Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2019 0116 REG CCSA ITEM 08B CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA Item: 8.B. City Council Meeting of 1.16.2019 ACTION Continued open public hearing to 2/6/2019 BY M. Benson B. Consider a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Approving General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02: an Ordinance Approving Zone Change No. 2013-02: a Resolution Approving Residential Planned Development No. 2013-01: and an Ordinance Approving Development Agreement No. 2013-01: for a 390-unit Senior Community on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2019- adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02; 3) Introduce Ordinance No. , approving Zone Change No. 2013-02, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for February 6, 2019, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance; 4) Adopt Resolution No. 2019- approving Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01; and 5) Introduce Ordinance No. , approving Development Agreement No. 2013- 01, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for February 6, 2019, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance. Item: 8.B. MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Joseph Fiss, Acting Community Development Director DATE: 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Approving General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02; an Ordinance Approving Zone Change No. 2013-02; a Resolution Approving Residential Planned Development No. 2013-01; and an Ordinance Approving Development Agreement No. 2013-01; for a 390-unit Senior Community on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC. SUMMARY At a public hearing on November 27, 2018 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02; Zone Change No. 2013-02; Residential Planned Development No. 2013-01; and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 for a 390-unit Senior Community on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC. Staff analysis of the proposed project previously identified Biological Resources, Land Use, Open Space, and the Hillside Management Ordinance for Planning Commission consideration in their recommendation to the City Council. BACKGROUND On September 3, 2013, Ernie Mansi, dba Aldersgate Investment LLC, filed an application on behalf of 1 Moorpark LLC (subsequently Grand Pacific Asset 2), to develop a 390-unit senior community on 49.52 acres north of Casey Road and west of Walnut Canyon Road. The application includes a request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Residential Planned Development Permit, and Development Agreement. 201 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 2 The filing of this application was authorized through the General Plan Amendment Pre- Screening approval by City Council on May 15, 2013. On January 7, 2016, the City Council appointed an ad-hoc committee, consisting of Councilmembers Pollock and Van Dam, to negotiate a Development Agreement, as required through the pre- screening approval process. On September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this item and continued this item with the public hearing still open to October 23, 2018 at the request of staff. There was no staff presentation. However, two neighbors spoke expressing concerns with the project design. The public hearing was continued to October 23, 2018 and again continued to November 27, 2018, at which meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of the proposal. DISCUSSION Project Setting Existing Site Conditions: The project site is located on 49.52 acres on the north side of Casey Road, west of Walnut Canyon Road. The property is generally bounded by fragmented hills on the east and west with a ravine in the center. The west and north sides abut open land, including the elevated course of the future North Hills Parkway. On the east, the property abuts residential parcels accessed from Walnut Canyon Road. The site is located above those properties and hidden from Walnut Canyon Road by a ridge within the property boundaries. Overall, elevations range from 556 feet to 760 feet above mean sea level, and the average slope is approximately 15 percent. Predominant vegetation types on this site are coastal sage scrub and annual grasslands. 121 trees over 9.5 inches in diameter exist on site, including 1 oak tree. North of the project site, across from the future North Hills Parkway, is the Meridian Hills tract, which is nearly complete. Traversing a portion of the north end of the project site is the future North Hills Parkway right of way. West of the site are long-developed individual single-family residential properties extending north from Casey Road, with the western frontage beyond, abutting the Hitch Ranch property. East of the site, behind an existing ridge, is a row of houses facing Walnut Canyon Road. To the south, across Casey Road, are institutional uses consisting of Walnut Canyon Elementary School, The Boys and Girls Club, and beyond, the Moorpark Civic Center. Previous Applications: In 2004, Centex Homes filed an application to build 110 single-family homes on this property, involving a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tract Map, and 202 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 3 Residential Planned Development Permit. Centex transferred its interest in the property to 1 Moorpark LLC in 2007. A similar application was filed by that entity later the same year for a similar development comprised of 109 homes. Neither project application was deemed complete nor was City entitlement review conducted. General Plan and Zoning Consistency The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for this project. The current General Plan designations for the site are Rural Low Residential (RL) and Medium Residential (M). The current Zoning designation is RE (Rural Exclusive) and RE-5ac (Rural Exclusive-5 acre minimum). The applicant is proposing to change the General Plan designation for the site to Very High Density (VH) Residential. The proposal would result in a gross density of 7.9 dwelling units per acre for the entire site before dedication of streets. The requested zoning designation of RPD-8U would accommodate the proposed density. The General Plan designation of Medium (M) allows a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre, while the requested VH designation allows up to 15 dwelling units per acre. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Medium Residential (M) / Rural Exclusive (RE) / Unimproved Site Rural Exclusive — Rural Low Residential (RL) 5 acre minimum (RE-5ac) North Medium Low Residential / Open Space (OS) / Residential Open Space RPD-1.8U SP-9 / Rural Exclusive / South Very High Density Institutional RPD-19.0U / Institutional Residential East Medium Density Residential Rural Exclusive Residential West SP-1 Hitch Ranch Agricultural Exclusive Open Space The purpose of the Residential Planned Development zone is to provide areas for communities to be developed using modern land planning and unified design techniques. This zone provides a flexible regulatory procedure in order to encourage: 1. Coordinated neighborhood design and compatibility with existing or potential development of surrounding areas; 203 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 4 2. An efficient use of land particularly through the clustering of dwelling units and the preservation of the natural features of sites; 3. Variety and innovation in site design, density and housing unit options, including garden apartments, townhouses and single-family dwellings; 4. Lower housing costs through the reduction of street and utility networks; and 5. A more varied, attractive and energy-efficient living environment, as well as, greater opportunities for recreation than would be possible under other zone classifications. Hillside Management Ordinance Section 17.38.030 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance provides an exemption for properties having development agreements exempting them from the provisions of this chapter. Further discussion of this issue is provided in the Analysis section of this report. Project Summary The project is described as a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). CCRCs are retirement communities with accommodations for independent living and assisted living, offering residents a continuum of care. A person can live in a CCRC permanently, moving between levels of care as needed. The project is designed with simple and clear site planning. The projects two main roads form a "T". At the base of the T is the entry at Casey Road, designed to be inviting to visitors as well as attractive to the neighborhood. Most of the Casey Road frontage consists of a landscaped feature including a large detention basin. From there, the road forms a gentle arc and the first building is revealed, at a setback of nearly 600 feet from Casey Road. The facilities are as follows: • Independent Living Buildings (76 single story duplex and fourplex villas. 184 apartments in six 2 and 3 story buildings) • Memory Care/Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing (130 units in a 2 and 3 story complex). • Commons (Great Room/Dining; Theater/Recreation Rooms in a 2 story building) • Fitness/Recreation (1 story building) 204 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 5 Across both sides of the T's top bar are one-story duplex independent living homes. These form a transition between the larger group facility buildings and the single-family subdivision abutting the project site on the north across the North Hills Parkway right-of- way. A range of unit types is proposed within three residential categories: Assisted Living & Memory Care: 130 Units Memory Care: 26 Studio: 47 1 Bedroom 57 Independent Living Apartments: 184 Units Studio 70 1 Bedroom 76 2 Bedroom 38 Single Story Duplex Villas: 76 Units 2-Bedroom 47 3-Bedroom 29 The complex would have one or two security guards, with public hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Truck deliveries would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Development of a project of this size will be phased over time; however, a phasing schedule is currently unknown. A condition of approval is included, requiring a phasing plan prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading. Due to changing market conditions, it may be necessary to make modifications to the product mix for the project (i.e., to reasonably vary the number of Villas, Independent Living Apartments and Assisted Living and Memory Care Apartments, as well as the mix of studio, 1, and 2 bedroom unit mix). A condition of approval has been added to the project and Development Agreement allowing the applicant to apply to the City Manager to approve such modifications administratively provided they do not cause the maximum development density of the Project to exceed 390 units. Since the project is not a condominium or "for sale" project, there is no subdivision map associated with the project. However, the applicant has indicated parcelization may occur in the future for phasing and financing purposes. A condition of approval is included requiring all parcels to be maintained as one project regardless of whether another entity owns and operates a specific portion of the facility (i.e., an entity could own and operate the assisted living and memory care, as this is a specialized use). 205 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 6 Architecture: The architectural style is consistently Spanish. The architecture is ordered, with no eccentric accents typical of much Spanish architecture. Instead, the buildings have logical, consistent bay widths, while the orientation of walls in projecting and angled placement provides a humanizing touch. There is a wide range of massing styles, with the 2- and 3-story Independent Living buildings having the most ordered massing. Lower masses with attractive transitional heights are proposed outside of the residential blocks. The large porte cochere of the Assisted Living building provides an entry statement oriented toward arriving persons. It has the most varied massing, both in its rambling, curved plan configuration and its mixture of heights. The Recreation building provides a contrast in its minimal height and simple massing. Its low profile is also appropriate to its siting above the entry drive, where taller massing could present a looming effect. Setbacks: Setbacks in the RPD Zone are determined by the Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council on a project by project basis. This allows for flexibility of design while meeting market conditions and demand. Setbacks are typically defined as being measured from a building to the edge of the public right of way, or from property line to property line. In this case the only property lines will be at the perimeter of the property. Front: From the front (south) property line on Casey Road, the nearest building is set back nearly 600 feet. West Side: The setback to the west side is approximately 10 feet to the closest villa unit, and over 140 feet to the Assisted Living building. East Side: The closest building is 35 feet from the east side. Rear: The closest villa unit is over 320 feet to the rear property line. However, the North Hills Parkway traverses the site in between, with the same unit approximately 90 feet from the planned roadbed and approximately 10 to 20 feet from the future property line. Traffic and Circulation: One consideration in this type of housing is that its vehicular circulation demands are considerably less than in similar density housing. The residents of retirement communities have both fewer vehicles per resident and fewer trips per vehicle, as discussed in the Analysis section. 206 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 7 The aforementioned "T" circulation pattern is augmented by a secondary vehicular access extending from the east end of the T's bar. That road, winding down to Walnut Canyon Road, allows the units and associated facilities adequate egress for emergency purposes. This secondary access would be required to comply with Ventura County Fire District requirements for secondary access. A Traffic and Circulation Study was prepared by Associated Traffic Engineers (3/26/2014) and peer reviewed by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers (6/10/2015). A copy of this report can be found in Appendix J of the Initial Study for this project. The study concluded the proposed project will not reduce the level of service (LOS) of intersections in the area, with the exception of the Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road intersection which crossed a threshold because of the 0.01 contribution and thus degraded from B to C. A further conclusion was that adequate access to the site will be provided from Casey Road, and secondary access augmented by a controlled point on Walnut Canyon Road, with adequate parking to be provided on site, including within garages, driveways and on private streets. No significant project-specific impacts were identified in the Traffic Study, so Mitigation Measures are limited to pro-rata contributions to study-area intersection improvements, including for the Los Angeles Avenue area of contribution (AOC) fee. Mitigation language is also include for specific driveway design customary to development. The Development Agreement includes the detailed requirements for Casey Road improvements in Section 6.14, which language has also been included in the special conditions of approval. Parking: Surface parking is proposed in three primary areas for the Independent Living units, and Assisted Living & Memory Care facility, and common facilities. For the villas, parking is contained within each unit. The three parking areas share a total of 246 spaces, while the villas contain an additional 74 spaces for a total of 320 parking spaces. The parking requirement for senior housing is 0.5 spaces per unit (0.25 spaces shall be in a garage or carport). Under this standard, 130 parking spaces (65 covered) would be required for the combined 260 independent living apartments and villas. The parking requirement for care facilities is 1 space per 2 beds plus 1 space for each 500 square feet. This would require 65 parking spaces for the 130 units (beds) plus 199 parking spaces for the 99,514 square feet of building. 207 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 8 The parking ordinance does not anticipate large scale hybrid facilities of this nature. However, Chapter 17.32.010 (I.) allows shared parking for commercial uses reducing the minimum required parking spaces by up to 25 percent when the community development director has determined that due to the operational characteristics of the on-site uses, parking demands will occur at different times. Due to the commercial/institutional nature of the assisted living facility, it would be appropriate to apply this standard to the parking required for that facility, reducing the required parking spaces from 264 to 198. The total required parking for the facility, if divided by uses, would be 394 parking spaces versus the 320 proposed parking spaces. Using the shared parking allowance, 328 parking spaces would be required. This deficit of 8 parking spaces can easily be corrected by incorporating an additional 8 parking spaces throughout the parking area, creating a fully conforming parking condition. A condition of approval has been included to this effect. Landscaping: The majority of the site will be graded; using cut and fill to allow very gentle gradients within the site as befitting its use. Slopes requiring stabilization comprise a minor portion of the site's margins. The conceptual landscaping submittal indicates the use of trees in informal clusters, appropriate to the residential use. The tree plantings are used effectively in relation to the varying heights of the buildings. Open space areas are important to the use, and particularly to the south of the project, landscaped open space is used to enhance both the living environment and the view into the site from its primary entrance and community interface. All landscaping will be required to be consistent with the City's Landscape Guidelines. It is also important for final review of landscaping to ensure that the species are capable of effective screening where appropriate, and suitable to the demands of slope conditions and growth rates. A draft condition is included to that effect. Site Improvements and National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards Requirements (NPDES): The City Engineer has conditioned the project to provide for all necessary on-site and off-site storm drain improvements including the imposition of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. "Passive" Best Management Practices Drainage Facilities are required to be provided so that surface flows are intercepted and treated on the surface over biofilters (grassy swales), infiltration areas and other similar solutions. A water quality detention basin is proposed at the southern 208 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 9 portion of the property to handle the project's onsite detention requirements and to ensure there will be no impact on the regional drainage detention facilities. Air Quality: The project is estimated to result in approximately 11.9 tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) per day and 22.9 tons of Reactive Organic Gases per day, mostly from vehicle trip emissions. The level for NOx exceeds suggested thresholds of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) of 25 lbs. per day. A Mitigation Condition of Approval has been added as part of the project for the developer to pay a contribution to the City's Transportation System Management fund, reducing this impact to a less than significant level. Neither the VCAPCD nor City of Moorpark have adopted formal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions thresholds applying to land use projects at this point. Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District's recommended/preferred option threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year for all land use types. Total GHG emissions for the project would be approximately 2,181 metric tons CO2e per year. Although development facilitated by the proposed project would generate additional GHG emissions beyond existing conditions, the total amount of GHG emissions would be lower than the 3,000 metric tons per year threshold; therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant. Development Agreement 2013-01: As mentioned above, the applicant has requested a Development Agreement. Government Code Section 65864 and City of Moorpark Municipal Code Section 15.40 provide for Development Agreements between the City and property owners in connection with proposed plans of development for specific properties. Development Agreements are designed to strengthen the planning process, to provide developers some certainty in the development process and to assure development in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Vesting of development rights, timing of development, development fees, and provision of affordable housing are addressed in the Development Agreement. The terms of the Development Agreement have been negotiated by the developer and an Ad-Hoc committee of the City Council consisting of Councilmember Pollock and former Councilmember Van Dam. In general, the Development Agreement provides for off-site development of 26 affordable housing units and payment of $5,200,000 as an in- lieu fee, which is the estimated subsidy for 26 additional affordable units. It also provides for dedication and partial improvement of North Hills Parkway and improvements to Casey Road. Finally, the Development Agreement identifies development fees consistent with those of other recent projects. The Development 209 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 10 Agreement addresses the provisions of the Hillside Management Ordinance by acknowledging that grading associated with the North Hills Parkway, a Circulation Element arterial roadway, will not be considered for determining compliance of the Project with the standards of the Hillside Management Ordinance (Chapter 17.38 of the Moorpark Municipal Code), provided that contour grading is employed on the slopes for the North Hills Parkway to the extent feasible as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. ANALYSIS Issues Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following areas for City Council consideration: • Biological Resources • Land Use • Open Space • Hillside Management Ordinance Biological Resources: This project proposes the removal of 92 mature living trees, both native and non-native, requiring mitigation in accordance with the Chapter 12.12 of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Of those, one is an oak. A tree location map is included as Appendix 16 to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project also affects the existing scattered California Sagebrush Scrub (CSS) plants which comprise the habitat of the California Gnatcatcher (CAGN). A Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Focused Survey report is included as Appendix 8 to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project will require the removal of approximately 17 acres of existing CSS habitat on the site. As noted in the report, the existing CSS habitat on the site is fragmented, consisting of patches of CSS distributed across the site, with the density of this habitat uneven and varied. 10.9 acres of new CSS will be created on the site. This habitat will consist of large continuous bands of CSS habitat along the edges of the site. This habitat will have a higher habitat value for CAGN than the existing uneven CSS on the site as it will include not only shrub species associated with CSS but also mulefat, coyote bush, and blue elderberry found in the higher quality CSS habitat on the site. The project biologist who prepared the original Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Focused Survey report has reviewed the plans and concluded that 10.9 acres of high quality CSS revegetation proposed as part of the Project adequately mitigates the impact of removing 17 acres of lower quality CSS habitat. 210 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 11 A drainage field subject to classification as wetlands is also affected. To offset impacts to U.S. and State Wetland and Waters, onsite mitigation will be implemented in the southern portion of the proposed project. The proposed mitigation/restoration will result in the creation of 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre- construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage to compensate for the impact to 1.022 acres of jurisdictional area. A detailed habitat restoration plan is required to be developed and approved by the City and potentially by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Fish and Wildlife Department (CDFW) prior to approval of a grading permit and as part of the permitting process. Land Use The Continuing Care Retirement Community land use is new to the City, although there are numerous examples of the use, as close as Thousand Oaks. It is essentially a combination of residential and institutional uses. It would have a lower external impact than an ordinary residential use, even one with much lower density, primarily because its residents as an age group have demonstrated a significantly lower volume of vehicle trips than other age groups. The most important distinction between this use and traditional institutional uses (i.e. places of worship, schools, and libraries) is the extent of external links. The senior retirement community is much more internalized. There are no students, members, or parishioners flocking to the site as with some purely institutional uses. The sole index which would have a heightened neighborhood impact as compared with other residential uses is medical assistance. This is provided to a large extent by onsite medical staff. Nevertheless, with an elderly population there will be more instances of ambulance calls and their attendant impacts. The anticipated frequency of such impacts is not such that the environmental determination is affected, or any mitigation measure required. In all, in other communities similar developments have proven to be quiet and peaceful neighbors, even compared with the low density development of single-family subdivisions. A useful nearby example is University Village in Thousand Oaks, next to California Lutheran University off of Olsen Road. That facility is somewhat larger, with 367 independent living units and 100 beds, and its context is different in that it is close to a major road (Olsen Road) and freeway (SR 23). It faces the university and its access path does not come close to a single-family residential area. Another difference is its convenience to a hospital. 