sty sands, smd —sit mixtwes. S� •i SANDS TH FINE (App vdobis SC 04M smds, Bond —doy mucturm amount of fines) inargonk sits and very fine sands, rock fiaur ML sit or doyey tine sands or clayey sits rith slight plasticity SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic days of tour to medium plasticity, (Uquid knit USS than 50) CL dogs ly days, savvy days, silty.. Cloys, loon o FINE GRAINED OL Qrgmie sits and organic War :tlefty: 'aty dap a bnr SOILS (Mare Mon sox of moiWW is SUAU.ER MH Fene ndkysits. "Ji �� r dataatni ceous e� zoo w» SILTS AND CLAYS (ti*" "t OWA7ER Man 30) CH inorganic days of high pl=tWtyi fat day& OH �� �IT of medium to ho Plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS pt` P.at Ord other w9+tiY organic solar EM*QARY Q ASSEXATImm, Sots possessing dho teristies of two oanbinotlon, of group symbas an designated by UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 A7 QMA Grovp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 I. SOIL STRENGTH /DENSITY BASED ON STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS Compactness of sand Consistency of clay Penetration Resistance N Compactness Penetration Resistance N Consistency (blows /Ft) blows ff 0-4 Very Loose <2 Very Soft 4 -10 Loose 2 -4 soft 10-30 Medium Dense 4 -8 30-50 Dense Medium Stiff 8 -15 Stiff >50 Very Dense 13 -30 Very Stiff >30 Hard N = Number of blows of 140 lb. weight falling 30 in. to drive 2-in OD sampler 1 ff. BASED ON RELATIVE COMPACTION Compactness of sand % Compaction Compactness ..<75 Loose 75-.83 Medium Dense 83 -90 Dense >90 Very Dense II. SOIL MOISTURE Moisture of sands % Moisture Description <5% Dry 5 -12% Moist >12% Very Moist RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 Consistency of clay % Compaction Consistency <80 soft 80-85 Medium Stiff 85-90 Stiff >90 Very Stiff Moist % Moisture <12% 12 -20% >20% SOIL DESCRIPTION LEGEND ure of clays Description Dry Moist Very Moist, wet A8 FJRMA GroUp GEOTECH NICAL CONSULTANTS f, APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS "RMA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONRI TT m A 7111, B -1.00 LABORATORY TESTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 B -1.01 Particle Size Analysis Particle size analysis was performed on representative samples of the major soils encountered in the test holes in accordance to the standard test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D422). The hydrometer portion of the standard not performed and the material retained on the #200 screen was washed. procedure was B -1.02 Maximum Density Maximum density - optimum moisture relationships for the major soil types encountered during the field exploration were performed in the laboratory using the standard procedures of ASTM D 1557. B -1.03 Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on representative samples of the major soil types encoued in the test holes using the standard test method of ASTM D3080 (consolidated and draine ). Tests were performed on remolded samples. Samples were tested at a relative compaction equal to the average in -situ density in order to stimulate field conditions. p Qual Shear test were performed on a direct shear machine of the strain controlled type. possible adverse field conditions, the samples were saturated prior to shearing. everal simulate were sheared at varying normal loads and the results plotted to establish the angle of the internal friction and cohesion of the tested samples. al B -1.04 Moisture Determination Moisture content of the soil samples was performed in accordance to standard determination of water content of soil b method for remaining after oven drying is used as the ma s of the solid particles. 6 The mass of material -Page B 1 t IRMMi A Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 B -1.05 Resistance Value (R- Value) Resistance Value tests were performed on representative samples of the major soil types encountered by the test methods outlined in California 301. B -1.06 Test Results Test results for all laboratory tests performed on the subject project are presented in this appendix. RMA Job N °: 93- 272 -01 N F MA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 SAMPLE INFORMATION Sample Sample Number Description Sample Location -Test Hole # Depth (Ft) 1 Brown silty sand 1 3 Brown silty fine sand 0 -4' 2 4 Brown silty fine sand 0 -1' 3 6 Yellow -tan sandstone 0 -1' Outcrop SIEVE ANALYSIS Test Method: ASTM D422 Sample Number: 1 3 Sieve Size Percent Passing 4 6 11/2" 100 3/4" 100 100 100 97 3/8„ 98 87 90 98 93 82 #4 93 #8 88 S2 88 69 86 #16 79 74 62 63 84 S5 #30 64 y #SO 45 47 80 45 62 #100 29 32 20 32 37 19 #200 19 16 17 12 10 Unified Soil Classification SM SM SM SM R1VIA Joh N °: 93- 272 -01 RNA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE Test Method: ASTM D1557 Method A Sample Optimum Moisture Number Density (Percent) (Lbs. /Cu. Ft.) 1 9.0 _ 6 129.0 10.5 121.5 DIRECT SHEAR Test Method: ASTM D3080 Remolded Initial Sample Dry Weight Moisture Number (p f) c Friction Cohesion %a Angle(deg) 6 109.5 10.5 J 34 190 J RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 � Pa e B4 R - VALUE 3 Test Method: Calif. 301 Sample Number: 4 518 Specimen No. 1 Moisture content, % 9.3 Exudation Pressure, psi 358 Dry density, pcf 132.8 Expansion Pressure, psf 0 Stabilometer "R" Value 76 Traffic Index : 8 Equivalent 'R" Value by Exudation 72 GEOTECHNICAL f ONCT IT 'r A XTmc Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 2 3 10.2 9.6 263 518 131.6 132.3 0 0 70 81 .,8 g EXUDATION PPFCCi icr ,I FXI1RelIMI onrf.... �� -.___. 