211 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 12 Nevertheless, it can be instructive in anticipating the volume of emergency medical calls and overall parking demand. A discussion with staff at University Village reports emergency medical calls ranging from 5 to 25 trips per month. These impacts suggest that the land use is appropriate to the setting, when compared to the existing zoning, or a comparable single family residential project. Open Space In the case of senior housing, onsite open space is of heightened importance relative to other housing communities. The residents are less mobile and less likely to venture offsite for either passive or active recreation. The open space comprising the setback area around the perimeter of the project is too steep to be useful as either passive or active recreation area. The principal open spaces are at the south end of the development, enhancing the entry and providing a comforting sense of a buffer from the city below. Principal among the open spaces is the area of the detention basin, with two levels combining to over an acre. The next largest open space, and next in sequence entering the site, is the "open lawn area for social gathering" to the south of the first residential building. It comprises approximately a half-acre. Three other open spaces would range from 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. These are located next to the Assisted Living / Memory Care porte cochere, the recreation building (principally pool and deck), and the southeast corner of the villas area. The latter appears to be common area, but its isolation by a steep slope would make it effectively only a commons for the adjacent villas. All of the villas have very small front lawns, with modest rear yard open space of varying size and slope. A few other incidental open spaces of 3,000 square feet or less are scattered throughout the project. Another consideration is the visual quality of the site and its dwellings. The sweeping views from many of the units and from the site itself would create a sense of place needing less actual open space than would a confined site. As proposed, the open space is adequate and appropriately distributed. The Assisted Living facility would have the least demand, and it has the least proximity to open space. The villas have their own limited open space. It is the Independent Living units which appropriately have the most open space nearby. The largest open space areas are to the south, buffer the buildings, take advantage of the view to the south, and provide at a sense of interface with the neighboring community. 212 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 13 Hillside Management Ordinance Hillsides within the city constitute a significant natural topographical feature of the community and provide aesthetic relief to the viewscape from virtually every location in the city. The purpose of the Hillside Management Ordinance is to implement the goals and policies of the general plan as they relate to development and resource management in hillside areas. Chapter 17.38.030 (M) allows for properties having development agreements to exempt them from the provisions of the Hillside Management Ordinance. The applicant has negotiated a development agreement for this project, and such an exemption is included. There are no protected ridgelines on the site, except for within the future North Hills Parkway. Outside of the North Hills Parkway, slopes are limited to isolated peninsula- shaped fingers and small ravines or drainage courses. In the proposed Development Agreement, the City agrees that grading associated with the North Hills Parkway, a Circulation Element arterial roadway, will not be considered for determining compliance of the Project with the standards of the Hillside Management Ordinance (Chapter 17.38 of the Moorpark Municipal Code), provided that contour grading is employed on the slopes for the North Hills Parkway to the extent feasible as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. A condition of approval has been included to this effect. Currently the percentage of slopes on the site is as follows: Slope (percent) Percentage of Site 0-20 56 20-35 18 15-50 15 50 + 11 From a citywide perspective, the project would not impact prominent landforms or ridgelines. On a neighborhood scale, however, it would involve grading on its east side that would lower a ridgeline abutting residential parcels on Walnut Canyon Road. Staff required a visual study of the effect on the views from those properties and from Walnut Canyon Road. These materials were submitted and have addressed staff's concerns. The site plan has been adjusted to relocate the one potentially looming building from its location close to the ridge. 213 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 14 The concern in the Hillside Development Ordinance is directed toward minimizing alteration of slopes, particularly as seen from long range. This includes varied rooflines complementing the slopes, subtle colors, and landscaping/berm ing. The project's general lack of offsite visibility, the need for substantial areas of gentle slope for the senior residents, and the required grading for the future North Hills Parkway renders most of the Hillside Development Ordinance's requirements inapplicable. The on-site open space preservation, CSS habitat creation, riparian habitat preservation, as well as dedication and grading of the North Hills Parkway right-of-way further alleviate the effects of hillside grading and development on this site. FINDINGS Residential Planned Development Permit: 1. The site design, including structure, location, size, height, setbacks, massing, scale, architectural style and colors, and landscaping, is consistent with the provisions of the general plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance, and any other applicable regulations in that the site design is consistent with the better aspects of modern development practice, with siting and landscaping combining with building massing to prevent any external impacts, and with well- ordered architectural design to ensure a high-quality environment for residents, employees, and visitors. 2. The site design would not create negative impacts on or impair the utility of properties, structures or uses in the surrounding area in that adequate provision of public access, sanitary services, and emergency services have been ensured in the processing of this request and the use proposed is similar to adjacent uses, and access to or utility of those adjacent uses are not hindered by this project. 3. The proposed uses are compatible with existing and permitted uses in the surrounding area in that the siting of the project uses slopes and landscaped setbacks to isolate it from neighboring properties visually. As a denser, but less- intense category of residential use, it would not tend to create disturbances regardless of the physical context. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: Formal findings are not required of the legislative acts of General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, because they are legislative acts. However, the City must determine that 214 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 15 the requests are consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. This determination is stated in the following Finding: 1. The project is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, with emphasis on the following Housing Element goals: GOAL 1.0: Assure the quality, safety, and habitability of existing housing and the continued high quality of residential neighborhoods. GOAL 2: Provide residential sites through land use, zoning and specific plan designations to provide a range of housing opportunities. GOAL 3: Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income households and special needs groups. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS Time limits have been established for the processing of development projects under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5), the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). Since this project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and development agreement, which are legislative matters, it is not subject to processing time limits. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation cannot be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared. 215 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 16 The Director has prepared or supervised the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the potential significant impacts of this project. Based upon the Initial Study, the Director has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for City Council review and consideration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (Attachment 4) was prepared and circulated on January 18, 2018. Two comment letters were subsequently received. A letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Attachment 4a) offered mitigation recommendations regarding wetlands, tree removals, and Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) habitat, specifically "Coastal sagebrush scrub." A letter from an interested party, known as Better Neighborhoods (Attachment 4b) suggested the City did not adequately study several issues where there is a reasonable probability of potentially significant environmental impacts from the Project. In light of these two letters, staff has reviewed the technical appendices of all special studies and incorporated additional information addressing these concerns into the Initial Study. The attached Initial Study is the document as amended. NOTICING Public Notice for this meeting was given consistent with Chapter 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 1. Publication. The notice of the public hearing was published in the Ventura County Star on September 16, 2018. 2. Mailing. The notice of the public hearing was mailed on September 12, 2018, to owners of real property, as identified on the latest adjusted Ventura County Tax Assessor Rolls, within one thousand (1,000) feet of the exterior boundaries of the assessor's parcel(s) subject to the hearing. 3. Sign. One 32-square-foot sign was placed on the frontage on September 14, 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2019- adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02. 216 Honorable City Council 01/16/2019 Regular Meeting Page 17 3. Introduce Ordinance No. , approving Zone Change No. 2013-02, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for February 6, 2019, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 2019- approving Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01. 5. Introduce Ordinance No. , approving Development Agreement No. 2013-01, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for February 6, 2019, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Project Exhibits (Design Submittal Package) 4. Draft Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving GPA No. 2013-02 5. Department of Fish & Game Letter 6. Better Neighborhood Letter 7. Draft Ordinance Adopting ZC No. 2013-02 8. Draft Resolution Approving RPD No. 2013-01 9. Draft Ordinance Approving DA No. 2013-01 217 General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02; Zoning Change No. 2013-02; Residential Planned Development No. 2013-01; and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 it ,k ` �5 , ' Y _ Rustic ~- j ` , • _I` Canyon Golf Moos ark ,rte 11- 1q� rill COU r ',...0'5k'-.-) i -1-0--:D' '-- f ;` Course �lI Legend �� Parcels {-- 10• _ I City Boundary a 3. - - -- 1 , ! -- ' AiS'411',"14...46, ,blam in m at h 5.<N:,'•`,5' '•N.-- ,---Leria, e- -_, (.,..... 4,0401i,17.0,... ighlan — ':( R':,--_,.,,,e,„,14T #4,446.4, \ ,...::,-,„ -..... • '-'--r-,,,,_,7 ,..,.. j'All-ip.' j ‘7 -,,2 -,-,4„..,. •....4,_ -,0.,6E; __.11 ..... , .0 _ ^ 5I�' y111p 44 4..'. �� t hft, is• i.111 r "� I' � .,/ titiy ur a,N14..0. ' r`' . - 1 I1.- ' '- +�'-- iiiii 7_ 7i,L'.i.... r'----A:. --;....4iirt' WIIII '' k� D .Attiew. 111 MAMA;' MI ----, ji z _ � x.,.n si-' i x1� fi r/1111 `. i0 ,-147/4//IiNi '� imam_ _---- -V---7. ,.`` 1 1 II�IIIII 71.1 41" Y ii �r;L�ii !!!!ii 'L ? , ■11 : a ''1 �� s°__ yid =� I '111111 .` 111 `' _- zll !'t " roll 1111111■■1■1■■■■ it f -,w. ",.. 11. •cL___ ,____________ /______ • ����•■11111■IIIII!':i�'■!n��nun■� LI {�;'„ , . li\ \ ,- 0-,-,--,,...._.„ ---i-----.5-kms ■111■ m ::razr:j��r� , 'r��iii { { II k `1 },` - ■ini ■��:.1111111:1�..p n!;.unln■■■ I �� k 11; I _ ■111■ j m`' 1111111111 ii l s 1" = 1 ,505 ft Location Map 06/05/2014 .- I P •1 • 'frr{ v.- This map represents a visual display of related geographic information. Data provided hereon is not a guarantee of actual field conditions. To be sure of complete accuracy, please contact Moorpark staff for the most up-to-date information. 218 GPA No. 2013-02, ZD No. 2013-02, RPD No. 2013-01, DA No. 2013-01 ♦ ,;•.1/4–,,;:, r.r...,__ eridlan Os Dr y I i , . 1 iiah hffls b ..,t, r°�� ''` "�,�Wetty "¢u iiiiiik.44 . C,'r, ..•w1'1;- • •'c'+ `r I,_� 2008 ��s • 4, ••,iiiiiik 604:. ,. �� , 't'_ �;, o fl• rr �a taint t - ' cr ti ,x _. .... .4 to! ,,. ____ „Iwo .... .ir ( ,...- ..i. . ...., Is, r� _� r • of ' +ftKr' reM � ' ' ' . i . : i' .. .,..2, t • • • . .,, t „sr r II _ , '•. \-- % ' , Itivf , ' . 1 r •• • i ! • • • , x 0 • i ` ' w, ti • j i � u r t • `? s .+tw L !J -. • i ` ' ' S ,R e lipripy —I • 1i ice� . L; i�•irtn • ', % Mme ' ' t • '� • • R' ri to, . E ' a ' . , .-//....; 4-,j . -, ) • , Ce .1 ll • Km) i Stis jt.: .. f 4• .L.:.it1 I • 7r. A�r . Q. r` . __V•411 44 -eY Rdic+ ` -�1 - dna i ll. t •� 4171 . . - .- • ��, ,,, ill c'- ,f Irr 2G•+oi' -1 •' + . " .3� r •d.,+�A 1 ��r �� r ' ..Vii. E y°, Q' ,C . �.. t. I �. y •w p, �..�- MI{ -. ,i , , Oj • i ' ��_ii '!__� _ ; , .� :, t. O - ,,,,,-,��`-j'•1111:4. rill ,4;41:1,....10i• 't:-Ii I / �, f lir Go ogl' Map data'.2018 Google Imagery 201B,DigitalGlobe,U.S.Geological Survey,USDA Farm Service Agency Terms of Use i Report a map error 1" =752 ft I Aerial Photo I 11/19/2018 I w F I � 5 This map may represents a visual display of related geographic information.Data provided here on is not guarantee of acutual field conditions.To be sure of complete accuracy,please contact tgi 9 responsible staff for most up to date information. _______________------ / PRO ECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX • - - Gross Project Area 49.52 AC SP.1 Site Plan _ �_ _ - �__� - Proposed Zoning RPD, OS �- RPD Zone Area 26.58 AC Assisted Living & Memory Care . A1 .1 Conceptual Perspectives Total Dwelling Units 390 DU ---"� Density14. 7 DU/AC A1 .2 Conceptual Elevations ----- VILLA �,. A1 .3 Conceptual Elevations ----r i__-----i. VILLA %\ Building Coverage 25% '- VILLA D VILLA `� -' _�-"i` VILLA ` VILLAD ' , 1; a ParkingCoverage 14% A1 .4 Conceptual Elevations / ,-- D � � � r! � e27 . - gVILLA ` i - ) A1 .5 Floor Plan - Assisted Living Level 1 . 0--II-1!! �lGross Floor Area 455 , 552 s . ft . . . VILLA 1� - _- - _� - `� , ��� ` ,� 1 - ° ; - ��=-- ,, ,_ �� A1 .6 Floor Plan - Assisted Living Level 2 VILLA , litial VULAGARAGE PARKING BuildingHet hts 1 to 3 stores, a x. 44 6 .-.--� VILLAA i �! - - VILLAA g pp A1 .7 Floor Plan - Assisted LivingBasement Level VILLA . ` v`u s 6 -- DRIVEWAY PARKING ParkingA Provided 316 spaces �1 � � - --- -""- p Al8 Floor Plan - Care "_� ° ,1� 7c.-m" .�\1 g --- -� , - oo a Memory (` VIOLA 1 11- �, _ - VIVA 11 VILLA 1 1 = VILLA ' STREET PARKING 11 taEEz r\W VILALA ilit# e I Proposed Development Standards A1 .9 Roof Plans i-� ,ILLA ,� VILOLA J) I ° �! 1 0 A VILLA „ I Front Setbacks 20 t ical A1 .10 Unit Plans - Assisted/, /�' A , VILLAS typical Living ,`/ �` IL ' VILLA VILLA - -♦ �� "'�`� VILLA I �) =-� 8' min. @ cul-de-sac A1 .11 Unit PlansMemory Care �� a ,.� VILLA \' % ii�� VILLA e \ Side Setback 10' \ r VILLA r 1 LEVEL Independent Living A 35' p - VILLA _ _ _ \ Rear Setback VILLA, ; ' - � 1 •�;, 2 LEVELS Se Separation 1 story: 15' typical, 10' min. A2.1 Conceptual Perspective - Building C g \\\ Building p yp A2.2 Conceptual Perspective - BuildingC _ i i iii 0, iii o,, ` ` 3 LEVELS 2 or more stories: 20' min. p p ' Zz � • A2.3 Conceptual Elevations iBuilding C Drive Aisle Width 25MEMORY J�jlF15A2.4ConceptualElevationsBuilding C 24CARE IT / �_ , Parking Dimensions 9' x 20' uncovered BLDGA `, 10' x 20' covered A2.5 Floor Plan - Building C Level 1 UNITS ITS r - 7/TIT A2.6 Floor Plan - Building C Level 2 J MEY INDEPENDENT = 111 1` 131UNtT5 .1 ) e ,114 UNITS . \ vE Assisted Living & Skilled Nursing A2.7 Floor Plan - Building C Basement Level D ., `°" K"S01 * MemoryTRASH Care 26 DU (20%) A2.8 Roof Plan - C Building ASSISTED BLDG% ENCLOSURE Studio Units 47 DU (36°/0) A2.9 Floor Plan - Building A Level 1 LIVING / x�DG awn \� ��� \ , 77VNT5 1 Bedroom Units 57 DU (43%) A2.10 Floor Plan - Building A Level 2 -ASV PATH OF TRAVEL -ff5 24�, Parking Required per Subtotal 130 DU A2.11 Floor Plan - Building B Level 1 4) J • COVERED Moorpark Municipal Code Parking Required Parking Provided . • , = 1 ili ; PARKING 17.32.020 Parking Provided 135 spaces A2.12 Floor Plan - Building B Level 2 REC1ty - N ... Gross Floor Area 99,514 sq. ft A2.13 Floor Plan - Building B Basement Level BLDG C .5 spaces per unit 65 spaces total 135 spaces / / =41"MiSIZier�� A2.14 Unit Plans l Assisted Living 1 .5 spaces per unit 92 spaces total 107 spaces Independent Living Studio Units 70 DU (38%)Independent Living 25 of spaces covered 23 covered 47 coveredA2.15 Conceptual Perspective - Commons ASSISTED LIVING 1' / 152 spaces total ° A2.16 Conceptual Perspective - Commons & SKILLED NURSIN INDEPENDENT 2 spaces 152 spaces total 76 driveway spaces 1 Bedroom Units 76 DU (41 /o) A2.17 Conceptual Elevations - Commons 1 covered 76 covered p LIVING 76 covered spaces 2 Bedroom Units 38 DU (21 %) Villas per Unit Conceptual A2.18 CElevations - Commons ------- -- 74 guest parking Subtotal 184 DU A2.19 Floor Plan - Commons Level 1 5 spaces per unit 38 guest parking (on street parking) Parking Provided 107 spaces (47 covered) Villas GuestA2.20 Floor Plan - Commons Level 2 VICINITY MAP Gross Floor Area 216, 192 sq. ft. A2.21 Floor Plan - Commons Basement Level Villas A2.22 Conceptual Perspective - Recreation 2 Bedroom Units 47 DU (61 %) A2.23 Conceptual Elevations - Recreation h 3 Bedroom Units 29 DU (39%) A2.24 Conceptual Elevations - Recreation 1 Subtotal 76 DU A2.25 Floor Plan - Recreation Parking Provided 76 garage spaces Vi -- . �, Cin Villas � ,�,NIMGrr' ; Gross Floor Area 123, 080 sq. ft. A3.1 Conceptual Perspective - Villa D :.. � p p i' . 1 t �� ' ' A3.2 Conceptual Elevations - Villa D CASEY ROAD i I l r '�` �� jIr �i -M ..... I ,,,-) A3.3 Floor Plans �•.. .W �- ��' A3.4 Unit Plans MO..M• • CASEY ROADi senior community DESIGN SUBMITTAL T . I _. � . Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning II Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr., Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com 1114 Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 CC ATTACHMENT 3 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 LI 2 818 591 3300 +�_� y f+� 'lel' s .tr ig. 4 . ! 1+ o u.a • ii int k li , 1 .. iiii ill 1 N _ II ii � ■■■ ■■■ ■� .. ■■a ■r■ t>t ■. 1 6 ,,,,7* -. I VI"Till NI # 1 ' +,44 'I. I 'ow,:: -,It : ..: : , iu�i 31 . mal ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■n 1 11 ■■■ 11 ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ 6 ■■■ ■■■ 1;01:4/1:. ■■■ ISM Ili NMI IHI III NMI4 NM f44) MOO ii #III¶ja 1Mtillill6r f _ - `� _:..fir '4w .I- , 1A 1� _ ii 1 BUENA ._i �' ■■ _ — f I N■ II ■c. ° '. 1 ■■■■■■ f _ ■■■■■ r � '�""`.' ii - r. 5 • J II . ._,---1 • •' 1 --, - --2- ri° ---1- *16 .0. ' 6 4" 111111P- t'L .1+tIL".---' =I - 11.-,ri ht_6.•-•" ------ - nill • Mil limy )041 a' C :i , 1 - . ,"4, 1 I .. .� eictottit.i". .. OIL — _ .s.iffi.. :014- -41... " pip 0 c C I. iTts- -r f- -, . muumn I , , , . , ip , LII !!!!L : . IL; .••,- -asp ��■i:��■ L, 0„. eki "' `lj,>E f ' y _ r r „ • 1.104tait 1.416.10 .� , 11' 1 , r 'i . .*, . ' 1, -Air J} x L. ,1 . • r. , 40,► , ddli „IF airy. ,.... J. . i r � r f t i IBM ...._ . IIII II MN 11 m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP ' _ , 110 1� hill -ft•., f � I�� err �•,.�- -.-^, - _ _ -, . , III illi , ,�„ 7T A . �, ` r 1 ilii �� ,�� l. . 1 1 , _ _ E - � \ 1. I. - , � .,- . ---- •. �� .. .$tee � V'j�,iict/z,i� wg\ 1 ' r� tit ■ INN 1111 ` t '' � '' �� �� �: Mil �'. 4-,.. :f... ___ ■ w ► i :::..z,ce . .� ., �i i i 1111111 111 • �� F r *', ■. ( 111 ,1: .���� w �, tt . . ■r.. � •• :: . ;_� ■ 1111 r� 1�� it , Illit {"LI:\ iii iii r�i ac■�� ,, 1111■.11___r� 1,1 r r 1 A t* I�� ■� 11 1!1 1111■ ■ ■ w■� ■■a_ :i4 a■rr `; �,R 1.1 rte r�r '� 1 • 11.11 ■s■ ■��,�.� �.�►_��1 ih Srli r 1r4:, # 1 . 1 1. it i I,4 _. w. r iisol - i- dooithor fit r dr , ., : t_. _, • Aligalk-.401L-- -- '---..--"iir- 1 , _11_7_1.1_____::"r1-1,(..,, .. i + ) 111111 III 11 l• .., _ \4114.1 d._ .it, 1 _.; __. _ _ II - V all • ---•'' :'.41'1 ditt i -. Jr” j-1-- . lit - ah 411 III I lit 4/et i • . 1 .:.+ - Iii 41 115" 1 it A 'tji, * ` - r, -k Illi 1 _ , . .. _ ji; c . .) 4 • -tip, 941 --li till 411111.11. 4.11 44 ir 0,------141._ _ 1411 k mit, 4 0 4 mod -, Iffitv.if - ' . 1 111 11;1141111111,11 w-do It lr 41 if r fl ----- is .16 . i _ 4141440111114 . A I! i **, Tu II I , A • 'I I liv 00 t 4.. e ifAp A ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE ' ES � AI . 1 CASEY ROAD senior community CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTI _ _ Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com '14 Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 1111 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 i 818 591 3300 221 II 4 3 I 14 13 10 20 111 111 17lil III 21 Ill 5 18 - I all , . •�:' ' 3 _ /s rN'"-, I. Esi�r� se.f # ¢ �, rse4�.xts;s,43ss'# #z� i �.� a. =Y .'i's Li �s g t t = _ _ T1511111!" - f �•.M ? e£i it f "s 1 _ 2i10 .64; u,444e z` _ ill �£ S a s g s33 - . +i.:$ . 1 J „.Ai 0 c l -.. ._.:. ., r �� - - - ..all a ` _ I P. 1}R•YIIIIIIIIIMPF liMmor _ FPI ,1400 :0-c \I • .� ■VI �l■■ ■■1 ■■■ ■■ 111 rllr IN Ill ll l I 11 r■r Ill d■■ ■■■ 1 � ' I� 111 �Till Er I � 1 ` \ FIN ¶r II 1L 11111 I♦ OM NMI ■■ 111 III 111 111 II ,1 1 ■1 111 ■■■ ■■■ 1 1'd■ Ia 111 111 Iiir fIr�1 i� IIS■ tl . .— _ II 1[1 _ . .:� _ 5 �`" 1 �I 1� ■■■ ■■■ ■� 111 111 111111 II -- — �I ■1 111 ■■■ ■■■ 111 111III a w�F 1 _M _ I■■ 111 ■ ul 111 111 1111 i11 ■1 111 ■■■ ■■■ 111 111 III _ -_ II In �I nn ISI MN I � III girl Il������ I��������I T - T- - — f . . . - + A �! n NI -�a r r 14 t t t. I t{f ■ ■r ■■■ Al. NE ■■■ �r n' t, Immmm : b ■■ *, ■■!!/ '' 1111 ##R '� '� III •_ �' . _ MG _ NI . ! ML u 11 ; I �' I 1■ IMI� �■!■■11 �� �� I■WI ti \.kii1■■ 11 1 iii in f t i` 1 1 J q - b wire,r. , ~ ... .," r. ' 1 i 6' Nu , - ., h I -/ _ ■ ■ .,._.� 414b ' e :a 1. r' <R i - 'y:7►s. �.�� x.. _i _ -1 - – - ..4 -.._$ _yii,_- r r „ A ,. I n t l._ ,Jw gyp' wr. .� .• _ - ,.4,14,„1 ..tf., , r...:7;_,,,__ �� ��. ■ � � r i - -, r •' �■■! 0 till ;ii I ,u�'rr a _ur. �_ 1111■■■■ ■� I . I j ' + i■■�J■■ ■■■111 -.. - ■■11111 ■u 11 y �riw I � r ' RITI Hal P . _ - �6 111111 I a II■■■■ II I 11 I 111 r_ -, .'".1 c" r PI 1 T FRONT I II rfl 4 20 21 18 17 12 13 2 14 5 II 15 7 didillilligikau. t' i . , . . I ;Ai ti wit . ,,,,-,,. j 1 .7. •I ''. 1 : i I ,1.. 1 2 M1 t P, _ `t. -041 1 S"' F ._ x - ,ifilly. t �.o g f� {{ � •� •r' t� S, r: t�Y I fsGfe l;1`� LL r S ` ILg 4g (( r� h'r _. ', F f Y rs •SE Y _ tl! r `l �3 13f? I• G 1 = �� 11 ' fps � _ 1= i c: • 4 r r J�II .1116. 11111 11111 111111 us u■ NE um a us .1 I■ mini a . . 14_4 ,, ; , , �t r 11111 CII III Li1111 111111 11 III II LiI I RI 1 ,-,*r�ilj ,,�„ : f , _ 11E 1111 III 111 1 111 111111 11 III II 1 111 .• I� ,,, , . _ , , .. -MI .1 s. ' . �� m. ��I111 11111 1 111 111111 ill ` II 1 k loon NMI \\ ra)._. _ i . . = t 1/1160► � `, s "'�' rr �+► ail ;iIR 1111 111 ��' E I . 7110010.• 1 Li. i' r rj s ry, { ■ill■ ir t ...... 111111 111 111 III .' I ■. .. _. / t ; A, 1 I IIIn1 111111 i > 1■iii i; ■i■t• i� �� _�� ," t I 111111 . j: ' tri■1111■ 1!r{ �. ... ....... .. � ■■1 1"-_,j . ry ■IIr�E h{ 11 1 y . 1 { t- 41,4 • ,• �� �� • Y` , I r '� v� I ■■I' '� ' ■IL • Ithil a _ I .�.- t I �F 11 ■1■■ -- ., .. V 11 -- -v rn o 4 111 1 1I '? „ ; Iilsn nlni a' r:. •+•y +'rr -- '1'; , " - - - '� - -�- it... l;_R. _ ,4 t ,;� 't ,. t„1.1 , 4 \ I 4. t III'1 J I l t 1 t+ WW1 al 1 1 14 14 i , 4 pt - I, I ,. `L + I rh f .. K °All 11,1 r. ,� ' - - - f , �tl. _ . . tl – �� J� li. r 1 ,.. .`�4' J - . . , t- .I,Ilk I I f I I 1 11 I ' I■ M " �r ''' !■■!r " ! it I.i i _ „ � f, i s 1a. id 111 `` ■�■! 1■■ kg r t1+ ani v 1 REAR ELEVATION LEGEND ( AS NOTED ) 1 CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 11 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND 2 RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE 10 BAY WINDOW 14 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS 18 RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 7 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 12 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD ASSISTED A CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS . LHINGI . 2 senior community _ _ _ Applicant: Owner: MOORPARK , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 NINA 222 ® 14 El 15 10 4 20 I El 17 10 17 rq 18 2 21 5 A - - - - - - - - _ . _ . , PRI . . li . . _ _ . .. _ „ 1 . • - . - -- _ RR. . _ . 111 1111 ■� �■ ■■■I lirril 1 i r; 111 1111 ■ ■■■ !■■ ill 1 �} `r• sr �yj N■� ■■■ ■■■I - • , t "‘� '� - M IiiIHhj !iiiLr _ .„4„.-- t.:""0.1_-•:'': N + t o ,iv3 +'--ti c, '�t? k.t-. 4 a!i • '� °° --!• r a ���• �t� , tl „„. _ A A ' r 1 A ,tom t + lil _� 1i919.11 } ,Lit 1■1� i1 I� 'k, ■■ ■■ II � sT . �t , �� i , � �rI lir ll I� 0 .� ,.l { ` ■ ■■ : ■■ !■ I! ■■■ nl 1� .,II 11 1117 11.�� Ii 1 �� �� i• I �► 1!1 !Y 11111 111111 ! il 11 11 111 111 _ __ rn T IiIf;11i:1110 ovum _ 4 1., I 1� t - __. --_. 'V_ ► ! 1 i ` - - •i- -`� s. - + • _ „ _ .T i a. - - _ 1 -..V... . ..>�t 1►►'.. if.1►w .. .- '� , k - Yi ' _ �►.. �� ,� a�' .- -� ' �? -. _ _4. - , , ,tti i hait 4 ' .I- 'F -, , i .- v - 1 10040fr 1■■ 11111 . ° 1■ - • - f FRONT 10 I 4 3 J II 20 17 21 18 :,` <i'- •--fir,; ,Y 4. is»aCr.�aa r ru. 3 �� _ . . .4.,_ti lir .5�'-- 1 1� l 1 ..... , . _.........,_.,..,,........ :„. z.. . 4...„ .. II' 4, , , _ 'IN'' #1 4r 111 i f ' I ti!1 `, ■ It Ill 111 111 o s- t , r■ II A■ 111111 tf ; ik Ylilil/ 1! _ t* l■ 11 1■■ 1� I �■ M0 111111�� ' ' 1 l I -i; t'k r - - - I■ 11 1■■ 1■ ' a■■ 111 111 P c7,-. +.. i-!L ',t l 'i t'' II: +L t'1 •"%:- , • ' 4i., ..Lth . 4 `,tt T� • la ,t1 4` . } �; , c.. N i ti, `1 + -1. , I r r s 1 �Y�►t,y I Ea • •3-1.11 r • • ''141 ili .�_ - #t�� - �11 #r�� -4►1y1 a� i!'� '. ', 1 • 44 WO r- 1 ... ........_ .. - 1� } r s ,l '"t , 1 111111 `+� , iIr Ate :mi uss , � 4{- _' liii I' • +1 , . .. -- � � • �.'� till } � , • Ii■1 11" fly: 11111 + '° taliiiii L s . mg .." 1 .- . III U NO ii . -7.";.`;`..-::..-,.:•-"*. - 11511 1 z: ' . i r : le4)*)-.. z • • . . • Ali'v -, , -4:•- --., . sr *i ''''' 1_,.1 , c loos \I* _ iii 4 ._ :, I -4' iI 41 __ REAR ELEVATION LEGEND ( AS NOTED ) CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 17 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND 2 RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE 10 BAY WINDOW 14 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS 18 RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 7 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 12 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD A1 senior community CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS _ MEMORY CARE . 3 _ _ Applicant: Owner: MOORPARK , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr., Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com S Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 223 5 I 0 IO 111 4 © 0 m 111 I , , , , • l , , ii •`� F • • rti ^ • ti a 1 k s *_ , , , rs r ! , J* a� igiii .,.. + ' aye-11,.;- , rn c?+C' '1 3,.>, I'..'.4!A" i A ': y y � ai • X11 �_ - • xx ® - t• 111/j 7r. ,rI __• " .: •� _ _ • n �i N , ,11. A. I� i 111 —. j .I . Ill ��I,��r �!■ �i1= c , '' ;� ■■ ■■■■■■ ti ' . ; 'I& - V' �1I — ' ' k. • in r ■■ ■■■■n , ,. ; ,Ir I '■■ 11 ■■. I,.. ■■■ , ■:• I� i�: ' ■■t■■■■■■. �I III 1 r f , :: I I • i : 4■■ 11 n woo ■■! ! ■■■ !!11,• ■■1 ■■L _k ■■■ 1 ■■ ■■/■■■ ■l * I .Ysn . .. N ii", r ti aW.>pt-�. ..... - � • __ 1 A.4t .}�L_. .�,�'flr'�.�t•_. :p-�•..�'��-. _a..�,�.:. �.G-'.�._'s•.t�-i_. 4 w�.._ .�RaAaIF- '0. k •.c.:_ ib•�4�7l _] RIGHT El Q 20 © 4 m ® 7 21 14 10 15 Ei II El C _ 1 ,....„..„.„„,0.,.....,....„,:„.„..„.„. ''�qL'1,.: / INIEmm �_� - _ a-.--,1:-.... ♦-,411l13M111!''^ VINIIIIIIP MEM" 111111 IIII 111 MI 1■ !!! N N N i t� ■ 111111111 111 n ;, ,111111I IIII1111■ 11I' 11 ■I 11 11111111111111111111 1■ 11 Illi III 11111 II 1111 In ' r��1 . �,: s• MEMO rn 111111 1111111 III IN 11 111111 1111 III 1 Illllliii IIIIIII1hG IIII III VIII . ._ 414 PAW" ��r , tl j � Y! t I'4 ; : - I I I -- 111 111 11 1'' .� I .� A . 1 w1 I WI ` ,• � r , JF.1- _ �� 6' NT= + 111 � �' -_ 1 a�'.,■ _r , v ri:.•, I■ ■ l ��•- ^ �1 _ _ 111=� 1■1 1■ Ir 1'1 A 111 nn 1i_! 111 1 1 1 .ate 11■ a. �■ 17 ila' it a) '+ \7f, _ I i IIIA/ Ii ! CI 4"s' ° � li FE I 1 11111 �'-0 11 - V - - t t in 1■L ■■■ �� + t '` _A , , �, ,� ri o d , •, , . ; III l�l{IIIIIAI ��������IQIIIII fro , — _ .. $ , 4 ir, _ . ' a lam+$ Alk It _. „,, . 1 r Nzt I 1 1 1 . , , e ,... i f P a1 �4' A 4 ��till 111 PI) '� — e- �( y f .: ii° rn _ / �i L. # ` #+ 4.. t v� 111 ► 1111 �� �"_ �� 111111 ������i� , ! i""'`�• _ ' . III 1.0 I r. �' —t s' • 4:5. -48 I _ . - -_s: ,. ` .„-A, ' .L--,.z, . .'"i..r.�_41111 +fes ai...: i�.. _ _ _ ;Y»Jrally.rsr_ LEFT ELEVATION LEGEND SAS NOTED ) I CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 17 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND 2 RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE 10 BAY WINDOW 14 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS 18 RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 7 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 12 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD ASSISTED A&CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS . LHING MEMORY CAREI A senior community _ _ _ .. Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning 11111 Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com .44 Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 224 94'-10" 103'-5" 10' 0" :1'-2" 22'-7" 23'-4" 11'-4" 6'-5" 92'-9" 10'-8" r = 1 . . _ .. lAmmil ��� ao P-1B P-1B _ ci P 1 B MECHANICAL STORAGE FREEZER COOLER ELECTRICAL 11'-10'x 8'-0' 12'_8"x 8'-0' FR E x 8'-0' b'-8"x 8'-0" 20'_6"x 8'-0' . h a €1:0 0 MENS !nn WOMENS �6 UP DN— 91x 14'_6" V 91"x 146" EMI E r--) r _ IC � ME EMI il Ul a _ TRASH v P S B _ 9'_2'x 2�,_4„ N ' I j A •I STORAGE SUPPLY i1 12'-0'x 15'_6" 20'-10'x 14'_11" „b -L A . _ MENS WOMENS �� / ' I r LOCIKER RM _ LOOCaKER RM. v0,a J 111 q0�,� �1 /1KITCHEN 39'-3"x30'-9STORAGE / tn'-T'x8'-1a' MED 12-CI x8'-CI FFICE LINEN IEMPLOYEE�rL' / p—' �_y �'- r'x 12'` s-a'x12-T' Iz 10UN1GEr�/, L� ® �J7MIL J I Iv ���` D /� II I�P-1B ` / ORALE •�� r-0'x7'-11 HOUSE LAUNDRI�.�86 $ �. 11 KEEPING 8'-0"x14'-2 OFFICE , ,' LK] \ 5'-l0'x14'-2' It 71 12-0'x 12.0IgE —,._ MF):\j......4•000m.....4000,1.... � I �� JANITOR9' 6" 11' 4" 11' 8" 11' 8" 22' 7" 11' 8" 8' 2" / P-1B �!� `,,, oax52',, SII SII ,• I , 0 , 1_11 -P-r-P-11171-1 j- r"Ul (19' SERVICE =jy_Or ����i� ��II P-S Q STORAGE13-1a'x8-0/"l o"x8'GCI==r mmi / .,, BEAUTY vSERVICESALON i• /� ASSISTED �'-10'x13'-1a' n'-rx13'-101LIVING _P-1A ,,`> P—SDDINING r �� P—JC �1 314x18T16' 10��u 1 1 C.. . 1-----I .4„, (9 _ _ 1 P-SC or p_, UP DN Mel ---- i� ENE PANTRY ` 1` 7 ■ . . 8'_2"x 13,_5„ cHil �, , /� •_ ,. cop 1� IF) • �i Mar '♦ �, �, 1 IF ■ . ASSISTEDP—B LIVING�� T. DINING ,` 25'-9 x44'-q' MEMORY ,' ,► / P-SC CARER_ 'I• ��DINING10 II II I I 2s5x42-1aA U IP II l ; iii �� MENOSa — !�_Lo ■ ■ M M DINING ` \\ 2:51‘' ' Ahi 7ATRIUM �+ii_ ._ Al iik 18'_4"x 15'-1�� •�`� �� 25'_3"x 48'_6" I JL _— i� j lEi] . `\�� WOMENS I E 11 Tx10 CI _- ♦ 4 P-SC P-1A P-1A P-1A i L * • �� -----(\/r KITCHEN 4II •Elikr ... p � x8 O ,►i 411 , , 1I •�� �� P-1A I STORA�� ��� P-1A ,2'_0 x6.0. . :-.A.-CE �\ MEN'S0013, 7 EQUIPi ,\`6'-10"x7,_6„11'-4" 23'-5" 22'-7" 11'-8" I 13'-8" r 8'-2' !� o� 6-sxs-a' PRIVATE DINING LIOUNGE I 1 OMEN' 1 4111 (per lb 10'-l0'x 24'-5' 16'-11"x 20'-4" 1�1 10"x 7'-6 P-SC41 1r ASSISTED LIVING - LEVEL 1 � 9)ERVIC5 x11 4 LOBBY �'� / dillii)ikI ,// I 23-2 x10-8 1 23,209 SQ. FT. �. lib / 4' , J / DI , 114111" \/4".4,4A P-SA �� /, ���STORA /� AIM DN UP ,...J ...._r �, lit </, ." aMAI 8T6„ P-/� SII *% _ Q--IIp] I..) /"� 4, _ ii� ��� 4, OFFICEADMIN OFFICE LOBBYADMITTINGOFFICE \ / / / 13'-3"x13'-3" 24'-2'x13'-T 11'-8"x13'-1" 10'-l0'x13'-1"� / /�� 13'_8"x13'_3 ,, \47 1j, ��Alk ., or-, � 40k LOUNG %� P—A1lib i x20 11 vmoi/, �J P-SC / W _ 114 ii s. 17'-5" 28'-2" 23'-7" 5'-3" \` / 4' , . -D' \ N VY Akilk, P-1B 1 1 I I I . 4.0 . \ / / �� COMMON FACILITIES ❑ 10' P-B Alhe P-1A I , •� / 12,795 SQ. FT. ❑� _IQ I J j. iili I P-SB P-SB � �� / PR `'i P-SD �� 7,�'' ' 4fr/' PORTE COCHERE 9'-9" 17'-0" 9'-9" 1:=1 1:71 4' i l' 4' 1 0 4 8 16 I I I 1 Scale SAoomuA nity FLOOR PLAN . ASSISTED LIVING A I • 5 _ _ _ .._ _ _ .. Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning IIIII Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 iiil 0.414 I I I I I I 7•11 r 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 225 10'-0" 21'-2" 22'-7" 23'-4" 11'-4" 'r r___r = .., P-1B P-1B P-1B "'ice - - STORAGE \ IN_ b'-1"x 20'-4MEE 11 " 1 f P-SB -- A .I I. .I • i A ...., 014. p, . clIllow 1 (._, H_. STORAGE 17'_T'x8'-1a' 1 0 N / ° d -0-1 'b' LI 1) v ,1 V 1r 71 S ORAGE l / , 1 L HOUSE 7I LAUNDRI"-• IP '-1 KD KEEPING 8,a G ♦ iJ J s-1a'x14'-r lc71 0 0 o — o 9' 6" 11' 4" 11' 8" 11' 8" 22' 7" 11' 8" 8' 2" P-1 B �� \� ��� > �♦� ♦�'♦ P-SC P-SC �l mirorl ri, 44'* �C •4k . P-SA cc 7 7 -.1 E ._. , ,, = 1 °\, ��;, P-S D — P-1A ♦ ; — — p_SC ii > P-1A P-1A _DN I STORAGE �` I/Or 1 ; ■I ` . it. 1 Mill8'-2"x 13,_5„ �, 1 pg • A * 8a I I P4 le (S10 ____ I ` \iip\ ROOF 1 �� � li � BELOW A ill I Al I . AU MEN'S �II I 11 V il I./ I n'-T'x 1 o'-a' III rr.� I "'� i WOMEN'S II \ �' n'-T'x t o'-a' II P-1A P-1A P-1A S82x]8E ,% ,, ,� L ' , -ir --1=3 _1 e, 41i#' \ \, 14 \ I 11'-4" 23'-5" 22'-7" 11'-8" 13'-8" 8'_2' �� / �/ of �J I P-SC ♦* ASSISTED LIVING - LEVEL 2 v .�♦ 23 209 SQ. FT. N .i. dill* / 7 If A \ 4 „,, / P-SA � �� •• STORA • ♦ ♦ P-1A / 4.0 ♦ � 9'T'x64' DN ��' /\ A\ ** 8MAI8T6„ f4 .• _ 4 /*\ < //, 40 — = 7 \ !., ' , 1.K 4 ” S4 j, ���j � 01- 2011 OUNGE i • \ II' • / • 11 17' 5" 0 ,tki-ii3e/ ,, , • . . , , .114•\ P-1B c, ihip \1 ' '' \\i/\ P-1A 1±1 ai ■ r2 7. P-SB 11 \ PSB \ P4 / ,, r P-S Dr 4 fr �� "9*,, itklo al MP 9'-9" 17'-0" 9'-9" 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD senior community FLOOR PLAN . ASSISTED LIVING A I • 6 _ _ _ _ _p__ _. Applicant: Owner: MOORPARK , CA Architecture + Planning Il Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .124 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 226 22'-7" 10'-0" 21'-2" 22'-7" 23'-4" 11'-4" 6'-5" , q X , -1 . 44116, =re 401 P-1B P-1B P-1B r isL ,, ,� UP N EMI II II ME MEI II ////////// 1-S44: II I II / / _ L ' II . ' IIu�Oo� �, O / I 1 h I.. 11, COVERED 7 PORCH i‘irie/PI-AlfBill6 ,O,. 0 rid _QJ 'd u a� lc , ` , ORAGE 4 _ _ i HOUSE 7I. Ci x 7 11 LAUNDRY/i KEEPING 8._U�G.jl< . ,o, 9' 6" y 11' 4" y 11' 8" 11' 8" 22' 7" 11' 8" P-1B <i�,��, v• S '�� P-SC P-SC ,,, 0,<:0,11 7 •4,4 irUI-1 = 7 7 '�� _ . , = P-1 A ,��' P-S D 41il ♦ �• P-SC . 'r P-1A P-1A — o 4 35'-8" P-SC � .1, • A Er mi . ..,..% II t. r--- - • alp �►� �1]1%\NOoli � � P 1 A / <0,,,://_ �, •. �� ��� � .�� P-SC N / r[i i • � � EI ., 1. All MENS in ■ V I ■ toa i , 1i-T'x1U'-a' II X11 Dr 41 IA1 iik /11 cn 4, q ii.„ WOMENS il :1 COURTYARD 11 Tx1OCY I STORAGE , \/\�//�A P-SC . \d ,/ \ /4 P-1A P-1A P-1A 4� •% �� , 00 % XrJr 1== 1 — 96 TE h •ro I P-SA Mak, 9:# • ,4 J y� P-1 A P-1 A i .. La 1 . 11' 4" 23' 5" 22' 7" ir 11' 8" Jr 13' 8" 8' 2 ♦ 4r• P-SC ASSISTED LIVING - BASEMENT LEVEL , . � � 23,076 SQ. FT. t• dill* , \ P-SA ,,• V� ', STORA \ * P-1 A � ` 9-7 x b-4 4\ 4+ UP 7 0, P-1 A . /" S4 , BMAI 8T6„ I e7 4- /*\ < .0 • + /j, ���� �� 008, 22E, � N �o �� „x "frsa C ‘,./tts,.• • ,6-:::::46/ 4-, .\. P-1A iyI / .1 - , 1 ii P-SB ]i ,„,,, 3 P-SB \ pi m —\ `'i P-S Dr �� 9'-9" 17'-0" 9'-9" e ,r 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD senior community FLOOR PLAN A ISTED LIVING A I . 7 _ _ _ ... ... .. Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Il Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .1114 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 227 j[_. 1x8'-a' Lgl, SERVICE BEAUTY ASSISTED �'-la'x 13'-l0" SALON i LIVING 17`2'x 13'-10" 132'-6" DINING - P—S C �., 31'-4"x 18'-T' I.- _9 1 N 16'-10" 22' 9" 17-11" 8' 0" 1--, 7'-11" 22'-9" 17'-11" 7'-10" nnN 1117) E 1,), _r- .1 • O _ ._._ _: .. , -r -d P-1AE . , . P-C P-C � P-C P-C r° , w ASSISTED P—B P—B P—B P—B 7._ LIVING DINING 25'-9'x 44'-9' MEMORY ��-�{{�� �-�{� CARE I`•II on ��� cc III i. 7_, _.7 DINING Ir=7 25'-5"x 42-10" 97E11 b II m EATRIUM 25'-3"x 48'-b" ❑ J� I❑ ❑ J� I❑ c E rn___ _10 6-1 i :_____/(1J-' rn___ _. _106- L_ 1 >----(\rr 1 I 1 STORAGK__I P-1 A I 2'-0"x6'-0" NURSE MEN'S CONFERENCE 9'-T x 14'-11" \\ C RECEP. OFFICE EXAM. EXAM. s l_ 13'-1"x 15'-8" / \ 9'-d'x 11'-1" 10'-0"x 11'-1" 92x11'-1" 9'-2"x 1 1'-1" ' EQUIP. O '6'-10.xT-6" / / \ \ 114411 �� bsxso" PRIVATE / / / NURS�S\\ DINING LIBRARY/ I I DINING/ \ \ 10 flY' STATION \ .1 1� LOUNGE 1 }I OMEN' ACTIVITY ., CJI 1 11 I I 16'-11"x 20'-4" 1 1 • L '-10"x 7'-6 2T-0"x26-1" ,�j 14'-10"x l2'-3" \ iERVICI -1*1 5 n'-4' I LOBBY I �� vv // 23'-2'x 10'_8" I \ 0. # , , co �11:11 LI ��� \\\\\\\ /////// WORK BATH / l I 1 • \\\\\\ ////// ROOM q e'x7_6, PHYSICAL • 19 4 x10 0' THERAPY %'y, STORA \• \ \ \ / / / 9 aURs q O 9'7'x 4� \ \ \ •\ / / / �� _ L . b 1 DN UP 404212'-#9" BATH MAINT. ' '' y� �p I �� 8'-4"x 18'-b" \ ' -�-1' / p q `� NURSE /., 9'�"xT VVJ VV 1.--) NURSE �� e'-0"xlo'-o ��j OFFICE j — ADMIN ���� OFFICE OFFICE • LOBBY ADMITTING OFFICE ‘• I� �� + 13'_3"x 13'_3" 24'-2'x 13'-T' 1] 8x]3 ]" 10'-l0'x 13'_1" \ . / 13'-8"x 13'-3" P-A 40 P-A �4 P—SC # LOUNGE iikopp r II 13'-2'x 13'-0' �� 1 11 �� � �� W W. �� i� i � �� �� � � MED � • II 9'-10'x 7' " ' 11 ■ • ,, •175 282 --� 237 �, 53 �� v°� • ��!> �� II _ v 11 N - I I I I TORAGE����� II 1`-- .— P-1B 1 1 - b"x5'2' 11 P-q COMMON FACILITIES P B ` .! r�� � TOILET 12,795 SQ. FT. ❑� \ • 16T x6ET X./ / * , , BATHING 13,_3„x22'_3” 7 ] i \ II 1 PO B v (-1 1 M. P-A 4, 7 1 P-C OFFICE p8'-ax8 Ci PORTE O \y N COCHERE v N P-A P-C cD5r, \ UTILITY – • \\ STORAGE \ 13'�"x9'-11" 1�I \\ U ].E•m 1 L , L(? i c5). in P-A `�' N P-A I1 1I � El El II II II 1X1 0 II II 36'-0" ii ❑ n■ •• 11 • • I -01: v D. -01P' — I li r r it II �} J II P-A I1 /J\ 11 P-A N .... ... €3_ N_ I N P-A11 4 il P-A 11 t 11 II a II CII ❑i m. . 11 17-17-0-31 .-1 n m Ili 7 11 N P-A hj-I 1I N P-A I I I . . I `� 1 p 8 3 El I 1 1 J MEMORY CARE - LEVEL 1 17,225 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD senior community FLOOR PLAN . MEMORY CARE I 0 8 _ _ _ _ _ .. Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning 1111 Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 ...imil 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 228 \/ I\ , I z j, I 1 W / , )1;v7/r 1 I \2/ \ ik. /\ I. \ \ : RIF \ IV / A sif ' / I I 1 / , I hl-----4f . 1 I I / , 1 < 4 _ \ . , _ _ . _ I I \ A A \ \ \ Nit I , , , . , . , I h k. A 1 I r / \ A P.-At".A 4// ,\ \ tk.: I I th... \_/ \ I 17 \ . , I I i 1 I - 1 I /\ 0 8 16 32 Scale senior corn CASEY. . . muROAD; ROOF PLAN - ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CAREyA1 , 9 Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013.0956 OB- 14.2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 Santa Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr., Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .424 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 229 13'-8" 17'-0" 17'-4" 11'-0" 4 Q r• r 4 )1 ._ 44 '� –� r\ /– ......) 41 , -/ (Th SLEEPLIVINGING/ � 04����� '� U �.LEEPIN / ��` �" LIVING AREA ' 13'-0" X 12'-3" _ AREA SLEEPING/ BATH I 15' 4" x 12'-10" LIVING /;".\AREA 7'-3" X 12'-7" ' � � U 11'-6" X 14'-4" ' SLEEPING/ U LIVING L II0 AREA co N 20' 1" X 13' 3" N �- 0 1 00 I i I �� / I 0 KITCHENETTE N N % I �° .... i 7'-6"X 6'-0" i1_ I KITCHENETTE �›,c, ) . /__ -L j I 7'-2" X 7'-0" `—' IL r I /",4/' o0 o II r � N7 � BATH � KITCHENETTE LINEN � 7'-4" X 10'-5' U KITCHENETTE #\\>7'-6"X 6'-2" f8 :\ x70 BATH O / 10'-8"X 9'-0" �; BATH O4/ r,. . OP D:12) l . .. • •• . . 20'-1" PLAN SA - STUDIO, 1 BATH PLAN SB - STUDIO, 1 BATH PLAN SC - STUDIO, 1 BATH PLAN SD - STUDIO, 1 BATH 324 SQ. FT. NET 376 SQ. FT. NET 386 SQ. FT. NET 410 SQ. FT. NET COUNT: 9 COUNT: 9 COUNT: 24 COUNT: 6 11 -8' " 11 -4' " 11 -8' " 11'-4" ir""" 1_ o � I T. I � � 4 NATIO 4 / 10'- 5'- ' 1 C C / LIVING E EDRO01PIN EDROOM(L) 110' 6" x 14' o" 1 -6X11 -516X115 � \ . U / ' LIVING U I 10'-6"X 8'-3" b N N I . . N = I J I Ny F - 00 _ Ldi i-61 j t, , IIo Iro1 ° KITCHENETTE II KITCHENETTE • 10'-5" X 9'-0" 7 10'-5"X 9'-0" S 7 II BATHLINEN / BATH LINEN / 11 -3 X 8'-7" 11'-3"X 8'-7" V a:12) 23-0' " 23'-0" PLAN 1A - 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH PLAN 1B - 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH 449 SQ. FT. NET 511 SQ. FT. NET COUNT: 39 COUNT: 18 0 2 4 8 Scale I I I 1 CASEY ROAD senior community UNIT PLANS - ASSISTED LIVING AI . 10 Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .124 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 ` IA 230 11'-4" 4'-0" 12'-5" 13'-11" 4 4 a r 4 p, r _ o ICF ---- VI /111[ . SLEEPING/ // 7 I —SLEEPING/ LIVING SLEEPING/ LIVING /1 AREA LIVING1 ( AREA 13'-3" X 10'-7" AREA 11'-9" X 12'-3" - / 1 14'-9" X 15'-11' 60N O O En En N N 1 L r o N I j CID ,j 00 j 00 4 BATH BATH BATH O 7'-2"X 11'-0" O 7'-2" X 11'-0" O 6'-3" X 9'-4" =-- ' -Ill [1 > 11 I . =-- . 15'-5" PLAN A - 1 BED, 1 BATH PLAN B - 1 BED, 1 BATH PLAN C - 1 BED, 1 BATH 282 SQ. FT. NET 318 SQ. FT. NET 371 SQ. FT. NET COUNT: 14 COUNT: 6 COUNT: 6 0 2 4 8 Scale I I I 1 SoomuitD y UNIT PLANS - MEMORY CARE . 11 _ _ Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 114 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 231 T r • ip Ak41. • r _ i { �- III . t 1 S It Ali. ��-1!k OP ' r e • - l , 1 . . r 111 At ILA 1 ti lb 4 iv li. ar T I ain 1 O. 4 -,i at 111:‘ 4: 4 1 1 % II\ to 4 ‘ 1 , . , 4- I a a MI .11". 1:41 VII • • - t a b N. A 11 kl4 t II A- ! t, `, al ,. , - , . _ 4 4: le; ti. ff.... IP 1 ,- e % ' 1 • L. - '' _ iii 4 lop/4 - ' " ‘ 1 1 C r • 11 I i 41/4 � r 1 ' w , N. s I- 16 9 - , , I . ti p . ii 4 • 1 1 • t (.41 I 41131 11 i Oi r `te t-.-.-ry +i.. 3r"iyiiiS+Fr+ . y . 7 !fiyl'0.i '. .. . • _ - _..-_—y, ...Tr.:. � ' + � �'i+' i r:-r!teK .,� c+s0y =r +� �f i�f- -i - r' .� ' � s r%•�►d�n r •+DRi•( • ti�.►r • ms• t♦p,Vr TC.�+ , Cc •c • •• � q-f: , ,r - 4. !r f -g' i, 'r- � �� " ►jr+fil + `1� � rZ.- �•�'�;�t.SE +r iI�r� 'r �„- �`.��v � 4„ ” +. '� i rs -4,-,,. Y + 4. s iI � W:-. � �.�.r ^i �r•Y! ` I '`'`+ � ''•, �r' - - - ' V. . R ' -e_ ?� i-r F . - +^iiZ �`� " %+ (�w •` !e4! `K" y[ "....-,1.,--.1P� .'r T.`` ii. T.- I:�' : rc • ra �rf _ �� �, '�'f.�- s%,� " C�i� `s 41r•-•;.....“ t< .j4�y •Li A i . 6 lA N - - -.-4 �r/ = r �'r .+� .f" " ¢ t' , aY_ ri .► ii-. +" . is •,„•_'' _! F ' • - _ .r. trj,, y.. . i . .., j. ' . .=.� ✓I¢VI^ ,te _ ' -'-- �"+ r__ _ ' .......,-----,.... ...-....v.-1:7-1.-.4.------ i' r � 4+ ! ` ; 10111111111111 ., r '.•-. = 19 �� ..0--7.„....1,- ,...- .....017.,„••:. ,.�!i • ,� ;rte-. 'Q ii • r %' � .,. rite&te. 4 I;111" - - .iSirT 11111111 1111111 Cr IP II II II III • -_ 1 r � , li -.. .:_ ic_ . ■ III 1 7•••••••• 1 ION r� 4 � ��� ��■ !!:, ,OIL ' IIIIII ill _ • UI ,...s, Ihrif_ . ..IIIIII NMI 4•1ir • r IOW IV If 111 li 1. 1111 61 4 1 ..Jt� \.jam+ • � ! 3 • �Ilt � � ii � • al • ,o, • I GN Ili MI ii . a IN .L Z ...! . , - . • 1 If 1111111.1Fli • it ;II . i r i I i die .::f., II a ii 14741 .I 41,t •INI_.J..•._ I lAs7i1 . II , Pk$ ,,,, 1. .e. : i: • - iir _ _Ill 11111 . • 1 I1 III 4ii ■ III ENmoir , ..ii 4 i _ ► �- V- - -- inliiiillllllillifi VIIIILA " • Nil own rimmi .-• 44 C . - tom . r - .}- ----.... •t -yam � 1 41410 . .410.0 .111111.•:441 .ia�lii -�4- — _- • 4 " • _ i • • O. ► R fir- t II lir Ir e? .lc Q - j ceT '�..' r• 1' , . iz a . `rr. r _ � _ E — _= ?' ' - / I� "V -- • ---i .i ;,, , 1.,' , s i , . 0 ; -----4,70......„......t..... • Il __ _._ SooXnmuiRAD CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE . INDEPENDENT LIVING BUILDING C A 2 . I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning III Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com 1%04 Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `NA 232 I ./P) 3i, \ , .. , . .. � ;' . I• I. r 1' 4. • k i r I , iii-.11 .. , , el . 1 1 Ili Ail) ' V'4440 sr i• er- `A" yr `6 ups c___.._ . t . , ,1 : . , tollp, _ . 177; =`': \ � v y,��9, '�' �. � �_ .:�;•t%'.''`- ,i.$ Yw!- a'!��r�:ri`s-'►s5►y,}�"`�sj+r''+ ':a i,� •�+. � it�" i 4{ '�, _ :,',--• • ,ZT 1, s • iT���� ; r . - •E .k ,.,--,,,,....,. .; - a, ......,-,,,ir:. . En ad 1 I pi iiiiAll 4: id :%.,ie' ::41__ .04 fizi�� ■■■ Ir ■I 11 111 i!truu' . :! _''�,' � _ _in - I �i III III 11 , _ SII ,.� ���i111 I� r iii ::',111,111 • i t '' , „ Ilk 11...1111.11119 u:. `u,�::_ mr ,'� � ` I i Till .- n � I >T I tfill h _1 , ........_ . .. i wHi ... ■� T ■■ ilii iii lin :�' 11 lit '� �Ifl � ■■. ��LI ■ rpt . �■n �s■ 1 r = - ,c I � x . �► r i mw i��'T---r I■ Its _41 ii oil' um i RI JAl r _ J II IT �r 11111 ��- i ''1111111lNllP 1 t I;rlil UII y --. ' + f `_ �L. !! !!`` R !L'cl, ,� mwiii:Ili ��II�■ _ ._ - �� 11 ' - ' - #41 i ... \ ?I' N . ,t VIIII. 1HIIIII11I1I��III� i r L L - - -- • r `' . *00 '' . N' ' 4 i , .,,.___ l__E a .00. .."' — - _ . — .. _ . „ - ---: re- , li r . ily ..., , 111111 It 1 ' - NI - . , Ili 0 ,,, , 4 ,fit ► �� _,i•• i:./ ( 91 �� - ��° T;::‘ >< ::: 4 , ti .., 1:1 _� _ , 1 Q opipie n‘ ., , N1; 1 ... 1,,,i... ,.. .• •, . • 11:"'' I 4 ____,. _ , r. NI �_ , -ten .: t."---'-'* . ,. It IFa � L. K _ _ .. ,_ If �".R` _ ' ,,,,_ �: A " y Ili _ Iiitk 1 • "!a '-I j Ij• • *Z * . �1. /j "_+..J. •}• 1 t - .i I ..F� " ' sem' o- . �� �l r , ` ` / , it is' at , r •• or , 'i.Ra' "Ili "fir - -' -: :Y' /- w - Jt ' 1.i .i- • i'�F`/- rte= • '� j is ` PI ■re , A I ii Ai. 1 illillir / .M fir ' _ L - - -�� ---r ' `+ _,•,.:Y! j1 . l- - =t r i i tr+ h .c-. _41 _rnmilimme •••••-• C... 101 ° 4111111.111P ,,,."- Jill 11111111111111111111111111111 r .- • ''''S w %. / Ihillimm:if,71.*— - ��- / sJ • - t s _...-r-.........411 • - _ _ _ , _ _ _ ___ - - ._ ., I til'' ' '-�`�` 1� _ �" ' `' r `$ it` '" �` _ A >, ^�. ' amirs. . IF :N..... ; CASEY ROAD A2 senior community CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE . INDEPENDENT LIVING BUILDING C . 2 _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .44 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 233 Q EN rfl 13 2 4 II 5 20 111 14 13 12 17 7 6 19 8 10 , � _ I/ air _ - - ..14.41 I. —1__1_ ._L . r �1 .1n 4a - x _�0 , _ - � � j^ ■■■ 11 ' ¶ ;, !11 ■1■ ill dor IIIIII 1 I 1 ,,,,i ,: ■■F 11 - • III i liar- i ur ill ' N .. , . . .. .. _, a, 11.111 MIN t I III I ::: :It • _ .. ■Ip ■1 ■■■ . , , ■■■ ■■11 , , ... lt, , 1 ,. 1te . .- " i� 111h. 1 O�';,• I _II r r 1111111111111 iuiii I �z.. .. . I + All°1 ,,,.4 ..,. i 11 , ______,, ,,,,,,,, Te• • .r, • ., . .......... r i , _ __ , , t ,...,,,,, JIM - ., i a i 1. ..."1-1-77,-F, • i milmloor 110;*0100'0 lw. I,111.4, , kl'. _Al j1; ' 11111 PI IMO MN _— , 1 I IL_ nown • _ a r�ml I uai -�---� -II 11111 •- 1 Y _ _ of FRONT II 10 Q 20 El © 19 0 18 4 2 13 12 II 15 17 13 14 5 1 A _ �.- ,f f .f.M1)-. $ l' . . .-IZIMOINir ME - • ____. iiikirilP*.r kid ' 4001100.11, 45 / I — A.-..i. .1.11.1 t Ii ■ E ■I MO I II k II III �' .. "' _ a. II 1:: !!! 111■■ Ili ■■ ■ II■ r _ ■■ I ■ R I 1 e - - ■ ■■ III ■P II __ us I ■■P i ■ _ - . i.(�!! + +111 wlm1 SI IQ Ir' - Imoti9 i I4� III 1i11i1II ■lll ■1�■I _ 1111i1 ail 11111 li I IIIiiHIiEi' i. N_ R • ‘- = IVO ' I__ 1.11 Min SOO 111111 + •l MO EN 1 i I Ell MU II °I Amnon ii ■ ■■ ■■ �■ III ■■ ■■ siz _ p�■ ■■� �, , 111 , 1 , . -,. }j �l _ `1::9:11111 liNlin_ i _ it• i1m! _ -- iuiu i -mii Iinlm ''� f._ = _ .– a ii . rt. • L -- 11111 Ill ,rI —�• _ ,f t di II U -* '1114. T4 14 . „ • ff : - -, r • ' v ., - -kiagt L, ii, ' 1 1 be I till, H ' I / �■ ` C. 1, MI" ,r 114 ,vH i , ! 1 ■ ■■ air : ■i RAH 4 ' } I r•' -40, .., ' 0 i , . A* _ . ._ _ , $ ‘ , e �_ 1 1 :,...1_.ii is' \ • a., \ �� y' - j s _ $' MIN . _II L i MEM I I �. '1111 , 11► •, , , , z , -. ..,,,, /.., 4 i jillNat _ i - illi REAR ELEVATION LEGEND AAs NOTED ) 1 CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 17 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND 2 RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE 10 BAY WINDOW 14 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS 18 RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 7 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 12 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD INDEPENDENT LI senCONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS IING senior community Applicant: Owner: MOORPARK , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com S Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 iii 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 ` A 234 I 2 4 1 © 5 El 17 20 113 14 21 111 111 21 - _ - _ • -_ _ _ _ ' j T- _. __ __ 1 3 ,�.:�.:� y.; .;....: i-•-.,.7•..3 t•'?":�":'. d.J! A_ l J6 Y...T 1.]F..�IC - IF J6 if J!r 1.. JF.....44 J,' ! 4 . a • • _ _ ;.AN :a:A AA hikes. `:JS.X,)li.-a sr ,..�l. rv`+ ,• MMM i Imi irmwmmill gliiill. glIPP — -• IN k r 11111 L ifil El :TIIIIi • E i.,.. N \\iiii... i 1 ,, ::: _ .. ■■� ,,l, , i I 1■ ■11■ uIiJuij _ ■■■ ■_ ■ --- au!'. iluniflulumiiii i1i1111 _ 1,_ i �i�A� •�• ._ _±... . 4 ■ i IIIIIIIIIIHIIII! " " I r_ r_ r. V 111 O . . + 1m 4, iu. IIMMINPMM 11111 4,Iiir ■■■ ■■ ■_ .■... . UN MI ■■i ■■■ ■■■M 11111 ■■■ ■■■ II �-*1 111 • -..a.�1 I + ..., ... IIIIII MEI MO 111110 I El 1 4 ■■■ ■■ ■�:,MM■ . o■ r - ■■■ ■■■ �■■■ ■■■ -- -- - -=- - - !g■■ -- ■.• - 1 iuIulilli��l t1 _. ;-r„;;' us. I I 1(i 1111 ft '111 fill �� --. '•a 16,111100 t :. ika ` i, ,I IIIHOOI91IIIIIIII 161ii ' ! �ar - I. 1 I r ts . ,..,, iih '...0.4 ' Nip.:1 i 44 I. ii ' \Z I 1 1 V 1 /11 , . k 'ash• . perily , sa, sa ■■ lib •■P Air S■[ v .*■ a■■ ■ ■■■ in 4� - ■■ .� ■■■ ■1 1 ,� �■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■ T --- J - -101! , , 11.1 a I' i1��1�1- — I[ j�l�Y.' ,• i I 1 I ����'��I �� 1.. r ,. .� = 3 . A • '� ,`r,kR i.' S=%,*.s !(�iY 11'•IY�9�LY� + .4Ioi, }i • ' : .� •.. l� „� 11 I,4t.,, °• ,4 f 'x - ;4=_:,...r.,_-',"' - - - ,_ ^a•':'.`'- ■. � ..,.--_.> v Z-' • .+ _` -- =Jt .. - - - • ,•r Qw i'_" _ :f- ? '.a-; - _ QG '.'.lr,•r ._ u - RIGHT 21 El 2 111 14 3 15 12 111 10 7 20 E o r . _ . . .. .i..._ Lf‘ _ _ .,,v: _ _ r .. .. Arnow _ . . . _ _I_ _ . a„,......_ .. , ...,...............„ .I _..... ..„_, x r;.. ' 11 ,_ ! _ ■■■ _ ■ m ... —_ . fit"' ; 1.', , , 1 ■I ■�■ r;: 1 — .,„ 11 _; ■■■ .... Mr 1 7■■ -,., \ \ �.�►'I ■■■ ■■■ ' , rill ® �® r H — ■■■ — 1 ll ■■■ ■I 1Emit • ■■■ ■■■ ■11 x i i I Hi 1 Minim - IIIIIIIIIIHIail II k 0 ritit r '�_ _. 1■* ■■ �� 1■■ ■■■ I ,•■- ■■■ ■■■ 1� i'ii . , , -� + ' ION 1. 41 -, 4 4..., '--t . I lig , = , - - ai _ _-- II- ■■■ ■■■ '' ■■■ ■■■ , . 1 ; r. °) ql + a ' u[:C'u. �iuiiiil!A mut i • 1 - , . . ' 1k 'r P ,. W ) •41 I,, F F • wt.- T's 0- 'le , s„.ss - 4- an ..3 I ifj ill. T„,_ . ii 3 ' "ii lit( 1 it rk:*° - . 1l + ;i ►► .+a 3+( 11S" V .Mlul �♦ y. .�• 1 ,__.__ a.ei • ••��..�... �,,�� I 'JAL1II... : _ - ..,w__ - ._ .ems> 1.. 1 ��• r' _ - 1..- - ! .F _I�!- _ . ..„i t • ♦ZJ -- •'\z . . _-_„- Z, t- • LEFT ELEVATION LEGEND AAs NOTED ) 1 CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 17 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND U RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE 10 BAY WINDOW 14 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS 18 RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 1 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 12 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD INDEPENDENT senior communityCONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS LHING A2A _ _ Applicant: Owner: M OORPARK , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 iiil .414 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 235 189'-11" ,- ,- PLAN PLAN 1A r PLAN 1A PLAN 1A PLAN 1B PLAN 1B _ -r--, 1— —I7 7 = 7 - 1 7 L_::III _1 l' , 7 1 C i_ } .ti g ji 1� (TiH II I OO 11 IW LI , 1 I l!N)F=J I do u + ] . ,ic, II,- Ltd z __ _ L I I / - . H1 I - - - H a I mil i� 111-7c I I \\ i \\ i ---- ,..) , I Ilk 0 r it �_ • _�il lig III i\\ i\\ --- LOBBY 1 O I I O 1 Li fl I1 ,.., I 0 I I -.—�- lL_ _ -�-- II - 1- - - kA_ 1 F-n- k7_1 I��� I�l�l �- I I -� IUI�T��� // _._t J UII/l� � � �� -----1-1/ Irr- I �11 0 Ij Ii ir I � II II � � r------1 mob[L__I mrAII — I II II _ism 6,11111aIP TRASH I IA r __ T O o0 00 m ____ - o 1 00� rahom [ i LA � I -moo -1 --- �'0 w --1213. 