'W 0 1 IOWA Group APPENDIX C GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING - RECOMMENDATIONS 7 RNA croup GEOTECHNICAL CONSUI.TANTQ Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 APPENDix c GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS C-1-00 GENERAL DESCRIPTION C-1-01 Introduction These specifications present Our general recommendations for earthwork and grading as shown On the approved grading plans for the subject project. These specifications shall cover all clearing and grubbing, removal of existing structures, Preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading, compaction and control Of the fill, and all subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines, grades and slopes as shown on the approved plans. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report of which these general specifications are a part of shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in case of conflict. C-1.02 Laboratory Standard The laboratory standard used to establish the maximum density and Optimum moisture shall be ASTM D1557. Method D shall be used if the amount of material passing the 3/4 inch size exceeds 10% . by weight; otherwise, method C shall be used. cone method, ASTM D1556 or other test method as considered appropriate by the geot th The in-situ density of earth materials (field compaction tests) shall be determined by e sand consultant. echnical Relative compaction is defined, for purposes of these specifications, as the ratio of the in-place density to the maximum density as determined in the previously mentioned laboratory standard. RMA Job N2: 93-272-01 C1 i ;PRMA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS C -2.00 CLEARING Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 C -2.01 Surface Clearing All structures marked for removal, timber, logs, trees, brush and other rubbish shall be removed and disposed of off the site. Any trees to be removed shall be pulled in such a manner so as to remove as much of the root system as possible. C -2.02 Sub - Surface Removals A thorough search should be made for possible underground storage tanks and/or septic tanks and cesspools. If found, tanks should be removed and cesspools pumped dry. Any concrete irrigation lines shall be crushed in place and all metal underground lines shall be removed from the site. C -2.03 Backfill of Cavities All cavities created or exposed during clearing and grubbing operations or by previous use of the site shall be. cleared of deleterious material and backfilled with native soils or other materials approved by the soil engineer. Said backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 % relative compaction. C -3.00 ORIGINAL GROUND PREPARATION C -3.01 Stripping of Vegetation After the site has been properly cleared, all vegetation and topsoil containing the root systems of former vegetation shall be stripped from areas to be graded. Materials removed in this stripping process may be used as fill in areas designated by the soils engineer, provided the vegetation is mixed with a sufficient amount of soil to assure that no appreciable settlement or other detriment will occur due to decaying of the organic matter. Soil materials containing more than 3% organics shall not be used as structural fill. RMA Job N -: 93- 272 -01 C2 r, RWA C -3.02 Removals of Non - Engineered Fills GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT4 Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 Any non - engineered fills encountered during grading shall be completely removed and the underlying ground shall be prepared in accordance to the recommendations for original ground Preparation contained in this section. After cleansing of any organic matter the fill material may be used for engineered fill. C -3.03 Overexcavation of Fill Areas The existing ground in all areas determined to be satisfactory for the support of fills shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Scarification shall continue until the soils are broken down and free from lumps or clods and until the scarified zone is uniform. The moisture content of the scarified zone shall be adjusted to within 2% of optimum moisture. The scarified zone shall then be uniformly compacted to 90% relative compaction. Where fill material is to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) the sloping ground shall be benched. The lowermost bench shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, shall be a minimum of 2 feet deep, shall expose firm material as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches shall be excavated to firm material as determined by the geotechnical. consultant and shall have a minimum width of 4 feet. Existing ground that is determined to be unsatisfactory for the support of fills shall be overexcavated in accordance to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report of which these general specifications are a part. C -4.00 FILL MATERIALS C -4.01 General Materials for the fill shall be free from vegetable matter and other deleterious substances all , h not contain rocks or lumps of a greater dimension than is recommended by the geotechnical consultant, and shall be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength properties shall be placed in areas designated by the geotechnical consultant or shall be mixed with other soils providing satisfactory fill material. RMA Job N °: 93- 272 -01 C3 VRMA GFOUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 C -4.02 Oversize Material Oversize material, rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension grater than 12 inches, shall not be placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize material shall be placed is such a manner that nesting of oversize material does not occur and in such a manner that the oversize material is completely surrounded by fill material compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Oversize material shall not be. placed within 10 feet of finished grade without the approval of the geotechnical consultant. C -4.03 Import Material imported to- the site shall conform to the requirements of section 4.01 of these specifications. Potential import material shall be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to importation to the subject site. C -5.00 PLACING AND SPREADING OF FILL C -5.01 Fill .Lifts The selected fill material shall be placed in nearly horizontal layers which when compacted will not exceed approximately 6 inches in thickness. Thicker lifts may be placed if testing indicates the compaction procedures are such that the required compaction is being achieved and the geotechnical consultant approves their use. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to insure uniformity of material in each layer. C -5.02 Fill Moisture When the moisture content of the fill material is below that recommended by the soils engineer, water shall then be added until he moisture content is as specified to assure thorough bonding during the compacting process. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that recommended by the soils engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 e C4 7 YrO:ip GEOTECHNIC AL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 C -5.03 Fill Compaction After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90% relative compaction. Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic tired rollers, or other types approved by the soils engineer. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specked moisture content. Rolling _ of each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to insure that the desired density has been obtained. C -5.04 Fill Slopes Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compacting of the slopes may be done progressively in increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill height. At the completion of grading the slope face shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This may require track rolling or rolling with a grid roller attached to a tractor mounted side -boom. Slopes may be over filled and cut back in such a manner that the exposed slope faces are compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. The fill operation shall be continued in six inch (6 ") compacted layers, or as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades as shown on the accepted plans. C -5.05 Compaction Testing Field density tests shall be made by the geotechnical consultant of the compaction of each la er of fill. Density tests shall be made at locations selected by the geotechnical consultant. y Frequency of field density tests shall be not less than one test for each 2.0 feet of fill height and at least every one thousand cubic yards of fill. Where fill slopes exceed four feet in height their finished faces shall be tested at a frequency of one test for each 1000 square feet of slope face. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density reading shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate that the density of any layer or fill or portion thereof is below the required density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained. RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 Page C5 VR;:A GroUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 C -6.00 SUBDRAINS C -b.01 Subdrain Material Subdrains shall be constructed of a minimum 4 -inch diameter pipe encased in a suitable filter material. The subdrain pipe shall be ASTM C508 Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACD) or ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalent. Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down. Filter material shall consist of 3/4" to 1 1/2" clean gravel wrapped in an envelope of filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. C -6.02 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain locations shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in the subdrain line, grade or material upon approval by the design civil engineer and the appropriate governmental agencies. C -7.00 EXCAVATIONS C -7.01 General Excavations and cut slopes shall be examined by the geotechnical consultant. If determined necessary by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of overexcavated areas shall be performed, and /or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. C -7.02 Fill- Over -Cut Slopes Where fill- over -cut slopes are to be graded the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 PauP CA RMA Group C -8.01 General GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS C -8.00 TRENCH BACKFILL Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 . Trench backfill within street right of ways shall be compacted to 90% rela ve compaction as e jetted as a means of initial ti determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. Backfill may b compaction, however, mechanical compaction will be required to obtain the required percentage of relative compaction. If trenches are jetted, there must be a suitable delay for drainage of excess water before mechanical compaction is applied. C -9.00 SEASONAL LIMITS C -9.01 General No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall density of the fill are as previously specified. not be resumed until field tests by the soils engineer indicate that the