1F- � •• -- m 0�- --« , , \ /1 - F, X11 , \ I1 III 1 IL - =-- I 0 i 1E1 - - _ _ 1 1 K '-iil L J I 1 , �' , 1 \ -- oo� :: -- --- ---- ' �. , AHT NH 11 / 01 MOP 411 Li* I NI -� I I o Tip I I . r---_\, ‘ 4 .9' , V M 4 0 I—I Ej _ - IllEg IV 0 ILL -1 In nr-----F- r- 11 I , yr I _ I �_ ' -o UTILITY II 0 II- __$_ Ili � I I IIII 1LJN7=' u - _ F- - I I� Y- mmw_ - - T -_-_-- - - - L11714 I 7I H ]N -1 LI // z \ ' / I IN STORAGE - -� - - L IT- U 11I\ 71 1I II -. Cl IIP c /I 7 1 1 \ , 1 1 F - '11 /X\ I 1 I 1 1� y PLAN 1A Tr PLAN 1A PLAN 1A PLAN 1B PLAN 1B =-- I 0 i Erl la M ■ 4' Ar • ji _ QI = I- L - f 1 �III L _I o ®4 I 1 —1 V I 1 i 1 O 11 La J �H._I II �_ + Di .FH- ----- �,, qo loooo 1 0 T I '� 110 1 I-T a,47- 0 1 N -1 L � I- Z ---- I� ilk \�x-/ I 4iII I \ 1111 ® I I --1-71 , 71,,__,,r ____ i1 1 1 _ __ 1\\X'1 I r z I II I --- 1 1L y 1 L l „�--- I O ft ,❑ VJ �i •. ni 1 Civ 1- °I° lly _, 0 OO ol0 1/1� II IT O I 1 _ 1 1 c / 1 1 E1 Q — .___,1— i� o 4E ] I11� ._ L_ _,__, K� III � 1 . .9-I iv 7 zrr I LEVEL 1 I �� I 1 16 UNITS 0 AA I 16,950 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale A2I 1 1 ceooXiimuiRAD FLOOR PLAN . INDEPENDENT _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 g Santa Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 236 189'-11" PLAN 1A y PLAN 1A PLAN 1A w, PLAN 1B PLAN 1B LI I_-- KI _- , 7 7 7 11 7 - il -(1 r J 1 1 -L _ 1 Ti 1 O 11 1 I i ID �1 ILJN711 === 1 171 1 or IE I 1 ' , r� Lvii I I L N I I I — ___= i_, H — I �iil Iii T, I �`�'�'„1 �' __ ---- 41 III I - I 11 "III III/ \ L-; I--� I 1 0 1 I O ' Lull lo O I 1 _�1- -��=y ---- k i I- - ���� �n� - - - - - i i I- - - - �nl��l -1 __ - �W0�� �� - lilk 1_01 TRASH ---_ Lei �L� II L�� ® L�� L1 / ® ---_ 1111 / 2 / 0 I ; I I I I I -� I I O - I I I I I 1 1 =lj ® irE VA np —nn F &M --' 1 / WSLII1 VA np I A 00, tit& �r� - - — - - - - — - - - - 1\\ ilI I 1 F- - 711 X‘ I I I ' 1 fl—L_ 189'-11" r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 I L I L J L mi 1 _----J L 11 L UNITS ABOVE ----- 1 ! 'j ------ 9.11. -- grAr ---44- -,meq[1 I l< I II —I �L _I 1AL / k\'`• A 1 J L 1 , A I J � L V M 4 I\/I I\/I I\/I lAs , p _ \t V— \ II �i 1 —� . 14/10[__ i i —1010 . — _T 0 la ii —� I`- IIS - I �— 11* T _IF I Jo \\\\ 'W/ I 04111 10 ill III 0 1 �� -,� Ir-7 II. II �_ --- UTILTY ! YJ1. II \ ISI [lo . I 1 E , �I _ _. 11 z Q 411 I 1 1 / A III STORAGEul--' }- T _ T i--t i_______=, f— 1— ,, i , 1 _i__1 11 El •. L ri- =- , , I 1 1 \ / , F.' __'II / \ 1 1 I I 1 „ „ I�til_=-- I 0 kip 1 Illi M • J' y1 PLAN 1A • PLAN 1A PLAN 1A q, PLAN 1B PLAN 1B .1 r — co - z I KII E -il iril , - - -u _ _ Q 1 L__�II 1 - j_i _ I� _,0_ 1 I :I ( 10 �� i I O Q T E 12-7 I 1-1i. O pTu N ~1 I% /11,:=x-1,. I LJi /X\ i __ ri A1,�� I5 vii I , , , I 1 - --r- NE11 I = ,. .1__1 , , , Fr I , --- i\\X /1 1 . Z I1 /�"\\ lig yl 1 ----�� J I 1 --- 1 ® _�_Io o • 00 1 49 ob Civ 0 00 1 1 imIta 1 � 1 1 1 ! 1 1 O 1 ' 1 I IT . m I l I _I� - � -- 1 0 NA'H 1LLi IIS,='�� I ® _ . K� III 1 I Xr 9 e BASEMENT LEVEL i 1 , 10 UNITS 1 -- 1 00 11 11 ,705 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale I I I 1 CASEY ROAD senFLOOR PLAN INDEPENDENT LI IING senior community _ _ Applicant: Owner: MOORPARK , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .124 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 ` A 238 -1 / /\ 11� < r cm. 111— I11� 111 / 111- 111— HIM _ 11� n -1 =g=======1='- 1- ROOF PITCH 4:12 � 111 111 u / cIIi , 111 N 11 11 11 11 / 11 11 11 IIL -1` 1 t 0 4 8 16 Scale I • I CASEY ROAD senior community ROOF PLAN - INDEPENDENT LHING BUILDING ( A2 . 8 Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning pi Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .414 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 i 818 591 3300 239 , 174'-8" PLAN 1B PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1B PLAN 1B r 4 4 � r- 7 ] T . 1:7 . 1:7 ? I 7 i 7i 7 .. 1- II II1- 1 LI li --- =-- --- =---if- - - I F, , - _*___ , ____, 1 , , 7C1'I - j_ 1 1 , I1 1 , I1 —q ! p ______ I I I I I 1-701 „ I I I I I SI. I� „ 1 . i III I/\I ” I I I I I i \ I I I I I ! i_uil Ji lilt II 1_____-= r---1 -" \ J o11 1- -1 i. n I%\loo L1 - I-----i 0 A 1/ X\\ ® 1- I%\loo L j%X\\ ® 1 / I- fJDT !L 1� L / i� a -_ UTIL. ii ` 'i 0 LI El Fr* , ni. 0 _ 1 - - -., Li P 0 - it IPA A �� 1111. I � mo oetbhillIMP1:1. r [ 1A - ® �� �n n+-E- ® - �� �� _,88F_ 788,__ m 1 _ v (-- . 1-- 411:1m ei ezhal -'4 "--- 11 (--; - �1-- V4111.* l F, 7: 11 L 1 F,--, l , , F- 1E INI J L I F---,a , L via 0 � w ‘_ 4 ----= Lr1 I�/i I- I IF LOBBY I _ 1�7r I�/i - I I ��7r �7 _ �_�7 _ ® ® 1111P — I r--- 'IN 7 i1 = \\ LL I o III I 'IN i 1 I I 1LYJ F�--- / � — — — . — . — — — 1LY I i L-J I' I. _ I ;: I MI r� / LJ / 1/ \ I TRASH 4 r Lin T _ ,_44 ,_, r Lin ____ ,____r 1 . c„_ F. T 7 1- ; csii_ , 1 1- ; , 1 T 7 .. r PLAN 1B PLAN 1A .40. PLAN 1A PLAN 1A x PLAN 1A PLAN 1B 4. LEVEL 1 11 UNITS 11 ,136 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale I I I 1 CASEY ROADIA2 . 9ING senior community FLOOR PLAN . INDEPENDENT LI _ _ Applicant: Owner: MOORPARK , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 ` A 240 1 174'-8" PLAN 1 BPLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1B PLAN 1B 7 =___T 'Ti i_ -r =___T 1 _ 7 .. 1- 'll I IIi II Tir 7 r - 1 d -7\7„--- . ____IF —1 , , _ L ____1 -1 _Ltd_ _ ______„ 1 ii 1 -7j - 11 IL - ri: lI SI I vy i -- I v_y i 17 �- 1 � I= Ii " i i i I111 ft' ' lii �- 0 11M1 � _ � I I/ 0oL j4 ® 1 1 j' j 2 ®. I/ 0o L1 1 71 LI II2 , AI ,, A , .: LH JLJ „LIi'� UTI L. A • II II - llIP ii A - -74ii mil irA -11-18817 06%1 gar- I ,, �_� � p � �__ ® M -c9-E- m 1 ® ❑ ]0 p, -_sT , •• -- mp � __el I\\I v KV KN kV I__IN 221 - VA Apr& ---ei--- y *0� _ ' NI ___, ,_ ,:;.„ __ p 1 ., - 1 —ik [�� A A _�� ' � A fria Liles II 1 - �- -� I I II � L______J I II L-�'' - I I � TRASH IllEgIllpOO - - -- ' A - - - - \ ® OO . . \ 1 7_ J--PV 'lc] FJ 1_ _i-i [1]Vi I\/1E] rj 1 El rj -I�r7 �I 1____ \ 1 0 I 10 I i,,,,Ej r - 1 1 1 I l I O I t 0 j ' r________= �1 \ / ��IIci_ ii71F _ _ . - . - . - . _ — . — . — . — . — . �, , , ISI 1, m h 1 iii.7M II — 2 /\ lir7 lc _ 7 =i ____;___.......)._ _ _ i_ 1__[ i_ _ =i 11:___, ____ _,_ _ pp: ____ .__„ T. 1 1-1- ; clIPP 1 -1-r 1- ; ci _ ii. 1 1 7 . • PLAN 1B PLAN 1A PLAN 1A PLAN 1A PLAN 1A PLAN 1B LEVEL 2 11 UNITS 10,977 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROADIA2ING senior community FLOOR PLAN . INDEPENDENT LI _ _ Li Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .-.04 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 241 174'-8" PLAN 1B y •PLAN 2 y •PLAN 2 y PLAN 1B PLAN 1B 7 (01 , =___T 'ii-=. i_ _, =___T 1 a 1 7 .E7i. 7 1 I1- -L. _- 1_ __, , _, -,11— .___ Liii -1F I ___-7=- -1F 1 Liii Fitihi —I____ I I ��'I ' - ii i t I I i i It I ii- r7c A �iiI i \ ii i�i i ir�� " iiii. iii I \ I : i i i i iii � I [; i II i I I \iii Iv i 1 IL I l y�_ L 1L— I _ L I- ----- C __3188 • —J ; " n �__ � 00 L ;X, 00 LL —, f7ii -0 41 ig ,0 - — UTIL.J 1 — , �- I . 0 II -� o2 II � A — II :>:,,a41 .x.-�/ - _, —I— 601111 A . ! i 10; - o M +oL*-[- ® ❑ M +� opf / ®1 ❑ _ X10, --18o 84 m r _ / _ __el i v i? KN v I,N N- tiN kN dc-IN I [12- ILX rN *� —ItAtrilm •I I — V411 **,I II II;H 1 I el , I I ' TRASHlip I _ IIE LOBBY 4 _ ���_� 7 _ _ Mi\(i �7 _ ,�„ _ ® ���_____ -� 0 r T .-- \�\ I , D V V �I I I , I� V j T / 1- - - - - ti - _ r _ _ _ _ , , II_ _ _ _ - _ _J _ _ _ - I _J - • �. 1---- 1 \\ LSI 0 I I 0 , " i 4------- e I \ Ii�y F IDLY l ilL17 ... _i________, _p _ _L_ _1_ —, I IF cl 1, _ 7 17_,J 1 11--' 111P717--=' •• . 1 1- ; 111P 1 PLAN 1B PLAN 1A PLAN 1A PLAN 1Aiii PLAN 1A PLAN 1B LEVEL 1 11 UNITS 10,977 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROADIA2ING senior community FLOOR PLAN . INDEPENDENT LI _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `IA 242 174'-8" PLAN 1B PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 Bi PLAN 1B 1 7 ,,1=1 , =_.7 =_ __,=I . Tir7 1- (._ II II Til 7 1 7i 1 _ •_._ 1-- 1-- ] . u, 1 1 LII __-_-_-F - - 1 - -7=---- --IF - - 1 LII -----:---= - - _, , 1-,_ . ._,_, _*__-7=-, _1 , I, , , , , . N II I E7C-1-�J1- i Iy q__ i i F i i Iy i i i i it jJL JLL '__ 11. 11== 0 , -i7li , f 0 2 0 \.00 L II X;\ ® \.00 L /X;\1 -1 - 17-Elkii� a0 - -I UTIL. rim ii X r1=1 11 ii XLI 1°I11 11 I ii Ei.1 _ II ' 'PIA M-- 0 11W- pi -foo , __ M °4_17 . 6 rA ® HA - 1 -----i - M +o o+_� � ® __ OF -11-1-83Foor- killimpalP __~ i \J zr \V \\I [..7 1.-Iil •• _ � � '� 1 �. --goo -- � .. -- I � 7 -- �� � - co -- p �' � •• _- ,p�� ------ m� �V41 �� moo, ..L �' , ;-- ; �.. "L 1---;� A mi- V i1; �,1 1;x ,1i 11;x. 1 1, ,1Icilli 1SP. -- TRASH II - 0 4 I IIEli � II I -� �- IO •1 !Ti- 41 =. wicir_ -[7, , , E:3-u E11 __. , . , - - - - -_ ___ ' \I v ' - r - - - - - - - - �--- - � - - - - - � -lcZli,17,111_��= 1i ____ 1 , 1 0 11 0 I £ ' a I 0 [ l 0 I � ' I;i II;Ly � , �� IiLY _ liEl=r_= -� I � � I LiF7P - is, 1--' _.___i T, -_, T---4 .7 - _ T ; 1- ; ; 1 1- ; ciL T ; 1 IP' I PLAN 1BPLAN 1A r PLAN 1A PLAN 1A r PLAN 1A PLAN 1B LEVEL 2 11 UNITS 10,977 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale I I I 1 CASEY ROADIA2ING senior community FLOOR PLAN . INDEPENDENT LI _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 243 174'-8" r 1 r 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 L J L J L I I 1 1 r J L J L 7 � I I UNITS I ABOVE 11 H UTIL. '-----I ., oc_ Tr A il ei --J 7 t_11/__( 1i / -, \.] cc __ ii k , Lz'L Al:Ipm ei 1 \--11 7h EL, .354:_ 1 ., - 1 [--71 mi ‘ 1 1 Lik„ ____ , ii11:1 ifr OLOBBY % ii / ii ii ii I ® lir OrI rj ''' ' V /I h___01 ij A A 7 __ ,0 1:zi: _r__ 1 �r1 r, /I� J T� moi'--�\\ILI \ i : k ' ' k i Cr �7D i �7Q __ ' __ T_ , 1 iv .—1 _ r I L_J Ir.7 I r7 LJ TRASH T ____ , . _,__ _, _ _. ,_ IL T ' , i __, ii__, _, _ — T . cjir , 1 - .. PLAN 1B PLAN 1A x PLAN 1A T PLAN 1A PLAN 1A r PLAN 1B BASEMENT LEVEL 6 UNITS 6,344 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale I I I 1 CASEY ROAD senFLOOR PLAN/ -, \ senior community _ _ Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .124 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 244 39'-2" 21'-8" 25'-0" 11'-6" 16'-8" 11'-1" r 7'4" 14'4" 10'-8" 14'4" • v i • S.1 IT1 PATIO I 1 I PATIO PATIO 12' 7"x 7' 8" � I 11'-1"X 6'-0" I 11'-1"X 6'-0" 1 1 L r 40-K7 A-OtA (111 ,.� J NA "it .- I\ i U _ /,.� I,.� 1 4 - if = \ \ / I II LIVING ROOM I �1 MASTER 13' 6"X17' 4" r) 4( � ` U BEDROOM BEDROOM 2 U I ON ) I �� _ 12'-5" X 14'-4" _. ( o BEDROOM I I LIVING/DING I � � _.ter AREA LIVIN DININ U 12'-1" x 12'-3" 8'-1" X 12'-4" 12'-1 1" X 16'-8" I I 12'-1" X 16' 8 (7) I F " , -- \.,_\' ' - - - �� ,� W.I. .i N :-_ - - - - - N I i j j6'-4" X 7'-11'� Z = 1 1 I W.I.C.,I O 1 5'-8„ X 5 1„ I U 4 BATH - i_ _ 1 1____ r 11= — — — A 111- -1 \ L___1 - 7'-10��X 10'-1 „ I i0 I- _ ---1JLO I i\ 1 _ 1_____IF_XI , ° . , --- 0 J ENTRY - L _ J ' L _ J - � - DININGOBATH 2 6' 3" X 7' 4" FAUNCTillY F. J. 6' 8"X 9' 10" I I I ILAUNDliY O ENTRY I O BAT 1_ -_1 I- - -� . BATH 4' 10 x 7' 1" II KITCHEN I I KITCHEN KITCHEN \ at -71 1 ,2111I6'-3"X 8'-7" 10'-11"X 7'-10" i =' 4" 4" I I 6' 3" X 8' 7" 8' 2" X 8' 8.. 11 X - — • s ; II Q , II ! AUC�CpR O I ICO \ o/ — — I / — — COATS A I_ O - C LII] - - /Fx=== L J Oz--OOF �� ? sO 9'-3" 5'-8" 6'-10" 12'-7" 5'-8" 6'-10" 19'-5" 5'-0" 14'-10" 4. PLAN 1A - STUDIO, 1 BATH PLAN 1B - 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH PLAN 2 - 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 524 SQ. FT. 613 SQ. FT. 1 103 SQ. FT. 0 2 4 8 Scale CASEY ROAD senior community UNIT PLANS . INDEPENDENT LIVING A2 . I 4 _ _ Applicant: Owner: ill NA M OORPARK , C A Architecture + Planning Alders ate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250lid gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com .114 Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 245 r n r• 111 , t er -• , , Pok . - - ji I4116 . .a ft • - , • • ,tilt If ;13 •� ti .r • L it V, ,.1 , ^y �} �r :1 I µ� s� i rid ;' t S' i. r' ' \ r r t• , tic •j t\ ' Y ,' z; _t a /kw, • `_ ce► . `�.:.- - s- „...7, :;;;,,,,,, yt . i1. .tea_. V' • +'1", •.,t -,— '4;� •�. '� lat is_ _t... `� -�_ ' - . �. 44.;5‘41141V.... ,!+�. A �l - ti` „�Y � 4111 ` -.�r \' . �! � /i .r,r ' } �, ;'� ter.:- - - -��'r '�',• __"_. -^ _ ` r.i CligiNkimpoilirow • ,N,.04.4„p.. .. 4..."-.4„.„,,,o - _ — ' RR II III II II • �. N �.�_ +�►�f ,, ..t. - �, .�, q,, �• -.-- �I II II III _ - . II II I! II !� �tpl� rir�3�� ,� ,f. '1'� =a �,.,� '�"• sir. e4 •` C f '��h - _.(b - s �a - ,i,F� - -A...., ti 1 II II 'IV 4111W'164 'fir Iv MONO AP ... . a. ,..,. . ... . ... . .. .... . 40 • !.:. ► - r 01 :1 4 c ;. --- Ai, — iiir � r� rs • �° r III1y ti = - 7 11 \.. ..� II II _ � -- r III III IIIII i� �� °Iii --�¢--- �. �� II_ __..�. _ _ _ �_�- _ I �� ; IIII II II . = PPI J ( kill i . 111111 1 fl--- , ,..____. II -►�—ter. r•`i , i : __ A., c ___ , . - t- ; y --wr--1-- , till r c - --k,..- - _., _: -..-_. I :' ,; t lit _ _ _.... --._ 411 ,,.. ,, . . (�• w - ` ' le Wir f - # 0011111111111111. .... . ........----- 1121tm - V $ 111111 :1 a so irrwm.P.:111111 __---- . .. .111/Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.' / _ ..- . _ 111111%r ----.-.41111111110 Illt I I • CASEY ROAD pERspEcTHE A2 senior community CONCEPTUAL . COMMONS . I5 _ _ Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 0.--digil 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 246 ..- .4'\. fl lallogemoummuen illilliftift....: - - ii II 111/ 111 .,...1 _ „.....••••,4,--2- . . • ,•• i_ •.,.• •• . ___ . „.. . . ; . . . . . iiiiii . . .. . _. . _ / _.,. . _ . , • . • . • , . . . . _ . , , ... . .... IIII "• . , . . _ .... . . ... .. ...... ! I iiii . . - .•„:-_ _ .. e. , , Ais.,...a....m: . '-IS:Allt_2111:...a...A.JIL:...ilk.44_31-.A......a..21i. •'- n 7-, ;.: . __,, . -� '.. . . II _ , ,, 1 Iiii'• 016 • • . . ill LEI s ii le t,,. OP • 1�i rpt • r#�� 11111P 1 � ' VI 1 II �►�vi■ 1111■ �i� /�IA - ��. �, s � �1 �1 LIEN �� 11111 + I _ t �rY•rT��r F- + T� I� ar• �, T'� _1 K o n e a a f • C' _ • ` I _ i._-.� - - s ~•�* + I a T - ih, _ + lI a;Tr II i i P. ..iaim: . ,. , . . . ._ • .. ‘ 0 111 111111111.."1111 .1111r 1/Il t �, t P°111.111 , 61 • 0 0 -.z- - - - _i `a r l• I • _., i II. . . , 16 .di'- _ _ R ■ 1111 1111■■■■ 1111■ 1�1 1 ; I '� - .,� • r's► — - II 7.... ..... C.., � C ■■ T •,. ■ �■ 1111■■`� 1111■ -s � !' 11 Lott, _-_ _ — —, II III 1111 ■ r i • - .. III --.....--- — • at -- �� f�� �c ..i _._ 1 1111 1E1 Olin ■�■ � � Ili It ila ___._---_: V ; . 4 � 04 • 1 , 1 10, 11 1 0 _. _ .. . .. ..., . �� ,■� .111 Iii - 1 . ,..,..�.�. I, A _ .11 •Ir., I, , 1 •4 V _. .. 4 6 _ ______ __ _ • _ �,, III 11 .� � ._. 1 ■II ■■II■■■ ■1111 - - - _ mainews —� — - . . 1 111_ . o ...... , , 41 .1 diee I 1J N. _ ...goo illici ..... .... .._ _ ... • ....:_.E.:. 1 - f :-.:irta..aialr:„.zar..,.: . ..'4111.0- ' -�� _ • , tt . __-.1- biw t .- .,, . . ... ..i..r.... •. . ...... . q --a-- —— — --- — ....- — _ _ .....— — - ',.. ar iir _ , , ........,62,41 ... --itmirwilipt pms.._. 1.. itasi ,a _. - CASEY ROAD senior community CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE . COMMONS A2 0 16 _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 1013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 id� 300 E. Esplanade Dr., Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90401ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367ill 0-ail 818 591 3300 247 4 I 3 11 El 18 19 El 1 10 © 11 15 1 / 1 1 IIII I i'll . 4,-.. iiiiii UU.I f \ •••• ii ■ l \ IIIINII I. ' I ...E. I ,. .., ,,_... . 4,..- JJA. _ . .___ • , 1 . rillriliWIPPIP I EEG II co o ;4.....i. -Kf , .. r , 1k, : i •itio , e ,,.... _ .. ,.4. 4 .iN I I . _ 6 ' r Nie 11, 11111 % ?, ,, ' I 0'1 el ?‘ ‘sY4 ; I 11. AP* litIrt -,c 1 1 II .4 6,1 11 SIN NIL_IMIEIIM Ins i ` ; TD ? . PIRM it t ,, #, , ,,it . • . 1#. ,1 ii r'. _ _ : mu Amu s k. ..k - • ill ' b > le -, d 1111 II g up II II plir illil 1. 1 1 ill i alaki, i , ._„: 00.04 . i_,,,, ,, 1,11-- _. '"4" .N.' ''.° ": —\-:\\\ - r- 1111111" I - � /1 , 4 a- >d —HI I I FRONT 3 II 20 4 © 21 1 15 _/ \ 1 \\\\ -i, , . _ / / / : /, • - F� 1 I \\\7\ \ , . • �- is _ I.J I'11�1'11.J !'11J4J y'i 1JJ lY s . "MOM (///// 1 4 , II: I IT f ■■ ■■1 ■■■ I a 1111 48/*1 4t1 4 4. 1.- . • I .-- - _z . ..,,k,..,i,........k.,,,,,,,, , ,,..7 i, 111111 ' A N , ' FjjI � s i - • • l .. i s y 4,:il 1--" I •„. 6 ' / / , , ,.- • _ . rv �. wf4w - - - — I'wwwwrwwww IRI 1■1■■1 1■1 RAJ ■UI>UU■ */r'' -. -lip : _ ._ . - - __ _ _ _ _ 1■1 1■1111 1■I ■■■ -.mum tiiii �IIIIi, iii y • - �a �' ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ J111 111111 111 ' :Ago _ `_ -- .4 � _ ►11 1 _ -... = I. ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ 111 111111 111 GLH L: ` M' t o r�L `w- - - ::u:: ::: 1 ---.; fic.• f 1 1 _ 11 ■ n - - _ 111�I 111111 111 - - ROOF PITCH 4:12 - - ROOF - _ • I. ` - • REAR ELEVATION LEGEND ( AS NOTED ) I CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 17 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND 2 RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE 10 BAY WINDOW 14 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS 18 RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 7 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 11 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD senior community CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS . COMMONS A2 . I 7 _ _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 g acSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr., Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com S Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 iii 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 248 F51 19 I 3 11 20 4 1 15 18 21 II 2 10 - • f -....L - r' .T i '• �'. 1 ' ■■■ ■■ MIN ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ E �� • ,� �,.. f I ■■■ ■■ ■V■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ Ill El s.' ° t '.i', •1, ,. ,._4,.14--'4 ', r. ", r ■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ . , .� , ,4 .�.1..ti,�..��,. .z. . . - • r. ' 4 ,p , - 1TA 0. 1. ■■■ ■■ M■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ "{;. • t ♦ ♦ --iii .:;w :�.i'i•.+i.ci3,•�.ii�iii , t - .444b:s•s ,2 .-a"_ s•A•.' - ;, WilliVililirr ' a 110.1. �► ti l ' a■■■■■ • , t MU MOM %. ,+ ' 11 .�� • , f' > �� �W I fa Orn Iko 1 '� r4 ��.454. r I "" j tj IL / M■� �► �' ■■I 8 III MU MIN ■ g�� I 410 L rUM 1 _ . 14 :2 ! IV -I • • .'R , .•• - * ' - - 3 P4 - ' ...at,. P ' - I . _ - s. , t . .,J Ilf,. , ' � q 1:711 ; ' - t r � 71 • � +lam triZ „,...4 1 I �� F + �► `� R ilillf� • _ ,�.; 't. i I ir •. ,, 1 ■■ ■I i . , mii in lr,. i it • 1 . f. -. ■ ! I ■■ ■■ l 11,1 1■ r i I�l,• - . • --_ - ■■ ■■ Is Illi 1■ .110 II II II • RIGHT 2 II ft] 11 F31 1 4 10 14 15 21 20 5 18 I A lip. , MIN INS ONO ? ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■ 4 - , III NOS . . - :.7 ' mss, • - 11 1 ,... ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ 4,■■ ■■■ n ,: i ' - _ .i _ -. �.• r- • ,,yam• - ___ - --•_.-._.- _�, , . . A� s� � - c . rii '1■■ EN ■■■ �' . t - t • /p.[ 411\ I ....mp ., �I!■ ■■■ ■■■ , ,� 4+ - -.7%.`• '' A 7t■ ■■■ ■■■ ! 1■■ ■■■ ■■ III ■■■ ■n . .. ■n ■■■ / I� , : t i , _ . . 4; t'' 1 _, , ___Iiiir mu . _ _ _ 1. , ,ini. I.. , % III TIN_ �: ii N ♦ ilk- riiik j'}P ` - ; - Mme• - _ a . -' 1 • UNE ENE u.■ ..0■■ ■ _ ___ ■■■■■■ - ..,+�r�.-- III (rill 1 -- •-•- - • - -- -•- • * a 4� Iz•'• ' . ►.�` III 1111 1 _ a� . l ■■ ' f Ili,, _ o III INII!' 11 ---- ___. _ _- lir 11 - IAN 6- , r-1 111 1■ 1 -- •--- -- ' Hi11 -..� LEFT ELEVATION LEGEND SAS NOTED ) 1 CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 17 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND 2 RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE 10 BAY WINDOW 14 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS 18 RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 7 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 12 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD senior community CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS . COMMONS A2 . I 8 _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning ppcan1733 Ocean Ave. Suite 250illi Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 Santa Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com S Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `14 249 157'-6" 14'-6" 2'-7" 123'-11" 15'-10" 15'-2" e e r e- p1, RI FR! UP II 1 EXEC. OFFICE I STAIRS F DIR. OFFICE 10'-1"x 15'-1" I I v MARKETING 12'-0'x 15'-1" 10'-11'x 15'-1" 1:.hl'. I I 20'-0"x 15.1 I I $ : $ : II la T HALL - ° EL. r z o ..ir ---- ---- , . -----'V, ii) BILLIARD RM. -' 0 28'-4"x 31'-4" c i I HALL 1 HALL ji 1:-.... 7 L _ ‘:)c) --iii WORK 1 0 I RM. I .. i 10'-1 1 x 81.8" to II CONFERENCE CATERING KITCHEN o 15'-1"x 21'-6" HUMAN STAFF 1 RES. DEVELOPMENT 22'-2"x 21'-1" X17 15'-6"x 15'-8" 11151 x 15'-8" 43' 0" ❑ ,, El ,___miMr/ - _(----L__ _ N . . \ ,1 ,- ❑ 1E1I STORAGE ' SERV. \�� \�� 7'_10"x 8'-4" RECEP. / 81_0"x 15'_4" •• •\ RESIDENT �• �\ 13'-3"x 9'-8" TORAG= RESIDENT SERVICES SERVICES •• •\ 10"x 9--al 13-1"x 10'-0" DIRECTOR • • I I I I r +----- 10'-7"x 10'-0" I ` I . ❑ a m Hi --+ o 0 0 0 . ` / ELEVATOR \OPEN 9 LOBBY LOUNGE AREA = 9 o v ao 27.71 x 16' V LOBBY TO 291-61x 45'_8" b v co - 18'-4"x 13'-8" BELOWN ❑ I❑ e I 1121 ❑~ ❑N ❑Z H ----� N. , N. , Oo Oo 1 1 1 I MAIL RM. 1 \/ I I \/ I aj I I I I 141-61x 20.4.. I /\ I I /\ I / \ //� //� \ , \ D WOMEN11/S H I/ - - -� - - -� 14'-10'x18'-11" / /// /// 1E1 11=11 la HALL I I HO / \ / \ / \ // ,, , i/ ---- J I _ MEN'S 1 i i H18'-5"x 12'-5" i ELEV. EQUIP. O 1 X11 l STORAGE 5'-7"x 121_5' \ / _ _ ..--A _ _ \ — rr� H I— — NV— , p E 1 iiii0 =E ES- -T -T -T -r-ti \ _ , / 1� /O glg I ni, ' N ,) HALL I l o 7 --A--_ 1 [1c. FF` c� CARD RM. - LC. co LIBRARY BOOKS OFFICE ��- , 27'-7"x 31'-4" + o I 271-911x 24'-4" 1 T_8"x 12_2" 111-0'x 121_2" -�- __ _ 1— - COMPUTER LAB 1T-0'x 20'-0" HALL PRCZ---- t / -- c 1 1_,diTikr_l. . . .. . i El in • eis ❑ ® _ III \\ � � _ -_,A,- . . FIRST FLOOR GROSS AREA 14205 SQ. FT. +/- 32,048 SQ. FT. TOTAL 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD senior community commoNs . HRsT FLOOR PLAN 2 . I 9 ___ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning 11111 Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 1.414 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 250 157'-6" 2'-7" 37'-7" 58'-4" 28'-0" 15'-10" 15'-2" r ❑ - - IIIIIM --- ❑ , I illHHIll DN STAIRS ACCOUNTING 1 1 F _ 22-8"x 26-2" COPY 11 I .o 9-5"x8-10 JAN. I I TEL j — -' HALL 5-b"x 8-10" LJ NETWORK ICo6-2"x 8'-10'L —Jr HALL 1 I I woMENI s 1 v WOMENS / ><I •, I/\IL ' \ j LOCKER R 8-8"x 10-11" 14-5"x 10-7" ‘\ EMPLOYEE LOUNGE — 1 O O Hi r 1 _ _u.. 22-1 1"x 20-10" 1 0 u - u-1N i I TnI .— MEN'S / — Ly N'S LOCKER L8"x 10-1 1" 14-5"x 10'-7" I 1=I4 = i__ Vr 61 Sk ..._ i 1 )`` OPEN // ELEVATOR o 0 TO LOBBY o ELO 17-9 x 15-1 1" N / ` / ` ROOF DECK I .. 17-9"x 15-1 1 n „._ . J \ /� F\ /� l 1 --N-----OO STORAGE /\ II II /\ II \_ // 59x/' �`� V- /"..-- _ HALL T MEN'S 'CNOME`RI$ 0 L J 10-9"x 17-4" \_ / /17-1 1 x 1)-4 Eo OFFICE = ria/ \ 1\ _ // 0 1 / N., Fr _ .7-4"x 10-0" �/ 1 0 0 HALL I I I I I I II I I ACTIVITY w I I I I AFiriT 12-3"x 15-b'• 1 1 I I _Tr • r HOME HEALTH RESIDENT SERVICES L 12-1"x 10-8" 12-2"x 10-8" - ----� HALL o ACTIVITY HOME HEALTH RESIDENT SERVICES __:__ DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR 12'-3"x 12-9" 12-1 x 10-8" 12-2"x 10-8" z �� I STAIRS .------ 0 - I h iI 0L J SECOND FLOOR GROSS AREA 6236 SQ. FT. +/- 32,048 SQ. FT. TOTAL 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD senior community commoNs . sEcoND FLOOR PLAN 2 . 2 0 _ . . . Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning 11111 Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 0%4 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 251 157'-6" 2'-7" 37'-7" 86'-4" 15'-10" 15'-2" e e r e ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ — _ ❑ - . ❑ ❑ UP _im i It i It i It FlIFFFFFF II I STAIRS II =1- 1 fflHFtH r r or* or* or* c le II . ,,,,„ , _ \\. ). pr NG� II L4U bu Dd0PA10 — ‘- (7) 187 x 31* + I+ I l -1( x - 0 (7)EQUIPMENT HALL BAR I � �" ' ---� 45-6"x 24-8" 10-3"x 1 1 -8" 0 iL❑ II IIh 7.)__ le . II _ _ _ ,_ _ \ // \ / \1 CSERV. I 1 I OF. OF. II O / — \ 8.2 x 8-7 — II „ r___i - — \ 1 6-10 x 9-2 1 ) \ _ ILL i- IIVIL-1 IL , • I ` 0 JAN. rD \/ \ ' ' O O \ �- ,1nI O • 0 - 1100t I �i 1 I — I I � �� , MENS— WOMEN'S I I — \ _ / 18'-5"x 14'-9" 18-1 1"x 14-10" u 1 a le le le le •at le \ \ \ \ , STORAGE Q . . . . . . OW+ ` OW+ . . \��\\ \��\ 16-7"x 6-0" CC A. tir - 0 7A...7 lit * */ I .it .it _ _ _ 'TT' MAIN DINING ■ . . ■ . . ■ 68. 6..x47-4* b ELEVATOR o 0 o LOBBY II II II II I� llf I 0 18-4"x 16-1 l" AREA N 4 MI AR . ■ . 3354 SQ. FT.. ■ . . MI I I te te i_ii ❑ 9 D I 0 0 if- 1f-- b F i /71 4ii OF* 4° OF* OF* . ,„ ,, jI \i I I \i I lit moi\\ I I moi\\ j •4 + •4 + /♦ Alk Alk Alk " " " , , , , , , , , , ri -11 - ❑ if_--- ❑ ,, EI . - L/' / . - - - - JII KITCHEN AREA E 1 67-7"x 46-4" E i i c PC II _ o PRIVATE DINING +_ bU DC OI�,PA IO ❑ �dJJ ff�� o 16-3"x 31 -4" II 1 -1 x 1'- ,---, i TA) E 1 E .1K II II ❑ ❑ __ ❑ ❑ IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL ❑ JEll RECYCLE Lu I 8-8 x 22-10 I FIRST FLOOR GROSS AREA Fifir— ��I b 11607 SQ. FT. H I I I TRASH COMPACTOR II +/- 32,048 SQ. FT. TOTAL I 12-0"x 30-10" II ❑ I I L JJ- -I J JI 0 4 8 16 Scale I I I 1 CASEY ROAD senior community commoNsimmENT FLOOR PLAN A2 . 2 I _ _ Applicant: Owner: M OORPARK , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .?„4 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 S 818 591 3300 252 • i P• .1.1g1611: a l • 4.0 1 4 rA11.4111011111111111111 1A. I It 1111 r' 1 NI Ilk44. - OP 1 . ellik 11 w.•ir_ rillPli • II • 10 doitivil _- .i1 ��I�/ , - �. ,••� r r r•. } r i- m i 11 .„......„<„„.„.‹....... . --t- .e .•.,...e:t. tt.1.-'.-r `:,-.. - -. . "le `' �fjy/ .7.$:::...;:...:. ,� + meaty . .r.,.......121,_,..7 '� ��1��TJ 1► s4P . ./ �,r. r�IIPM /rts�ot! tea`., < __+� ` --� < .<[t AS < + � "�'ti7 - - ter. f���t�14i -rte--•< ... .�.... f"'�. - 114. . .Y t ; i t� - �r/ .II� •I�\1�'� R ..'� . : `�� c e.�"t 1.:.:ere.;.-:::1.:5114".:4:- it,:`: '" r' i� - r� -: .�Sr(�t :.:✓�-1 J;70 ._ r• '"�� � rr ` '� •v j-.t-,i.. -a� .. w•: _`• .. r II fib Irfe ir lip 1,_____1_,-, -r. ., ___. , , ,,.______ _:. ....:.::: ,_ .. ....... .,. .. ___ _ , _ ___:,. .._ :,.. .otrtri,„:„..„....... -,--i.....,,,. ......- -..... ---_,;„.... _ - ler v • � ilt low Pfl'ZIfv tftfrFttti-LY1t'� irIMP Ilk .01 f -- �"« r1 _ M.A. ' TZsll►- 1► !'>} 't*►, .r It ' �f 41611 41.40,SY . AI %. .... 4 , . 1 1 , rr f r# gr 4,- , N. ,,k, 9 ill It 111 111111 1110. . . lipww-s- 1 • ' II 111 II I I1 ;` 111 '� �, ) r' ' ,1—''. '�"' it 10 . ,• >j .� �� i tic M 6 H II III III I1� ��� z ; . . _ . . >� .. 4, >~ If ll I1 111111 ii fill 1 rI its � + II III III IIIll''' -. •••• •ii • t IIIMI tr.. .. ifirii,. .M Plipli Ulli 1 II �� ,. ...is Lil 1 ii A Il ill III III 1 44, „AO ... - - _____ - _ mimilMillbrill I ikli i ii I w t� • r ill -IP • i -a. it , '11 i 1 II � f wdi r . ,p, ..........„. ti_7_ "11.", • -•••• •... ---- _.. 41.1. WO I a .* �.,•r - .11118.11111111.1111111111 - -, y one - All • CASEY ROAD CONCEPTUAL pERspEcTHE senior community . RECREATION 2 • 2 2 _ _ _ii_._ _ _ _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning III Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com 1.4.01 Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 S 818 591 3300 253 1 ft] 3 4 19 18 5 17 17 1 • 1. Alp .J,,. ..i...6.,. ...;.. ..0-4, = . . ,., y , i . , , • r-...,,,-( .i.,ti. rt'i-`," ' ti:FL‘:t,'•-••=-7,-. , , , , ; 4 I : ', ! ' ' r,,„_. . ,. . , . .:, . ,,:z , .,, . . . ? . i I I , I iii4140fir_i__ PI 0 n LI I •.' ', ' • ' , J. .' ,. ',! ' ". ' • • ' '. . 4: ' A. ' . • ' . ' ' 1 '''. •''`4- . i A ... \ \ / / - i 1 F • .+ L ' .r i t 41,11p t k- .- ,444 t fz; Tit ' 11.?• p .1. Ir _ N f 0 :, s ' • 1111111 I i il ..r.'A'./ ., 4 4. ...1 • A 4, .. .4 A 4 A A I r + N "e 1 - t 1. ,..444 i •I' In !I ..LL j�.t1. , . - ' - "fl ... °1.ti '.4 9 ..4,1 A.- / ' J 4 - , , . 1114 _ ' ■■■ii■ e mamma ■■Sr•■■ mammas . t ; . T 1 , 11__ i • • te4.. , ti. ' Y.' 1 1, !,-.q -- e` i ....._ IL . A -. • „ 11 11 / 11 11 IIIII 11 11 11 - ib... - - , , ., . \ — \ / i . It 1 ! 1 L - II RI n I. IN II ill II b. , , , _ . , . _ ...„ , r_ _ ,_ . , 1 111 I II m• En _, ‘.__ 1 liilli • ' a 1 1 I FRONT I F51 I 3 19 7 17 21 1 / , \ ///5/:// , \\\\ \\\, , ---11111P- - ____. ROOF PITCH 4:12 ligostiostor` R00F - " -� f1 1) Il _. i r ',• r TTT i■i V■Y■V■ ■■iY■ ■fir e /,� ,. i'L. 7,. rY: c, - = ,, I 0' ■■■■■■ ■■■■:■It■ ,� rip, - - Millfrige..,1/26117 " ' o��t t ■ N • ‘,L1.-11, ■Slit■ ■��Mi :nr ■■■ ;4Q, t i }• ■■■ , ' .+ - --. ' u uuu uu• u.iii 11, {Ir f� __IN ■■■ } �� r1 r F r S.i ' ` i. fl , I S , SINN 1.U�1',IRS it „ F "#,NL ' 1 .4t ''' __IN ONO Pilo - .r •f' �� �. g" , SSS , ! ' " ul E1�_ "�uu ■■■r■ SSS 1 t ' V • ASO Ill ! . , it • ' it k;:$ . yiii t.. . 1 L �� I ii`—' I r v�,� I� I• .. .. i ' 114 ' °RU i•u 4' . 41:4--I y' ' I� ~ 4 1 + v4 li 4 .1 . ., . in 00011,. . it . i . .• - - 014945' - . . . . _ Jigk_ 1 _, c _c 4'. +a:44 "-----Pit 453A =. . _ s AIt _ r _ REAR ELEVATION LEGEND ( AS NOTED ) CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 17 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND 2 RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE IA BAY WINDOW 1141 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS IA RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 7 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 12 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD RECREATION senior community CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS ■ A 2 • 2 3 _ _ _ _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr., Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com S Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `A 254 1 21 4 3 2 10 7 18 6 17 Fq r . .. `.a.rr a w"a I. M;r.xrrt.� ^;:- /1 _ _ .1R�IE9■: _.- -- _ -._ .1..;4'l�Ull.ac_IIt. _ -�! H t 11— - - •. _ - • A> / - - - - I ■lliffil. - _ •^.es 4 • ONO ■ I - ii.$1 i # --- �~ UM 1111111111C1111111111CIII le 4 - , • 1 ' �~ BM I ;`-, + r . - iii Il=me �� ;� IN ■ � ■■■■■ ■■ ■ ■■ - S II f RIGHT 5 Q 3 4 1 17 19 • A D•A ]s ■-r4 _4,0„,... ;Jf ais i... 1. A a..K A l 4-I1. 141011% ). )411 .102.111,0 .' ]t A ...•-'•�Y. 3Y . : ' - - a. . .- 11114111111pgk,), , , ,.. � �R�'T.- iM . r x - ar .. . fasr s �i 1r sY,a.s1ca xxi rcr_x�.s.�rx. a r >...,s r �ri r xk rt r ir r y's ri�r JR '.s. a r a.>►•rd nr,acr•,m'mii N v ! ' J� ir ...1 4 t 1 •It, ',: ' , , 1 .lk .411.1. i r!.9.'1,4 r I . %.';1, t jaiin ii ; ' ii 0101.111t i_,_7 II _ ■ • -_ t .,_ .. - 4 . 4 . IL- t--\--Ai6—'1.-- --Akik 1------431111L k _.. . . • - _ • r' -1 - IN i. P7' . - .• 17)44 '.114:01`' , 0, 4. LEFT ELEVATION LEGEND AAs NOTED ) 1 CONCRETE S - TILE 5 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 STUCCO FINISH TRIM 13 WOOD POST / BEAM 17 DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM 21 CEMENT FIBER TRIM ROOFING SURROUND 1_2j RAFTER TAIL 6 DECORATIVE TILE 10 BAY WINDOW 14 DECORATIVE OUTLOOKERS 18 RECESSED STUCCO DETAIL 3 FASCIA BOARD 7 STUCCO FINISH II WOOD TRELLIS 15 DECORATIVE TILE CAP 19 RECESSED STUCCO & METAL DETAIL 4 VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 DECORATIVE GABLE 12 DECORATIVE METAL RAIL 16 DECORATIVE CORNICE 20 CEMENT FIBER BOARD AND END DETAIL TRIM 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROAD A2 senior community CONCEPTUAL ELE -IATIoNs . RECREATION . 24 _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments LLC Gd Pacific At 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 g ranacAsset Santa Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 Iti 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 ` A 255 129'-0" 16'-5" 101'-1" 3'-6" 8'-0" .ter .ter � �� n T • 1;713 — i ,7 11( STORAGE STORAGE ® __ 14'-1"x9'_4" 31'-1"x 15'_1" �c1'�,� I O Fl yCO 00 r i0, iil • • K [ 5-0"IM x 1/SP s'-4" EQUIP. -" [ b3"x t-77" r . .. Lp..*:. r • L(7 r-- r*-atini r—i � oa r bMASSAGE STORAGE ] 8'-3"x9'-11" b'-3"x9'-11" — \\ ELEC. 9,_1„x5,_2„ SERVICE 9'-11"x9'-1'.' :I N — M - " 9,_1"71x4,_4„ p CONFERENCE HALL ci - - 41A- Ir ---le-mi i Eo 1 ROOM N 27,_4„x 2T-o” — H \ - — — — I m F. 0. p 43 / PHOTO \ EeA LI 9,_6„x9'_10" \11,x9,_-� - I \i 1 OMEN' al I 1- :"x19'-" 1 _ 1 L. ,. I U .i_ 0, \ FITNESS - I o �• S'; ab CENTER o) 44, _ . 1—. I ®1=1®.. ° 53'_0"x61'_11-Ma 1 " Am I I ENTRY HALL Q 21'-5"x10 2 N- m1 \ , q • ®1=1m1 �..., ... ... ... ... - /- I - /- PATIO � 4 r yr 7 MULTI-PURPOSE/ STOR. CRAFT ROOM , 19'_5"x39'_0" L(7 r /0) 3 2 x 3 2"'- Ill ' -----I JA OR I- r 9'-M x 25'-6" BEAUTY SALON L L 15'-7"x 24'-s" I\ JI t ❑ I v p I co x--11 STORAGE r-i r1 010 5'_0"x 110" IHI 1/'I 1 111 r ilLillt A- , 1 11_)d911 0 1git'llmll t 1cMWM ===. 1. ' I /1-1-11 Lg El Ifil IT 10 El PATIO 40'-1" 54'-8" 28'-2" •RECREATION BUILDING 8,878 SQ. FT. 0 4 8 16 Scale EoomjtD y FLOOR PLAN . RECREATION 2 . 2 5 _ _ Applicant: Owner: M 0 0 R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 .-4101 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 `IA 256 • tiAL 11 p i r i Y - 110 1 e a i ilk , • - ow t ii, . 111, 1 , , , . Ia 1 I Jr, 110 ill i - . a . p ,. 011P 1 if ,111 I SID $ ill it L' 4 Arsa„," . 115 1111111 1,11 I il ir ; • iiii It ledhlwPtilit . - 1 •• o 4114 ill II ._ it 0 - . i aiiiil, • • • • 4k, " _ i , _ _ 1rk . i IN,III ,i . , • ti -II ,i 1 i a .., . lit lir . ,..: . SI : Ilk .. ap, _ _ _ I 1111 1 . , , _ _ 11.1r if , iii • ig„ .. •bliii . oik , - .011Mf „ _ • IL lirt I - _ - 41 4 1.. . ..c. .., _ . . _ .:1, •1 Il lal,k ,;_11:1 :-. , iti:'i ii ! It 04 it _, ,... .0, 1.. 1 lk 9 ii 0 rmiti.: 11 __'1 _ 1_ I, '14 :' . ..16...., t_1:'ii'...'1; _litt.r: 6 ill iMr- .• ., I Allit f .. s :-. 1.11111F”. I'l OA( .01. 01111.111L. _ . l' - I 7 i g lo—,..... — _Ar.i .51 11 i i a; _ .7.7._ �y 1 �._ � r ,'r .-.) __in li . . ,. . 7 I 1 .. - Il I a I. -rr- T.!. 31 „, I • M i ,.. ________ . ... . ... Pill icy _WI& aliii‘l. . . Iiiiiiiiiii-n _.„.. i t' ' 1 A I _ C. brill Nompari. _____, — -'---- - 4 .t: ,. ,..___*' „ .t, ---- 7 - 1106161'--- riPl - 41.7411111rKdillail IiIr --._____, _Mr. --'17.•••••••••....v — ( ' - - - • ._ - - - CASEY ROAD pERspEcTHE A3 i• I senior community CONCEPTUAL . VILLA D _ _ _ Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , C A Architecture + Planning 11111 Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 1.44 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 257 II El II 16 4 21 5 7 4 19 5 21 7 13 9 22 16 18 wiiii4 ....._ liallik,t .,:„ ,„. ..,..;, . . . ; ,. .- - -.-.-,-.-:-.-.-.-.-.-..-.-.-.-,.-.-.-.7-7.-:-.-.-.7.-.-.---.- -- , 4ipt, ' , , , , , , . . ',-,- - .. . _ '!ilit". ,, , fi - in - rr, *4 . . , _ ... . 91. . , . , ,. z.;„ ,. ,,,,.,.... ....., .. .1 ,i, ''' ...:' , -..— — . rr a) i 1 Tr- - 1 t--- r i _ t 1 1 t S h! ,1 F i i� ,� r A iiii 414 A I I t!_ d. ry 1 �aA111 r r1 l l `} . ,. 1 k r. 0 paw le _, -I ,.r., , .... , '4L . , ,.,,s , jid. , . Mill . , , — , t , LEFT FRONT Q 4 5 18 16 15 II [T] 4 19 9 13 16 18 7 II 1El 5 um" 11.1 _thil 1 } - - = --- ,4 . '.1 , I it _.1.11L v1/4,41 - - _ , . t I I , ,, .; . , , , , ‘ , 1'. • ' ' ' ---1- -,, / -, - ' —I 1r t ..,=-4 ,kw.. , ... , , m .41 1 - -A A• • 1 ..r ..L, r F._ • / ' 1 + 1 �� 1' ` �.\ f . ru 1 1145450 rr - r J. ` 1 e4 lik i El1 • '' '.. Ina' III III I t ''1; I 4 1111Mill II i0110•001itc , ' .::: .-..... N. 1 i _ 9 , .. \ - ....... .. .... ... - — — 470 •- ' " 1 1 rut , 1 4 , .NW._'.� it' ....... 2I S l • - , **lc .. r.` _ r - - • � 4 _ k •.... - _ - A: i '� '• - MA&RIGHT REAR ELEVATION LEGEND ( AS NOTED ) , _ __ _,_t_,__, ,_,_, ,_. __ on 'i PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 2 a% ' -.- IT ... . ., s , riL ,..--- ,: I 1 1 � Ti 1 II `__= II II - II II II �W � � II —/-1II II �—; II 1 1 IV—X �0 I I. I I. ��I 9 9 O O ' ; O � _ ._ , "K I-- , o o ii_ _. I1 771. . _,__.__ -- 1 I I 0 0119 1 1 II V IF\X/� �I (---,_,,_-=_ = II— — —=II– 1 r VILLA A Ile_ - - -� I Q / N WI IIN 2 UNITS 1\X/1 1 q , r.n, L_A h cir, ,. 1 --- 3,352 sq. ft. _ Ir I - V VILLA C V"1""" 0 I LI- - ] r J O O LI- - ] I O I COUNT: 5 c,...,1117 I I QI 10j ' ( ,I QI IQIi iI ! 2 UNITS I_ Abill Ilt i _I . jl IP 1 ---- Lc. L1 1 1 I I �y . 1= ' iii c_Mi --� ■ , I 1 II Il --r- ' II II II OOb 1.T T 0O L 1 0 ' ,_?,;(100 ,__I _?,;(0O rJ T J L, 00)(r Jam. II ... t II I „- _ . , . L a n 11 / ' j I 1 /I Lu .. n =II 68'-2" 93'-2" PLAN 1L PLAN 2 PLAN 1 i PLAN 2 PLAN 1 il . .. = I I _ W _ W iih J-- (IL i 'I II u `--- II ;71. 1 i 'I II `---TT - — --- II I' 1 1 I I I' — -- I I' - --_ -- 1 1�Ii\X'� II �I_ _ __ iii _ _ -- i jI i X: I� I jl \X; I� 1 1 _ I I ~I �I�. [E1 \ 0 . . �iL' Irl �� \ % I d I I r�_ p_ p_ %� I 1 I p_ p O O I 1'-,i I ` �� , I I. _ ( , / I. _ /xv I I. v L" = 0A O 1 ' O �: o �� 0 - I , -.51 z--i-, , , g r 10 ; 1 0 _ I r- L2 0 I Ir7,71 Q IX--_ II V II 1 /\ I 11 II I .\ IM 11 II 1 1 I I 12\L f VILLA B II I I I I IL-y [ 1 1 II = I I 0 OI I I ' I I 0 I I I O I I ao LJ 'j =1I- 2 UNITS I Li VILLA D /�.I �— A �' F. A---_ 3 UNITS I. 3,656 sq. ft. --- --- , ' E� i in -- — --�� ■ COU NT: 7 --- �— �__� ■ � IA _ --- 5,332 sq. ft. —Or, , 1 11 = 11 --- I�� VI 1. 0 I L J � 11A 0 I L - J "� II �" L - J I 0 1 V ICOUNT: 14 1. IIVi ArII I / T T I T 1 a0 ao Td- ---T G ---- T ---3 ---- T J\ II ---- lu J �I ul - - —.-----J1 -J5r` I 1u ii , =!J n I I IIII _ II _ � ��' �, 80'-8" 114'-10" 0 4 8 16 Scale CASEY ROADI senior community FLOOR PLANS . • A33 Applicant: Owner: M OORPARK , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 1 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 iii 11 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 259 32'-0" 15'-10" 16'-2" PATIO 15'-10"X 8'-0" 0 . o 111 1i0 I46-6" I 13'-2" 16'-8" 16'-8" lA I ) 1 MASTER , k _ � ' , IL •. BEDROOM 11 11 1 0 15'-6"X 15'-0" PATIO 16'-8"X 8'-0" / \ ." ., l[a ( ) (\( li �� 0/ L I 4.) I I I III I C 0;'',;) GREAT ROOM I BEDROOM 2 K 10_1 15'-6" X 22'-4" O I I I I 12'-6" X 14'-0" �� U II I ---;� I ON \ ` MASTER `o I ii I � �`x'� I �� BEDROOM l O O '1 i,�-�� 16'-0" X 12'-6„ 0 0 -'--, , I ) / '2" ` 'r I I / II II I 11 r , 0 . „ ,_ 7\ 7 KITCHEN M. BATH -_ 11 - - - - - -- 11 W.I. II I / 9'-6"X 10'-8" _+___ 8'-6" X 9'-4" ( I84X5 ' " ' 6" II _L_ iu) ]0 r O 0 , ,___, = FOYER2 ; `, ,� ; GREAT ROOM I I' 'I _—� ; ; ,"� ; 16'-8"X 23'-6" in 7'-2" X 11'-2" -� ~ ',' �0 l j � BATH 2 L---�' ( � ILA�IJIDIY d 8' 8"x9' 2" M. BATH / I — 16' 0" X 5' 8" -Hi 1 `� 1 C 00 � � � � -- T1 i i 1 T v 0 LIII v LkUI DRT --- - - / \ — 111) COVEREDo -y I 1 Oil PORCHBATH2 _ _ LINEN L _ J 6'-6" X7'-2" 8 10X92" rt - - - - i Q) / i 1 J I ■ 0 �.. LINEN I _ / r - - FOYER .c �� i - I 1 GARAGE GARAGE U KITCHEN I 171-811 X 20'-0"13'-6"X 20'-6' — 9' 8" X 13' 0" OP u _ BEDROOM 3 Op 12'-6"X 14'-2" / �� \ o /'t / \ \I\ 4 = i BEDROOM 2 -- L-�)I X IFE J COVERED PORCH (,?-- __J 15'-0" X 9'-2"n . 1 , , I I L _ f i f 1 O F 1 = ,_ iioff' ._ N o, _ .. 6'-6" 10'-0" 17'-6" 11'-2" 10'-0" 8'-3" 17'-1" PLAN 1 - 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH PLAN 2 - 3 BEDROOM, 2 BATH 1676 SQ. FT. 1980 SQ. FT. COUNT: 45 COUNT: 29 0 2 4 8 Scale SAoomuA nity UNIT PLANS . VILLAS A3 . 4 _ _ Applicant: Owner: M O O R P A R K , CA Architecture + Planning Aldersgate Investments, LLC Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC K T G Y # 2013-0956 08- 14-2014 1733 Ocean Ave., Suite 250 gSanta Monica, CA 90401 300 E. Esplanade Dr. , Suite 1550 5900 Canoga Avenue, ktgy.com Oxnard, CA 93036 Suite 400 310 394 2623 iii IN 805 988 4114 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 591 3300 ` A 260 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-02 FOR A CHANGE OF LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (M) AND RURAL LOW RESIDENTIAL (RL) TO VH — VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR A 390-UNIT SENIOR COMMUNITY ON 49.52 ACRES NORTH OF CASEY ROAD AND WEST OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD, ON THE APPLICATION OF ERNIE MANS! FOR ALDERSGATE INVESTMENT, LLC. WHEREAS, on September 3, 2013, applications for General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, Zone Change No. 2013-02, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01, and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 were filed by Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC, for property owned by Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC, for a proposed development for a 390-Unit Senior Community on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2018-634, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, to amend the General Plan land-use designation from Medium Residential (M) and Rural Low Residential (RL) to VH — Very High Density Residential, on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road, on the application of Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC.; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on January 16, 2019, the City Council considered the agenda report for General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02 and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal and reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above together with any comments received during the public review process and determined that, with the incorporation of changes to the project or conditions of approval to mitigate potentially significant impacts with respect to biological resource and transportation/traffic, there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. CC ATTACHMENT 4 261 Resolution No. 2019- Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for the project are complete and have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and City CEQA Procedures. B. The Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the project conditions of approval for the accompanying Residential Planned Development Permit. C. With the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures into the project conditions, the City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed development of 95 townhouse condominiums and a recreation facility on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road, which includes General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02; Zone Change No. 2013-02; Residential Planned Development No. 2013-01; and Development Agreement No. 2013-01, will have a significant effect on the environment. D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed development of 95 townhouse condominiums and a recreation facility on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road, which includes General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02; Zone Change No. 2013-02; Residential Planned Development No. 2012-02; and Development Agreement No. 2013-01, along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein, are hereby adopted. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: General Plan Amendment 2013-02 is approved, amending the General Plan Land Use Map as proposed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02 shall be concurrent with the effective date of the Ordinance for Zone Change No. 2013-02 and the Ordinance for Development Agreement No. 2013-01, whichever occurs last. SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: 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. 262 Resolution No. 2019- Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 2019. Janice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: Maureen Benson, City Clerk Exhibit A: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit B: General Plan Amendment Map 263 Resolution No. 2019- Page 4 EXHIBIT A F �9 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1X��c} ' „ CITY OF MOORPARK ��� 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 °471.110n-4 (805) 517-6200 The following Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of Moorpark. Public Review Period: January 31, 2018 to March 1, 2018 Project Title/Case No.: Aldersgate Senior Living Project GPA No. 2013-02; ZC No. 2013-02; RPD No. 2013-01; DA No. 2013-01 Project Location: North side of Casey Road, west of Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, Ventura County. (Location Map Attached) Project Description: Development of a 390-unit continuing care senior retirement community on 49.52 acres located on the north side of Casey Road and tangentially the west side of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark Project Type: X Private Project Public Project Project Applicant: Grand Pacific Asset 2, LLC (Ernie Mansi), 300 E. Esplanade Drive, Oxnard, CA 93030, 805-988-4114 Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above-referenced project, revisions have been made by or agreed to by the applicant consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. With these revisions, it is found that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Initial Study Attached) Responsible Agencies: City of Moorpark Trustee Agencies: None Attachments: Initial Study with Mitigation Measures Contact Person: Joseph Fiss, Acting Community Development Director Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 (805) 517-6236 264 Resolution No. 2019- Page 5 Q.Q PP�4�0 O�`9 44.111111 � CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL,, 0IgAtP1 799 MOORPARK AVENUE 2.(„41 �/ MOORPARK, CA 93021 0,. ,,,may (805) 517-6200 Project Title: Aldersgate Senior Living Project Case No.: GPA No. 2013-02; ZC No. 2013-02; RPD No. 2013-01; DA No. 2013-01 Contact Person and Phone No.: Joseph Fiss, Planning Manager(805)517-6226 Name of Applicant: Grand Pacific Asset 2. LLC (Mansi) Address and Phone 300 E. Esplanade Drive No.: Oxnard, CA 93030 805-988-4114 Project Location: North side of Casey Road,west of Walnut Canyon Road General Plan Rural Low(RL) and Medium Zoning: Rural Exclusive (RE) and Designation: Density Residential (M) Rural Exclusive—5 (RE-5) Project Description: A request for development of a proposed 390 unit senior continuing care retirement community on 49.52 acres. The project will include independent living, assisted living, and memory care as well as associated amenities. The required entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Residential Planned Development, and Development Agreement. The project site consists of a 49.52-acre irregularly-shaped parcel on the north side of Casey Road and tangentially the west side of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The site is topographically situated principally within a south-trending canyon bound by the south-trending low-lying ridges on east and west. Maximum relief across the site is approximately 200 feet. The proposed Aldersgate Senior Living Project will comprise a 390-unit continuing care senior retirement community. Site development will include grading and the construction of approximately 40 single-story and two-story structures, a main paved access road extending from Casey Road, internal paved roadways and parking areas, and related new utilities and infrastructure, as shown on the project map. The remainder of the site will be landscaped and paved, with active and, primarily, passive recreation areas. Structures are expected to be conventional wood frame construction. Site grading will consist of cut and fill for the proposed structures, related new utilities, access road, internal roadways, parking and yard/recreational areas, and site drainage. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: Single Family—Meridian Hills Neighborhood East: Single Family—Walnut Canyon Neighborhood 265 Resolution No. 2019- Page 6 South: Walnut Canyon Elementary— Boys and Girls Club West: Ranchettes and Unimproved Property Responsible and Trustee Agencies: California Department of Fish & Wildlife, Ventura County Watershed Protection District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"or"Less Than Significant With Mitigation,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality x Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation x Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, 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. Mitigation measures described on the attached Exhibit 1 have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared by: Joseph Fiss, Plannina Manager Date: November 21, 2018 Reviewed by: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director Date: November 21. 2018 266 Resolution No. 2019- Page 7 INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 1: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1. Biological Resources. Trees: The replacement trees to be planted on the site (approximately 1,200 trees) shall have a value equal to, or greater than, the appraised value of $72,231.64 for the removed trees, as identified in the Oak Tree Report (Tree Life Concern Inc. (TLC), January 31, 2014). The replacement trees shall include no less than two 24"-box Quercus agrifolia. A five-year maintenance plan for the mitigation trees shall be required, consistent with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. Trees and their irrigation system shall be monitored at quarterly intervals for the first two years and biennially for the next three years. A Letter of Compliance shall be submitted by the Project Arborist to the Community Development Department at the end of each time period describing the condition of each tree and recording their chances for long-term survival. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the mitigation trees for the five-year period and no longer. The proposed landscape plan must specify that mitigation trees are properly installed, staked/guyed and watered to help ensure their survival. An irrigation system designed for newly planted trees is mandatory for successful tree establishment. Drip-system irrigation is ideal for managing water distribution near newly planted trees." (TLC report#3) Protective fencing shall be installed around or along all trees listed to remain (see Tree Location Map for fence placement recommendations). Place protective fencing at the Protective Zone (PZ) or as shown on the Tree Location Map. Orange construction fencing is sufficient and its position must be approved by the Project Arborist, who must be present during the fence placement or repositioning. An Oak Tree Information Packet including the City's Tree Protection Municipal Code and the Oak Tree Report must be available during on-site construction. The applicant and contractor should be familiar with the contents of these documents. No oaks outside the property line are to be impacted by this construction project. The information tags numbering each oak on this site shall not be removed. No construction materials are to be stored or discarded within the PZ of any oak. Rinse water, concrete residue, liquid contaminates (paint, thinners, gasoline, oils, etc.) of any type shall not be deposited in any form at the base of an oak. Monitoring Action: Five-year regular monitoring of replacement trees Timing: First 2 years: Quarterly Years 3 —5: Biennially Responsibility: Community Development Department, Parks; Recreation & Community Services Department 267 Resolution No. 2019- Page 8 Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (VCCS) Habitat: 10.82 acres of VCSS habitat shall be created and enhanced as in Figure 6 of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey (BioResource Consultants Inc., July 23, 2015, updated June 1, 2018). Monitoring Action: Inspection and report to City Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Responsibility: Community Development Department Riparian/Wetlands: To offset impacts to U.S. and State Wetland and Waters, onsite mitigation will be implemented in the southern portion of the proposed Project (Appendix E). The proposed mitigation/restoration will result in the creation of 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre-construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage to compensate for the impact to 1.022 acres of jurisdictional area. Monitoring Action: Inspection and report to City Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Responsibility: Community Development Department Traffic The City has established traffic mitigation fee programs for purposes of funding traffic improvements as needed to maintain Level of Service C operating conditions on the local street system. The Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee and Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee Programs apply to this project. The City has identified and programmed construction of improvements to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of the addition of through lanes at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Improvements have also been identified at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of adding additional phases to the existing traffic signal, that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance for first building permit, the applicant shall pay to the City Traffic Mitigation fee to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance for first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance for first building permit, the applicant shall submit a driveway plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director. Monitoring Action: Collection of mitigation fees. Plan review. Timing: Prior to issuance of zoning clearance for first building permit Responsibility: Community Development Department 268 Resolution No. 2019- Page 9 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A. AESTHETICS—Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X 2)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but X not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? 