moisture content and 0-10.00 SUPERVISION C -10.01 Prior to Grading The site shah be observed b the nubbin y geotechnical consultant upon completion of clearing and g, prior to the preparation of any original ground for preparation of fill. The supervisor of the grading contractor and the field representative of the geotechnical consultant shall have a meeting and discuss the geotechnical aspects of the earthwork prior o commencement of grading. p C -10.02 During Grading Site preparation of all areas to receive fill shall be tested and approved by the eotechni consultant prior to the placement of any fill. g cal The geotechnical consultant or his representative shall observe the fill and compacting operations so that he can provide an opinion regarding the conformance of the work to the o recommendations contained in this report. RMA Job N°: 93- 272 -01 C7 QMa GrOUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX D REFERENCES RMa Croup GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Dwight French & Associates Highway 118 Widening Moorpark, CA March 4, 1994 REFERENCES 1 • California Department of Transportation, 1990, Log of Test Borings, Arroyo Simi Bridge ge 2. Geolabs, 1990, Geotechnical Investigation for Los Angeles Avenue Widening Station 9 +25.50 to 18 +50, City of Moorpark, California, report dated July 11, 1990 (East), 7776). 3. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earth uak California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 23. q es in 4 Ham, E.W. and others, 1978, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1977 Area - Los Angeles Basin Region; Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties, California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Open -file Report 78 -10 SF. 5• Hart, E.W., 1985, Fault- rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 6. Ploessel, M.R. and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerati Earthquakes: California Geology, September 1974. ons from 7. Seed,' H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction d earthquakes: Engineering Research Institute Monograph. unng 8. Ziony, J.I., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region: Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360. U.S. y U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1970, Soil Survey, Ventura Area California. 10. Weber, F. H., and others, 1973, Geology and Mineral Resources Stud f , y of Southern Ventura County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Preliminary Report 14. '' RMA Job N °: 93- 272 -01 Page D1 j LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY & STORM DRAIN DESIGN FROM STATION 0 +51 TO STATION 37 +67 (FROM 1500 FEET EAST OF SPRING ROAD TO HAPPY CAMP CANYON) Appendix 5 Preliminary Hydrological Report LOS ANGELES AVENUE EAST PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY & STORM DRAIN DESIGN FROM STATION 19 +67 TO STATION 37 +67 (APPROXIMATELY FROM FREEWAY 23 TO HAPPY CAMP CANYON) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Hydrology Map 2. Q Combined d On Site. &Off -Site Layout Q25 Combined On -Site & Off -Site Layout Q50 Combined On -Site & Off - Site Layout 3• Q10 On -Site Layout Q,o On -Site Drainage System Q,o On -Site Pipe Calculation 4. Q25 On -Site Layout Q25 On -Site Drainage System 5. Q25 Off -Site Drainage System Q25 Off -Site Pipe Calculation Q5o Off -Site Drainage System Q50 Off -Site Pipe Calculation 6. Q Off -Site �o Runoff Q25 Off -Site Runoff Q5o Off -Site Runoff Q10 Rainfall Intensity - Duration Curve Q25 Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve Q50 Rainfall Intensity - Duration Curve 7• Q,o Catch Basin Design Q25 Catch Basin Design Q50 Catch Basin Design 8. Miscellaneous Information 9• Q10 Quantities Q25 Quantities Q50 Quantities \028059.HYD \dc DWIGHT FRENCH & ASSOCIATES Civil Engineers 1470 S. Valley Vista Dr. Suite 225 DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 (714) 860 -3566 FAX (714) 860 -3476 - -Apple Vallev (619) 240.3319; SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE U A- uw1GHT FRENCH & ASSOCIATES v� �a A4 ` '"` �- Civil Engineers SHEET NO. 1470 S. Valley Vista Dr. Suite 225 OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 CALCULATED sv ia� (714) 860 -3566 FAX (714) 860 -3476 DATE Apple Valley (619) 240 -3336 _ :_ _ _ cHECKEO sv _ --V-- DATE SCALE PRODXT 201�115ingk 5Annn' M-1(PaddM) Q® Inc.- 6(01W, MM 01471. To o-pr M TOLL FR 1 80p 225 639p DWIGHT FRENCH & ASSOCIATES Civil Engineers 1470 S. Valley Vista Dr. Suite 225 DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 (714) 860 -3566 FAX (714) 860- 3476 Apple Valley (619) 240 -3336 -- JOB L VC ,Q,Sy A 4 i trn w, SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED DATE CHECKED BY DATE PRODUCT 204- 1(WQ1t &wU) 205- 1(Pzddcd) ®,� IM.. Groton: Mass. 01471. TO Ordv PHONE TOLL FREE 1 800-225 -M J �r P-- 6 co d L A AVM ` �•i� CFrsy`v�. �: lcl�. Dh - Sote Dr li�� PROOLU204 -1 (Skgle S1)NMI2WI(P�*M ®�NC.Gr"- NIM. 01471: TO Or*r PHONE TOLL FREI V0 225.63W R DWIGHT FRENCH & ASSOCIATES Civil Engineers 1470 S. Valley Vista Dr. Suite 225 DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 (714) 860 -3566 FAX (714) 860 -3476 Apple Valley (619) 240 -3336 - ,_ - - JOB SHEET NO. OF.___ CALCULATED BY � DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCAT F I � i�+aaao� (new /a MC.. Grobn. Mttt Ot17I. To dtlaPINM1E Tft fRE 1_8*Y154W MIA OR Pq ..r i v a� w m: 0 a S-- v� �v co a a m T r`• 1 A co ' e • s • e Length Tc to of run LIM Ml ME No -��-����a _W w 0 Ib. co ti PRODUCT 204.1 PWle Seats) 205- 1(Pmm, ®m BK., GroM Masi 01471. To 0*, "K TOLL FREE 1-800-225.6380