4)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, X adversely affecting day or nighttime views in the area? 269 Resolution No. 2019- Page 10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: 1) The project area is situated in a small valley within a ridge and valley system, which is part of the Little Simi Valley. Panoramic views associated with vantage points, which provide a sweeping geographic orientation, are not commonly available to or from the site. Therefore, impacts to panoramic views would be less than significant. The Site is not located within an identified scenic corridor and scenic resources on site are limited to typical open rolling land with little vegetation. Views along Walnut Canyon Road are the chief concern. There, the upslope is steepest at the east side, continuing further onto the site at a reduced gradient. The result is that the true ridgeline is generally not visible from Walnut Canyon, while the apparent ridgeline resulting from the change from very steep to less steep upslopes is also not visible from offsite locations. This apparent ridgeline is very low, forming a stark backdrop to the scattered and highly exposed houses in the area. It is open country, but compromised by the low profile of the apparent ridgeline and the nature of the existing development to the point that it is not deemed scenic. 2) The project will not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Neither Walnut Canyon Road nor Casey Road is a state scenic highway. 3) Conversion of the site from its current undeveloped condition to a senior assisted housing use would alter the existing setting by grading the site and developing the proposed buildings, site improvements, and landscaping. The Project site is bordered by existing residential development on the north and east and the Walnut Canyon School and Boys & Girls Club on Casey Road immediately south of the site. The site currently contains a mix of non-native and native vegetation. The trees on the site consist almost entirely of non-native species. The existing vegetation was burned in a2006 Fire. The proposed grading complements the existing topography and the design of the Project, including the site plan, which groups the groups the residential buildings on the northern portion of the site, the architectural design of the residential buildings, and the landscaping, will complement the existing residential development around the site and will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The applicant will also be contributing to the City's Open Space Fund. The City uses these funds to purchase land to preserve as open space to maintain the visual character of the community. 4) Normal street lighting and residential light sources will not have a significant impact on vistas and will be evaluated and be consistent with the City's lighting ordinance. Architecture and landscaping will be evaluated for consistency with City standards. Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), Moorpark Municipal Code, General Plan Land Use Element (1992). Mitiaation: None required 270 Resolution No. 2019- Page 11 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact B. 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 1)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency,to non-agricultural use? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? X 3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Response: The subject site is not located within prime farmland, is not under agricultural use, and is zoned for residential use. The Ventura County Important Farmland Map classifies the site as a combination of Farmland of Local Importance (L) and Grazing Land (G) Farmland of Local Importance (L) is defined as land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. In Ventura these are soils that are listed as Prime or Statewide that are not irrigated, and soils growing dryland crops--beans, grain, dryland walnuts, or dryland apricots. Grazing Land (G) is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in the conversion of state-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Protection, lists Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance under the general category of "Important Farmland." The Extent of Important Farmland Map Coverage maintained by the Division of Land Protection indicates that this property is not included in the Important Farmland category. No impact on farmland or agricultural resources would occur as a result of conversion of this land to suburban uses. Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013); Biological Resources Technical Report (1/22/14); Archaeological Survey (1/22/14); California Dep't of Conservation: Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2000) Mitigation: None required 271 Resolution No. 2019- Page 12 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significant 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: 1)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X 3) 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)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? 5)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Response: The project would not have a significant effect on regional air quality, because its operational emissions (14.5 pounds/day reactive organic compounds; 11 pounds/day oxides of nitrogen) would be below the 25 pound/day threshold of significance established by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District for these pollutants. While this impact is not significant and no mitigation is required for this reason, a Standard Condition of Approval has been added as part of the project for the developer to pay a contribution to the City's Air Quality fund. The City uses these funds for programs that reduce emissions by promoting programs such as ridesharing. Sources: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Memorandum to City (Stratton, 7/8/14); Rincon Consultants Inc., Greenhouse Gas Study (12/31/13); Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Project Application (September 3, 2013); Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2000), URBEMIS 2001 Mitigation: None required 272 Resolution No. 2019- Page 13 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X 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? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X 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? 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X conservation plan? 273 Resolution No. 2019- Page 14 Response: The primary vegetation communities on the 49.5 acre project site are disturbed Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (VCCS) (23.8 acres) and non-native grasslands (17.2 acres). A seasonal wash on the site contains small areas of Arroyo Willow Thicket vegetation (0.34 acres) and Mulefat Thicket habitat (0.69 acres) upstream of a small wetland area (0.34 acre). The VCCS on the site is distributed in patches on the site separated by areas of non-native grassland and is uneven and varied. The existing vegetation communities have a moderate potential to contain two sensitive plant and five wildlife species. These species were not observed on the site during biological surveys. A pair of non-nesting Coastal California Gnatcatchers was observed in VCSS on the site during protocol surveys conducted for this sensitive species. There are 168 trees scattered throughout the site. The majority of these trees are non-native varieties such as California Pepper, Olive, and Blue and Red Gum Eucalyptus. Native trees on the site are limited to 5 black walnut and 1 oak tree. The trees on the site are generally in poor health and vigor. Many are re-sprouts or re-growth stumps from trees damaged in a 2007 fire. Most of the trees on the site have been rated in fair-to-poor condition and 28 are listed as nearly dead. The site is bordered on the north by graded residential lots, Meridian Hills Drive, and residential uses north of Meridian Hills Drive, on the east by existing homes along Walnut Canyon Road, on the south by Casey Road, Walnut Canyon School, and the Boys and Girls Club, and on the west by a single family home and open space between the railroad tracks, Los Angeles Avenue, Grimes Canyon Road and Championship Drive. The seasonal wash on the site drains under Casey Road at the southern end of the Project site and ends approximately 600 feet south of Casey Road. As a result, there is no downstream riparian or wetland habitat that would be affected by changes to this drainage feature on the project site. This project results in the removal of 101 of the mature trees on the site, with 98 of these trees consisting of non-native trees. Removal of 3 native trees consisting of 2 black walnut trees and 1 oak tree is proposed. The removal of mature trees is regulated by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project will also include the planting of approximately 1,200 new trees of various species and size, including oak, black walnut, and sycamore trees in conformance with the City's tree ordinance, to compensate for the proposed removal of 101 trees. The removal of the mature trees is considered a significant impact that will be mitigated by planting the proposed replacement trees in accordance with the mitigation measure below. Project grading would impact 17 acres of the VCCS habitat on the site and 1.02 acres of riparian/wetland habitat. The proposed project includes a revegetation plan that includes habitat restoration and enhancement on the project site by creating 10.82 acres of high quality VCSS habitat to compensate for the loss of 17 acres of lower quality VCCS habitat presently on the site. This habitat will consist of large continuous bands of VCSS habitat along the edges of the site with improved habitat value as it will include not only shrub species associated but also mulefat, coyote bush, and blue elderberry found in the higher quality VCSS habitat on the site. This higher quality replacement VCSS vegetation will mitigate the impact of the project by providing habitat with similar value for wildlife to the lower quality habitat being impacted. In addition, the project includes the creation of 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the existing conditions in the northern reach of the drainage to compensate for the impact to 1.02 acres of riparian/habitat area. The Implementation of the revegetation plan and the mitigation measures below will reduce impacts to biological resources, including the loss of avian and wildlife nesting and foraging habitat for common and sensitive species, to less than significant. 274 Resolution No. 2019- Page 15 Sources: Oak Tree Report (Tree Life Concern Inc., 1/31/14); Biological Resources Technical Report (Seven Elk Ranch Design Incorporated, 1/22/14); Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey and Amendment (BioResource Consultants Inc., 7/23/15 and 5/12/16); Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report (BioResource Consultants Inc., 5/12/16). (REPORTS ATTACHED) Project Application (September 3, 2013); California Department of Fish and Game: Natural Diversity Data Base-Moorpark and Simi Valley Quad Sheets (1993) Mitigation: Trees: The replacement trees to be planted on the site (approximately 1,200 trees) shall have a value equal to, or greater, than the appraised value of$72,231,64 to the removed trees, as identified in the Oak Tree Report (Tree Life Concern Inc. (TLC), January 31, 2014). The replacement trees planted shall include two 24"-box Quercus agrifolia. A five-year maintenance plan for the mitigation trees shall be required, consistent with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. Trees and their irrigation system shall be monitored at quarterly intervals for the first two years and biennially for the next three years. A Letter of Compliance shall be submitted by the Project Arborist to the Community Development Department at the end of each time period describing the condition of each tree and recording their chances for long-term survival. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the mitigation trees for the five-year period and no longer. The proposed landscape plan must specify that mitigation trees are properly installed, staked/guyed and watered to help ensure their survival. An irrigation system designed for newly planted trees is mandatory for successful tree establishment. Drip-system irrigation is ideal for managing water distribution near newly planted trees." (TLC report#3) Protective fencing shall be installed around or along all trees listed to remain (see Tree Location Map for fence placement recommendations). Place protective fencing at the Protective Zone (PZ) or as shown on the Tree Location Map. Orange construction fencing is sufficient and its position must be approved by the Project Arborist, who must be present during the fence placement or repositioning. An Oak Tree Information Packet including the City's Tree Protection Municipal Code and the Oak Tree Report must be available during on-site construction. The applicant and contractor should be familiar with the contents of these documents. No oaks outside the property line are to be impacted by this construction project. The information tags numbering each oak on this site shall not be removed. No construction materials are to be stored or discarded within the PZ of any oak. Rinse water, concrete residue, liquid contaminates (paint, thinners, gasoline, oils, etc.) of any type shall not be deposited in any form at the base of an oak. Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub(VCCS)Habitat: 10.82 acres of VCCS habitat shall be created and enhanced as shown in Figure 6 of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey (BioResource Consultants Inc., July 23, 2015, updated June 1, 2018). RiparianNVetlands: To offset impacts to U.S. and State Wetland and Waters, onsite mitigation will be implemented in the southern portion of the proposed Project (Appendix E). 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre-construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage on the site shall be created 275 Resolution No. 2019- Page 16 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X of a historic resource as defined in§15064.5? 2)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Response: There are no known or expected cultural resources on the project site. If any archeological or historical finds are uncovered during grading or excavation operations, all grading or excavation shall immediately cease in the immediate area and the find must be left untouched. The applicant, in consultation with the project paleontologist or archeologist, shall assure the preservation of the site and immediately contact the Community Development Director by phone, in writing by email or hand delivered correspondence informing the Director of the find. In the absence of the Director, the applicant shall so inform the City Manager. The applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified paleontologist or archeologist, whichever is appropriate to recommend disposition of the site. The paleontologist or archeologist selected must be approved in writing by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the investigation and disposition of the find. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a grading permit, a paleontological mitigation plan outlining procedures for paleontological data recovery must be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The development and implementation of this Plan must include consultations with the Applicant's engineering geologist as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario will be through the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACMNH). All specimens become the property of the City of Moorpark unless the City chooses otherwise. If the City accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised. The monitoring and data recovery should include periodic inspections of excavations to recover exposed fossil materials. The cost of this data recovery is limited to the discovery of a reasonable sample of available material. The interpretation of reasonableness rests with the Community Development Director. The City has provided notice to Native American Tribes of the opportunity to consult on the potential effects of the project on Tribal Cultural Resources in conformance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the Public Resources Code and has not received any requests to consult on the Project. Sources: Archaeological Survey (W&S Consultants, 1/12/2014 ); Project Application (September 3, 2013) Mitigation: None required 276 Resolution No. 2019- Page 17 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the project: 1) 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 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 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? X iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X 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? 4) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Response: This project will be built subject to compliance with building codes and compliance with all project conditions of approval. All plans will be subject to the review and approval of the City prior to issuance of building permits. The site is not located in an earthquake fault zone or liquefaction hazard zone. The site is not located in an area designated as subject to landslide risk on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map prepared by the California Geologic Survey. The proposed slopes are designed to provide an acceptable factor of safety. Sources: Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report (Workman Engineering & Consulting, 3/7/2014); Preliminary Soils Report Project Application and Exhibits (September 3, 2013), Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (Simi Valley West, 1999), Seismic Hazard Zone Map (Simi Valley, 1997) General Plan Safety Element (2001) Mitigation: None required 277 Resolution No. 2019- Page 18 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS—Would the project: 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation X adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Response: The project would be consistent with applicable state, regional, and local plans and policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as presented in Tables 8 and 9 in the Greenhouse Gas Study completed for the project, including incorporation of features into the project to conserve water and energy, reducing solid waste and locating Senior Housing use in proximity to commercial and other services, which will reduce vehicle mile traveled. In addition, the SCAQMD recommends a quantitative threshold for all land use types of 3,000 metric tons CO2e /year (SCAQMD, "Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds — Option 1", September 2010). At 2,181 metric tons per year, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is below this threshold. For these reasons, the impact is not significant and no mitigation is needed. Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013); Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Memorandum to City (Stratton, 7/8/14); Greenhouse Gas Study (Rincon Consultants, Inc., 12/31/13) Mitigation: None required H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X 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? 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X 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? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 278 Resolution No. 2019- Page 19 7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Response: The site is not identified on any lists of hazardous materials site. The proposed residential use would not involve the handling, use, or storage of any hazardous materials that would pose a hazard to uses near the project site. The nearest airports to the project site are the Santa Paula Airport, located approximately 11 miles northwest of the site, and Camarillo Airport, located approximately 12 miles southwest of the site. There are also no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the site. The site is not located on a designated emergency route and would not physically interfere with emergency evacuation in this portion of the City. The project site is not located in a wildland area; as it is bordered by existing residential development to the north and east and by institutional, residential and commercial uses to the south. Additional residential uses and agricultural uses are located west of the site. There are no known hazards on the project site, nor will new hazards be created as a result of the project. No significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures have been identified. Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Safety Element (2001) Mitiaation: None required. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X 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)? 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 279 Resolution No. 2019- Page 20 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X Response: The site is not within a within a FEMA identified 100-year flood hazard area. The eastern portion of the site currently drains to the existing Walnut Creek Channel and the western portion of the site drains to a defined natural channel that drains south to Casey Road and conveyed to the Walnut Creek Channel. A small retention basin, with a concrete spillway, is located in the channel near the center of the site. This basin would retain flows from small events while flows from larger events would pass over the spillway and would not be detained. The proposed grading and development would alter the existing drainage patterns. The proposed project includes storm drain improvements that will collect runoff from the project site and discharge this runoff to the Walnut Creek Channel. A detention basin with a capacity for 3.6 acres will be constructed at the southern end of the site. This basin will detain flows during a 100-year storm event. The inflow to this basin will be 103.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the outflow will be 42.6 cfs, resulting in the peak flow discharged from the site being reduced from 527.3 cfs to 504 cfs. The 42.6 cfs outflow from the detention basin is lower than the 100-year outflow rate of 65 cfs identified by the Ventura Watershed Protection Basin as the design standard for the Walnut Creek Drainage Area as defined in Section 8.1.3: Basin No. 1 (Casey Road) of the adopted 2006 Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Floor Control Deficiency Study (pages 8-4 and 8-5, and figures A and B). The Ventura County Watershed Protection District holds a flood control easement within Walnut Canyon across the southeast corner of the site, and District's conditions will be included as conditions of approval on the project. The project will not, therefore, result in any significant onsite erosion/siltation impacts or offsite flooding impacts and no mitigation is needed Sources: Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (LC Engineering Group, Inc., 2/25/2014); Memorandum (Ventura County Watershed Protection District [VCWPD], 7/7/2014); Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Safety Element (2001), Moorpark Municipal Code 280 Resolution No. 2019- Page 21 Mitiaation: Indicate the District's easement over Walnut Canyon on all plans and drawings. A flood control easement with a minimum width of 20 feet(east-west)at the southeasterly corner of the property, tapering northeasterly to join the District's existing easement per 3982 or 862 along Walnut Canyon, shall be provided for the purposes of channel maintenance and future channel expansion. Said easement shall be subject to District approval prior to recordation, and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any development permits. Modified Detention Basin Site No. 1 (Casey Road) shall be designed to reduce the future 100-year outflow to 65 cfs in accordance with Section 8.1.3: Basin No. 1 (Casey Road) of the adopted Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Floor Control Deficiency Study(pages 8-4 and 8-5, and figures A and B), as prepared by PACE and dated July 2005 An engineering study shall be conducted to determine the appropriate contribution of the development toward the solution of downstream flooding issues on properties such as those owned by Essex Moorpark Owner LP and the City of Moorpark. Said study shall be subject to City Department of Public Works approval prior to issuance of any development permits. To the extent that the development impacts Walnut Creek, compliance with District criteria is required. Preliminary drainage studies should address the following District requirements: Any proposed future lateral connections to the red line channel system should conform to the District's standard for peak attenuation that the runoff after development shall not exceed runoff before development for any frequency of event. ii. Any activity in, on, over, under or across any jurisdictional red line channel will require a permit from the Ventura County Watershed Protection District. The requirements for a District Encroachment Permit can be found on the District's website at www.vcwatershed.ora or by calling (805)650-4077. iii. All technical materials submitted in connection with a District Encroachment Permit application must be prepared, signed, and stamped by a California licensed civil engineer or other appropriate professional. No structures or trees shall be placed within the District easement. Nonstructural surface improvements within the easement shall be subject to a District Encroachment Permit. The Applicant shall provide for the long term maintenance of any lateral connection to Walnut Creek by including appropriate provisions in a deed restriction or similar instrument, subject to approval by the District, recorded prior to zone clearance for use inauguration or issuance of a letter of completion for the District Encroachment Permit. It is understood that comments on the NPDES features are the purview of the City. A detailed review of the detention design will be made upon submittal of final plans under an application for a District Encroachment Permit. At that time the details of peak attenuation, flow routing, outlet configuration, function of the detention water surface given the Q100 water surface in the channel, and other technical matters will be reviewed. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: 1) Physically divide an established community? X 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? 281 Resolution No. 2019- Page 22 The Residential Planned Development Application was filed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The current General Plan designations for the Project site are Rural Low Residential (RL) and Medium Residential (M). The current Zoning designation is RE (Rural Exclusive) and RE-5ac (Rural Exclusive-5 acre minimum). The proposal would result in a gross density of 7.9 dwelling units per acre for the entire site before dedication of streets. The proposed amendment would change the General Plan designation for the site to Very High Density(VH) Residential. The General Plan designation of Medium (M) allows a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre, while the requested VH designation allows up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The project is consistent with the applicable Goals and Policies of the General Plan. Specifically, the proposed senior continuing care retirement community is consistent with the following Land Use and Housing Element goals: Land Use Element: GOAL 1:Attain a balanced City growth pattern which includes a full mix of land uses. GOAL 3: Provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Housing Element: GOAL 2: Provide residential sites through land use, zoning and specific plan designations to provide a range of housing opportunities. GOAL 3: Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income households and special needs groups. The proposed Project will provide housing opportunities for a special needs group, seniors requiring living assistance services, and add to the range of housing opportunities available in the City. The requested zoning designation to RPD-8U (Residential Planned Development — 8 units per acre) would accommodate the proposed density. The purpose of the Residential Planned Development zone is to provide areas for communities to be developed using modern land planning and unified design techniques. This zone provides a flexible regulatory procedure in order to encourage: 1. Coordinated neighborhood design and compatibility with existing or potential development of surrounding areas; 2. An efficient use of land particularly through the clustering of dwelling units and the preservation of the natural features of sites; 3. Variety and innovation in site design, density and housing unit options, including garden apartments,townhouses and single-family dwellings; 4. Lower housing costs through the reduction of street and utility networks; and 5. A more varied, attractive and energy-efficient living environment, as well as, greater opportunities for recreation than would be possible under other zone classifications. This zoning designation is consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation and is appropriate for the site, allowing the development of a site plan that provides opportunities for habitat restoration after grading while creating a cohesive and logical plan for the proposed continuing care community. 282 Resolution No. 2019- Page 23 Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Land Use Element (1992) Mitigation: None required K. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? Response: There are no known mineral resources onsite. Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986) Mitigation: None required L. NOISE—Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X 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? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 283 Resolution No. 2019- Page 24 Response: There will be a temporary increase in noise during grading and construction. Noise generators will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and allowed hours of construction. Grading traffic will be minimized through the balancing of cut and fill onsite prior to the development of the North Hills Parkway. Future residents on site may hear traffic on Walnut Canyon Road, but the noise analysis study indicates a measured noise level of 59.5 CNEL on the east property line, below the threshold for an acoustical analysis. The project proposes conventional residential use within a sheltered area isolated from adjacent uses by upward slopes. Nothing indicates any significant impact on surrounding properties from the permanent use itself. It will be in compliance with all acoustical codes and requirements of Title 24 and the Uniform Building Code. Sources: Noise Study (Veneklasen Associates, 1/16/14); Project Application (September 3, 2013); General Plan Noise Element (1998) Mitigation: None required M. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Response: This project will have beneficial impacts of helping to achieve housing goals in support of the Housing Element of the General Plan, and of providing housing for an unserved segment of the population -- elderly seeking a continuum of care. There will be no negative impacts related to population growth or housing. Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013) Mitigation: None required N. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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: Fire protection? X Police protection? X 284 Resolution No. 2019- Page 25 Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Response: The proposed continuing care community for seniors is located less than one-half mile from Ventura County Fire Station No. 42 on E. High Street and less than one mile from the Ventura County Sheriff's Station on Spring Road and response time for any calls for service will be acceptable. The Project includes assisted care living units that will have full time staff, which will reduce calls for emergency services. The incremental increase in calls for emergency services will not create a need for additional fire or police facilities. The project plans and information were provided to the Ventura County Sheriff and Fire Departments for review and comment. No comments were received by the City indicating the project would have a significant impact on police and fire services that would require new facilities or alterations to existing facilities to maintain acceptable levels of service that would result in significant impacts. This senior housing project will not generate students and will have no impact on school facilities for this reason. Impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities will be minimized by the inclusion of onsite recreational facilities designed to meet the needs of the senior residential. The incremental impact on public services is are less than significant. The Project site Development fees and increased property taxes will be paid to fund required public services. Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Safety Element (2001), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986) Mitigation: None required O. RECREATION 1) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response: Onsite recreational facilities are proposed. Park and recreation fees will be paid. Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986) Mitigation: None required 285 Resolution No. 2019- Page 26 P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: 1) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy X establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? 2) Conflict with an applicable congestion management X program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 6) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Response: The proposed project will not reduce the level of service (LOS) of intersections in the area. The project would contribute to a significant cumulative traffic impact at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road, as the LOS at this intersection would degrade from LOS C to LOS D with cumulative traffic conditions. The project would also contribute traffic to other intersections projected to operate at LOS D or worse without project traffic. The City has established traffic mitigation fee programs for purposes of funding traffic improvements as needed to maintain the City's desired Level of Service C operating conditions on the local street system. The Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee and Gabbert/Casey Roads Areas of Contribution Fee Programs apply to this project. The City has identified and programmed construction of improvements to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of the addition of through lanes at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Improvements have also been identified at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of adding additional phases to the existing traffic signal, that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Payment of these traffic mitigation fees by the project will mitigate the project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts to less than significant. Sources: Traffic and Circulation Study, Associated Traffic Engineers (3/26/2014); Review of Traffic Study (Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers (6/10/2015); Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Circulation Element (1992) 286 Resolution No. 2019- Page 27 Mitigation: The City has established traffic mitigation fee programs for purposes of funding traffic improvements as needed to maintain Level of Service C operating conditions on the local street system. The Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee and Gabbert/Casey Roads Areas of Contribution Fee Programs apply to this project. The City has identified and programmed construction of improvements to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of the addition of through lanes at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Improvements have also been identified at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of adding additional phases to the existing traffic signal, that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. 1. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall pay to the City Traffic Mitigation Fund to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director. 2. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director. 3. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall submit a driveway plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director. Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? 287 Resolution No. 2019- Page 28 Response: Utilities and service systems within the area are adequate to serve the project. Development fees will be paid to fund required utilities and service systems, or improvements needed to serve the project will be constructed by the developer. The project plans and information were provided to the agencies providing utility service for review and comment. No comments were received by the City indicating the project would have a significant impact on utility and service that would require the construction of new facilities or alterations to existing facilities to maintain acceptable levels of service that would result in significant impacts. . Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), Ventura County Watershed Protection District: Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2002) Mitigation: None required R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X 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 of prehistory? 2) Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effect of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and effects of probable future projects)? 3) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Response: 1) The project does not 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 of prehistory. The site has been largely disturbed by vehicle use and is surrounded on three sides by urbanized uses reducing its potential as a habitat. 2) The project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Impacts on Biological Resources and Transportation/Traffic will be mitigated to less than significant as discussed above in D. Biological Resources and P. Transportation/Traffic. Impacts to trees and native habitat on the site that will be impacted by the project will be mitigated by providing replacement tree and habitat onsite as part of the project, which will also mitigate the contribution of the project to the loss of these resources in the area. The project will pay traffic mitigation fees to the City that will be used to make improvements to intersections impacted by cumulative traffic conditions to mitigate these impacts to less than significant. 3) The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project has been designed to eliminate any potential substantial adverse effects on human beings and to provide a needed residential resource. 288 Resolution No. 2019- Page 29 Sources: See below. Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study None Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the Response Section of the Initial Study Checklist. 1. Environmental Information Form application and materials submitted on September 3, 2013. 2. Comments received from (departments) in response to the Community Development Department's request for comments. 3. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended. 4. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended. 5. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 2004-2224 6. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15000 et. seq. 7. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, October 31, 2003. 8. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Focused Survey and Biologist Letter 9. Acoustical Analysis Report 10. Archaeological Report 11. Greenhouse Gas Study 12. Cut/Fill Report 13. Noise Data 14. Soils Report 15. Traffic Study 16. Tree Map 17. Wetlands Report NOTE: Appendix Nos. 8-17 are included as a separate attachment under Item No. 8.B. for the regular meeting of 1-16-2019. 289 Resolution No. 2019- Page 30 Aldersgate Senior Living Project: Initial Study GPA No.2013-02;2C No.2013-02;RPD No.2013-01;DA Na.2013-01 AGREEMENT TO PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(California Code of Regulations Title 14,Chapter 3, Article 6), this agreement must be signed prior to release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review. I, THE UNDERSIGNED PROJECT APPLICANT, HEREBY AGREE TO MODIFY THE PROJECT DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE ABOVE- LISTED MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE PROJECT. January 31.2018 Signature of Project Applicant Date 290 - 0 CD m (0 Cl) m o W � - 0 n z p N O 11 ____4,1 1 .0*"....- 4.-1\.416.13 c ''''\'''t\ r3--- l rc7 - 0 VIV.;•,.. ....---,____„..---- --1*IA,1014,1 fq."., Iv Id lt,,,t 11ib,416...., .....,,,, ,c,,,) S ,,, ._‘ \,,......1 !!� I , `,-- '11,1 c D. ,,, rq -,V3 )3 . 4.5"Ce. °I** MI I` i(I1 ''i O � t 1 411 '1 * CO �i' it h', ' FSS` F r' CO CO LEGEND 4 1��I, I jJt,p ' I VH-VERY HIGH DENSITY hiI 1 RESIDENTIAL 15.D.U./AC � I r1! 1[Pi Wej,6- NO I INV 0' 250 500 SCALE: f=250' N CD FORNIA State of California —Natural Resources Aaencv EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Governor ALI oFORNICF DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director wifl IFE South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road UPN P San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.aov March 6, 2018 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 jfiss@moorpark.gov Subject: Aldersgate Senior Living Project in the City of Moorpark, Ventura County (Project) SCH No. 2018021010 Dear Mr. Fiss: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) circulated by the City of Moorpark (Lead Agency). The Lead Agency's MND is for development of the Aldersgate Senior Living Project, a 390-unit continuing care senior retirement community on 49.52 acres (Project), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW ROLE CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the state. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, the law charges CDFW to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW's lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority, (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take", as defined by State law as any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), or state-listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required. Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870 CC ATTACHMENT 5 292 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager City of Moorpark March 6, 2018 Page 2 of 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proponent: Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC (Mansi) 300 Esplanade Drive Oxnard, California 93030 (805) 988-4114 Project Summary: The Lead Agency's MND analyzed development of the proposed Project, which would construct a 390-unit senior continuing care retirement community on 49.52 acres. The Project will include independent living, assisted living, and memory care, as well as associated amenities. The Project site is located on the north side of Casey Road, west of Walnut Canyon Road. Project Objectives: 1. A General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Residential Planned Development (RPD), and Development Agreement. 2. Construction of 40 single-story and two-story structures. 3. A main paved access road extending from Casey Road, and internal paved roadways and parking areas. 4. Related new utilities and infrastructure. 5. Landscaping and paved active and primary passive recreation areas. Location: The Project site is located in a small valley, and is part of the Little Simi Valley. The Project is more specifically described as on the north side of Casey Road, west of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark, in northeastern Ventura County. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the north, single-family homes to the east, Walnut Canyon Elementary School to the south. The Project Site is contiguous with extensive natural habitat occurring to the west. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the following mitigation recommendations below to assist the Lead Agency in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. I. Project Description and Shortcoming: Issue #1: The Lead Agencies MND, states, "The applicant shall replace trees on the site in an amount equal to the appraised value of the removed trees, as identified in the Oak Tree Report, including two 24"-box Quercus agrifolia. Should there not be sufficient space to replace the required trees, or should appropriate trees not be available, the applicant shall pay to the City of Moorpark an amount equal to the difference between the appraised amount and the value of the trees planted on site. Additionally, the Lead Agency states only one oak tree will be removed; however, the 2014 Oak Tree Report states that one oak tree (Quercus agrifolia), two black walnuts (Juglans californica), and one blue elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) are to be removed" (Oak Tree Report, 2014, Page 6). 293 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager City of Moorpark March 6, 2018 Page 3 of 9 According to the Biological Assessment (2014), Mulefat Scrub occurs along a seasonal wash where it is dominated by a nearly pure stand of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). An isolated patch of Southern Willow Scrub occurs in a seasonal wash where it is dominated by a canopy of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) with intermittent Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). Associated plants included giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus) and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Specific impact: The Project site has three native vegetation communities: Mulefat Scrub, Southern Willow Scrub, and Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub. The primary vegetation throughout the property site is Venturan coastal sage scrub with mature native and non-native trees mixed throughout, including Coast live oak and black walnut. This plant assemblage is ecologically valuable to native wildlife. Additionally, the following California Native Plant Society (CNPS) special status plants and California Species of Special Concern (SSC) animal species are likely to occur on the Project site: Slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) CNPS-1B2; Plummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae) CNPS-4.2; Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) CNPS-2014b; Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) CNPS 2014a; Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus) federal Endangered; coastal whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris stejnegeri) SSC; coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) SSC; San Bernardino Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus) SSC; and rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps) SSC. Evidence impact would be significant: The loss of mature native and non-native trees and the previously described native vegetation communities will likely impact the nesting and foraging opportunities of the local avian and wildlife population. The Lead Agency further states, "The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, on Biological Resources" (Initial Study, Page 21). Several recent like-kind Projects have been recently approved in the City of Moorpark. Additionally, this specific Project proposes to remove an ephemeral wash and streambed that empties into Walnut Creek, remove an emergent wetland, remove 101 mature trees, and impacts the habitat of an endangered species. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: The MND should include measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect sensitive plant and plant communities from Project-related direct and indirect impacts. Plant communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S-1, S-2, S-3 and S-4 should be considered sensitive and declining at the local and regional level. CDFW recommends the Lead Agency require Off-site mitigation lands be acquired and preserved with the necessary endowment in perpetuity. It is also recommended the location of this off-site mitigation lands consider the expanding a current or proposed future wildlife movement corridor. Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends the Lead Agency require the Applicant to conduct a recent Floristic, alliance-and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments at the Project site and within the neighboring vicinity. Evans (2009) Identification and mapping of rare plant communities is recommended for mapping an isolated area for unique and rare plants. Adjoining habitat areas should be included in this assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions. In addition, the CDFW website, with regard to Natural Communities, can provide guidance for surveying and mapping sensitive and rare plant communities: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural- Communities/List. 294 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager City of Moorpark March 6, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Issue #2: The Lead Agency's MND states that only one tree is a Coast live oak, and the "applicant shall include two 24" box Quercus agrifolia trees on-site as mitigation" Oak Tree Report, 2014). Additionally, the Lead Agency's MND further states, "trees shall be replaced in an amount equal to the appraised value of the removed trees, as identified in the Oak Tree Report prepared in 2014" (Initial Study, Page 9). The Lead Agency further states, "However, should there be insufficient space to replace the required trees, or should appropriate trees not be available, the applicant shall pay to the City of Moorpark an amount equal to the difference between the appraised amount and the value of the trees planted on-site." (Initial Study, Page 9). Based on information in the Oak Tree Report, dated January 2014, the estimated value of the 101 trees on-site is approximately $74,500. Specific impact: The loss of 101 tress on-site, including the riparian areas associated with the streams and wetlands, provide local avian species nesting and foraging habitat will be permanently impact. The Lead Agency's MND also indicates that if the Project cannot incorporate trees equal to the appraised value, the City of Moorpark is to receive compensation for the loss of the appraised value of the trees. Why impact would occur: The 2014 Oak Tree Report identified 101-tagged trees for removal to develop the Project as proposed, and includes large mature native trees. Evidence impact would be significant: The proposed Project site is currently primarily open space with over one-hundred trees, streams, and an emergent wetland. The Lead Agency's MND states that the applicant shall remove 101 trees on the site. If sufficient space does not exist to mitigate the removal of the trees, the applicant shall pay to the City of Moorpark an amount equal to the difference between the appraised amount and the value of the trees planted on site. The transference of monies between the applicant and the Lead Agency does not mitigate the significance of the impacts, as this would be considered deferred mitigation, which does not avoid, minimize, or fully offset Project-related impacts. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #1: To minimize significant impacts CDFW recommends tree replacement for mitigation purposes be with native species local to the area. In addition, if sufficient space does not exists on-site, the remaining trees should be planted adjacent to the Project, or off-site to enhance the riparian buffer between the Project site and open space to the west, the remaining fragmented streambed located off-site, and newly created streambed and wetlands habitats proposed as mitigation both on-site, off-site, and adjacent Walnut Creek. Mitigation Measure #2: To minimize significant impacts CDFW also recommends trees be placed within areas preserved as wildland Open Space in the City of Moorpark, or the Lead Agency could propose acquisition and enhancement of a mitigation parcel of sufficient size to incorporate the remaining number of replacement trees, and/or creation of ephemeral wash and wetland. A Conservation Easement should cover all mitigation areas in perpetuity to minimize the cumulative impacts of the Project. In addition, the Lead Agency's proposal to replace the ephemeral Streambed and wash, and associated wetland habitat, at an equal amount is insufficient to offset the temporal losses of these resources to wildlife. CDFW recommends the mitigation focus on replacement of native trees on-site, equal to the number of trees removed, to offset the Project-related significant impacts. 295 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager City of Moorpark March 6, 2018 Page 5 of 9 II. Environmental Setting and Related Impact Shortcoming Issue #1: Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is a federally listed species and a California Species of Special Concern. The Lead Agency's MND stated, "Coastal sagebrush scrub shall be provided throughout the restoration and habitat enhancement area of 18.51 acres of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey" (Initial Study, Page 9). CDFW cannot ascertain where the 18.51 acres is in proximity to the proposed Project site. The Lead Agency proposes a Project Habitat Conservation Plan, developed prior to Project construction activities and approved by USFWS. A population of gnatcatchers was previously documented approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the Project site. Due to the presence of the open Venturan coastal sage scrub and the occurrence of nearby source populations, and appropriate soils, this species has a moderate potential to occur onsite. As stated in the Biological Report no protocol surveys were conducted for this species. Evidence impact would be significant: Coastal California gnatcatcher use coastal sage scrub habitats, documented in close proximity to and within the Project site. The primary plant community on the Project site is Venturan coastal sage scrub. The Lead Agency MND stated, "It also affects the existing scattered California Sagebrush Scrub plants which comprise the habitat of the California Gnatcatcher" (Initial Study, Page 9). Coastal sage scrub habitat are more common and more widely disbursed along the coastal range of gnatcatcher, because of changing climate. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #1: To minimize significant impacts CDFW recommends protocol surveys be conducted during the appropriate time of year by a qualified ornithologist prior to adoption of the MND document the presence Coastal California gnatcatcher prior to any ground disturbance activities, results of the surveys would influence the requirement of more mitigation measures, ultimately adopted within the final CEQA document. Survey protocol and guidelines for coastal California gnatcatcher are located at https://www.wildlife.ca.aov/Conservation/Survev-Protocols. Issue #2: There does not appear to have been any nesting bird surveys conducted, or proposed nesting bird surveys, prior to the removal of the 101 tress on the Project site. Additionally, the MND does not state when the removal of these trees will occur. Specific impact: The loss of the 101 trees and removal of a riparian corridor along streams, if not replaced on-site, would be a permanent significant impact to locally occurring native nesting birds. Why impact would occur: Trees identified in a 2014 Oak Tree Report, tagged for removal, to develop the Project as proposed. Undergrounding and grading of streams and emergent wetland on-site to develop the Project as proposed. Evidence impact would be significant: The riparian area of the streams, described by the Lead Agency's Biological Report "dominated by a nearly pure stand of mulefat" and the probable location for many species of native aquatic and terrestrial species, especially nesting birds. The Biological Report conducted by the applicant demonstrated a diverse array of species currently using the riparian area of trees on the proposed Project site. The trees and riparian 296 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager City of Moorpark March 6, 2018 Page 6 of 9 corridor of the ephemeral wash and wetland, utilized as nesting habitat by locally occurring bird species. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #1: To minimize significant impacts CDFW recommends mitigation of impacts to the 101 trees include establishing a buffer of herbaceous plants and shrubs between the Project site and adjacent the open space to the west of the Project site. These plantings should consist of like-kind plant assemblages, listed in the MND 2014 Oak Tree Report. Establishment of the buffer would minimize edge effects and the movement of non-native weeds and Argentine ants into the adjacent open space and riparian area of the Arroyo Simi (Holway, Suarez, and Case, 2002; Porensky, and Truman 2013; Simberloff, et al., 2013). Mitigation Measure #2: To minimize significant impacts CDFW recommends nesting bird surveys be conducted as described in the nesting birds survey protocols and guidelines located at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols. An ornithologist familiar with local avian species should conduct the surveys. Survey findings should be disclosed to decision- makers prior to adoption of the MND, as the results may influence the need for additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Additionally, CDFW recommends nesting bird surveys should be conducted prior to any ground disturbing or vegetation removal activities. Mitigation Measure #3: To minimize significant impacts CDFW recommends the Lead Agency's MND include adequate protection measures to prevent impacts to nesting birds during construction. Nesting birds have the potential to be impacted directly, or indirectly, by construction noise, dust, or vibration. Nests missed during pre-project surveys could lead to nest abandonment during Project implementation. CDFW recommends avoiding the nesting bird season, which generally runs from February 1st through September 1St (as early as January 1St for some raptors), for all Project-related activities, to avoid take of birds or their eggs. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (Title 50, § 10.13, Code of Federal Regulations). Additionally, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory non-game birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). If avoidance of the avian breeding season is not feasible, CDFW recommends the Lead Agency develop a nesting bird's management plan, submitted to CDFW for review, prior to ground disturbing or vegetation removal. All Project's personnel, including all Project contractors working on-site, should be provided a copy of the nesting bird's management plan, and instructed how to avoid nests and nest buffer areas. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. Issue #3: The Project site currently supports an ephemeral wash, stream and emergent wetland. The Project proposes undergrounding the streambed on-site, and installing a water catchment basin and runoff infrastructure. The adjacent open space, where this stream continues, from the Project site, has the potential to support a wide variety of state-listed, state species of special concern, and native aquatic and terrestrial species. Project modifications may affect the hydrology of the stream and emergent wetland, as well as, its functions and values; consequently, it may become uninhabitable for local fish and wildlife species. 297 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager City of Moorpark March 6, 2018 Page 7 of 9 The Lead Agency's MND states, "to offset impacts to U.S. and State Wetland and Waters, on- site mitigation will be implemented in the southern portion of the proposed Project." The Lead Agency's MND also states, "the proposed mitigation/restoration will result in the creation of 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre-construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage to compensate for the impact to 1.022 acres of jurisdictional area." If there is space on- site to re-create the stream and wetland then it is CDFW's concern that these resources are not all together avoided, and the Project implemented on the portion of the property away from these valuable and rare habitats. Why impact would occur: The Project would remove a stream and emergent wetland and create almost 50 acres of newly constructed impervious surfaces and permanently affecting an ephemeral stream and an emergent wetland. Specific impact: A seasonal wash with hydrophytic vegetation is present in the central portion of the Project Site. The Lead Agency's MND stated, "A drainage field subject to classification as wetlands is also affected" (Initial Study, Page 9). The potential impacts from runoff of impervious surfaces from the Project site that empty into the streambed on the adjacent open space and potentially empty into Walnut Creek are not fully described. Wetlands resources, as described in Fish & Game Code section 703(a), are guided by the Fish and Game Commission's policies. The Wetlands Resources policy (http://www.fac.ca.ciov/policv/p4misc.aspx#WETLANDS) of the Fish and Game Commission "...seek[s] to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of wetland habitat in California. Further, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion, which would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be "no net loss" of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The Commission strongly prefers mitigation which would achieve expansion of wetland acreage and enhancement of wetland habitat values." The Fish and Game Commission's Water policy guides CDFW to ensure the quantity and quality of the waters of this state should be apportioned and maintained respectively so as to produce and sustain maximum numbers of fish and wildlife; to provide maximum protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife and their habitat; encourage and support programs to maintain or restore a high quality of the waters of this state, and prevent the degradation thereof caused by pollution and contamination; and endeavor to keep as much water as possible open and accessible to the public for the use and enjoyment of fish and wildlife. Evidence impact would be significant: All wetlands and watercourses, whether ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks, which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and functions for the benefit to onsite and offsite wildlife and plant populations. The Wetlands Resources policy provides a framework for maintaining wetland resources and establishes mitigation guidance. The CDFW encourages avoidance of wetland resources as a primary mitigation measure and discourages the development or type conversion of wetlands. 298 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager City of Moorpark March 6, 2018 Page 8 of 9 CDFW encourages activities that would avoid the reduction of wetland acreage, function, or habitat values. Once avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted, the project should include mitigation measures to assure a "no net loss" of either wetland habitat values or acreage. Conversion of wetlands and watercourses includes, but is not limited to, conversion to subsurface drains, placement of fill or building of structures within the wetland, and channelization or removal of materials from the streambed. The Lead Agencies Initial Study states, "the Applicant must provide for the long term maintenance of any lateral connection to Walnut Creek by including appropriate provisions in a deed restriction or similar instrument, subject to approval by the District, recorded prior to zone clearance for use inauguration or issuance of a letter of completion for the District Encroachment Permit" (Initial Study, Page 15). However, it remains unclear if the Project will impact Walnut Creek, either directly or indirectly, as a result of Project-related activities. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #1: To minimize significant impacts CDFW has regulatory authority with regard to activities occurring in streams and/or lakes that could adversely affect any fish or wildlife resource. For any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream or use material from a streambed, the Project applicant must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW then determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. CDFW's issuance of an LSA Agreement is a project subject to CEQA. To facilitate issuance of a LSA Agreement, if necessary, the environmental document should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA Agreement. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Again, the failure to include this analysis in the Project's environmental document could preclude CDFW from relying on the Lead Agency's analysis to issue a LSA Agreement without CDFW first conducting its own, separate Lead Agency subsequent or supplemental analysis for the Project. Information on submitting a Notification for a LSA Agreement, the current fee schedule, and timelines required in obtaining an Agreement and found using the following URL: httios://www.wildlife.ca.ciov/Conservation/LSA. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database, which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd (e)). Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form located at the following link: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/CNDDB_ FieldSurveyForm.pdf. The completed form mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDB@wildlife.ca.gov. The types of information reported to CNDDB located at the following link: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp. 299 Mr. Joseph Fiss-Planning Manager City of Moorpark March 6, 2018 Page 9 of 9 FILING FEES The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, §21089). CONCLUSION CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the Lead Agency in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. Direct questions regarding this letter, or further coordination, to Ms. Jamie Jackson, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist), at (805) 382-6906 orjamie.jackson@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, 9 Betty J. Courtney Environmental Program Manager I South Coast Region ec: Ms. Christine Found-Jackson, CDFW, Newbury Park Ms. Jamie Jackson, CDFW, Oxnard Mr. Brock Warmuth, CDFW, Santa Barbara Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Steve Henry, USFWS, Ventura, steve_henry@fws.gov References Holway, D. A., Suarez, A. V., and Case, T. J. "Role of abiotic factors in governing susceptibility to invasion: a test with Argentine ants." Ecology 83, no. 6 (2002): 1610 1619. Porensky, Lauren M., and Truman P. Young. "Edge-effect interactions in fragmented and patchy landscapes." Conservation Biology 27, no. 3 (2013): 509-519. Simberloff, D., Martin, J. L., Genovesi, P., Maris, V., Wardle, D. A., Aronson, J., and Py§ek, P. "Impacts of biological invasions: What's what and the way forward." Trends in Ecology& Evolution 28, no. 1 (2013): 58-66. 300 N W*:‘, NEIGHBORHOODS 17901 Von Karman Ave, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 556-8714 www.better-neighborhoods.com/ September 23, 2018 Joseph Fiss Planning Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Via email: ifiss aemoorparkca.aov Re: Aldersgate Project(the "Project") Dear Fiss, Thank you for the opportunity to provide questions and comments regarding the proposed Project referenced above. Better Neighborhoods Inc. is an organization established to help people have a voice in local development decisions that can be heard equally to that of the planners and developers, to encourage smart growth that is consistent with the needs of the community, to protect the natural environment and our places of historical and esthetic significance, to support affordable housing, and to balance the needs for growth and livable cities. As a preliminary matter, on Friday September 21 you informed me via email that"there are still some outstanding items in the Initial Study and MND . . . I will send you a link to the complete report and package when it is available this afternoon." As of today—two days before the public hearing scheduled for September 25, I have not yet received a link to the complete report and package to which you refer. Are there any outstanding items? In any event, based on the materials that we have reviewed, we believe that the City has not adequately studied several issues where there is a reasonable probability of potentially significant environmental impacts from the Project, as discussed in more detail below. Additional study, analysis and, if possible, mitigation measures are needed before this Project can be approved. CC ATTACHMENT 6 301 Mr. Joseph Fiss Re: Aldersgate Project September 23, 2018 Page 2 The Project The Applicant, Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC, proposes the development of a 390-unit senior continuing care retirement community on 49.52 acres on the north side of Casey Road and the west side of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark. The project will include independent living, assisted living, and memory care as well as associated amenities. Entitlements for the project include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Residential Planned Development, and Development Agreement. Site development will include the construction of approximately 40 single-story and two-story structures, a main paved access road extending from Casey Road, internal paved roadways and parking areas, and related new utilities and infrastructure. The remaining site will be landscaped and paved, with active and, primarily, passive recreation areas. Structures are expected to be conventional wood frame construction. Site grading is expected to consist of cut and fill for the proposed structures, related new utilities, access road, internal roadways, parking and yard/recreational areas, and site drainage (the "Proj ect"). Biological Resources—Destruction of Wetlands and Native Habitat The CEQA Guidelines (e.g., Section 15370) express a strong preference for avoiding impacts to wetlands altogether, or for minimizing impacts by limiting the magnitude or implementation of the Project, or by rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted environment. In this case, the City is willing to allow the complete destruction of 0.3 acres of protected wetlands and 0.7 acres of jurisdictional waters, including the destruction and loss of the existing ecosystem and its native species and inhabitants. The City purports to mitigate this destruction by trying to replace/re-create these waters somewhere else on the property. We believe that CEQA only allows for replacement mitigation of a protected wetland as a final measure, and only if there is no less environmentally damaging, feasible alternative. For this reason alone, the City must prepare an EIR to fully consider alterations or alternatives to the Project that would not eliminate existing wetlands. And if, after additional study, it turns out there are no feasible alternatives to replacing the wetlands, an EIR is still required to study whether there are any endangered species that rely on both the wetland and the surrounding upland, what measures can be taken to limit the degree and magnitude of the Project impacts to those species, and an analysis of the effectiveness of the proposed replacement wetland system. Preparing an EIR would be consistent with California"no net loss" in wetland acreage, quality and values mandate, especially considering the imperiled status of wetlands in California. According to a California Water Boards report, entitled "Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Policy CEQA Scoping" dated April 9, 2007 (the"Wetland Protection Report"), over 91% of historic wetland acreage has already been lost in California, and up to 98% of historic riparian areas has been lost. The Wetland Protection Report also concludes that"although losses have been mitigated at a minimum of one to one acreage . . . the quality and function [of these mitigated waters] have not 302 Mr. Joseph Fiss Re: Aldersgate Project September 23, 2018 Page 3 been achieved." The Wetland Protection Report also cites a National Research Council Wetland study and a UCLA Compensatory Mitigation study, which both conclude that"[California's] 'no net loss goal' is not being met" and that"most mitigation sites [are] not functioning wetlands." Furthermore, it is not clear that the delineation of existing wetlands would comply with the California Coastal Act. Biological Resources—Trees and the California Gnatcatcher According to the Initial Study, the Project proposes the removal of 101 mature trees and the destruction of existing scattered California Sagebrush Scrub plants which comprise the habitat of the California Gnatcatcher. As mitigation for the lost trees, Staff states that the Applicant"shall replace trees on the site in an amount equal to the appraised value of the removed trees . . . [s]hould there not be sufficient space to replace the required trees, or should appropriate trees not be available, the applicant shall pay to the City of Moorpark an amount equal to the difference between the appraised amount and the value of the trees planted on the site." There are a few problems with this approach. First, it is not adequate CEQA analysis to mitigate an impact by letting someone (meaning, someone hired by the developer after the project is approved) to place a value on the trees that are to be chopped down, and then only require that an equal amount be spent on replacement trees. This procedure could easily lead to the replacement of 101 mature trees with 15 "really nice" or rare or expensive trees. Or it could lead to the replacement of 101 mature trees with 101 of the exact same kind of mature trees (an outcome we highly doubt, for some reason). The point is, there's no way to tell what will happen, and the City is just letting the developer determine the result rather putting in place a clear mitigation measure, which we think should be a two-to-one replacement of lost trees. Second, allowing the developer to pay a fee to the City if the developer elects not to install new trees only makes sense—and only has teeth --if the City actually has an existing tree replacement program in place—one with an actual existing fund and procedure for that purpose, and one which accounts for species destroyed and species replaced. But as far as we know, the City has no such program, so there is no way to know if the mitigation would actually happen. Which leads us to the third issue—the improper deferral of a mitigation measure. The City must have a clear, specific tree and vegetation replacement plan as a mitigation measure to be approved for this Project. Indeed, the entire purpose of CEQA is to "inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made, protecting the environment as well as informed self-government." (Citizens for Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) Similarly, with regard to the California Gnatcatcher, the supposed mitigation measure requiring that a"Project Habitat Conservation Plan" be prepared after the Project is approved but before 303 Mr. Joseph Fiss Re: Aldersgate Project September 23, 2018 Page 4 construction starts, is another improper deferral of mitigation. In order for the City to conclude that a conservation plan is adequate mitigation, it has to be developed now and considered by the City and understood by the community before approving the Project. Among other things, such a conservation plan should include a focused analysis of the impact of the location of the Project to the Gnatcatcher habitat, and have a very specific vegetation replacement plan and time-table in order to avoid the total annihilation of the Gnatcatchers in the area. The conservation plan should also study the temporary construction impacts to the lifecycle of resident Gnatcatchers including their breeding program, and any necessary mitigation measures. Hydrology and Water Quality Staff again proposes an improper deferred mitigation measure. On page 15 of the Initial Study, Staff states: "An engineering study shall be conducted to determine the appropriate contribution of the development toward the solution of downstream flooding issues on properties such as those owned by Essex Moorpark Owner LP and the City of Moorpark. Said study shall be subject to City Department of Public Works approval prior to issuance of any development permits." Staff admits that there is a known downstream flooding problem that the Project will make worse. The engineering study should be completed now, and any mitigation measures to make this a less than significant impact should be provided and studied before approval of the Project. Similarly, staff acknowledges there may be a significant impact on Walnut Creek, but there is no study analyzing it. The City should require a hydrology drainage study to determine the impacts on Walnut Creek and what mitigation measures are required to reduce those impacts to less than significant. Air Quality Staff's indication that there will be no significant air quality impacts is based only on"operational" emissions, and fails to consider the impacts of construction on air quality. The City needs mitigation measures to minimize air quality impacts during construction. Land Use and Planning Staff states that"the Residential Planned Development Application was filed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The applications and plans are internally consistent and, if approved, will not conflict with any other plans. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan." The City cannot make the findings required for the proposed General Plan Amendment because the MND does not provide any analysis of the consistency or inconsistency of the Project with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan. Traffic 304 Mr. Joseph Fiss Re: Aldersgate Project September 23, 2018 Page 5 Staff acknowledges that the Project will reduce the level of service (LOS) at the Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road intersection which will be degraded from B to C. The proposed mitigation measure- contributing to the City's Traffic Mitigation Fund is not adequate mitigation. Also, the traffic study relied on by Staff is more than four-years old and is outdated. The City needs an updated traffic study to account for all of the current traffic conditions in the City. Other Issues Regarding cultural resources, has the City contacted the local Native American Indian tribes? The report doesn't say. Regarding public services, Staff simply concludes that incremental impacts to fire and police will be insignificant. But it is not clear why a 390-unit senior-care facility (presumably housing nearly 800 elderly)wouldn't have a significant impact on paramedics, for example. Has the City studied whether it has adequate fire and paramedic resources, with acceptable response-times, to service the Project? Regarding Utilities and Services Systems, Q3 on the Initial Study, Staff indicates there will be no impacts. But this is contradicted elsewhere in the report(as discussed above) where Staff acknowledges downstream stormwater drainage problems- a significant impact that needs to be studied. Conclusion As discussed above, additional study and information is required before the City can approve this Project. Sincerely, /y&-61d-ei_ . Michael Goolsby President and CEO Better Neighborhoods, Inc. 305 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2013-02, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RE (RURAL EXCLUSIVE) AND RE-5AC (RURAL EXCLUSIVE-5 ACRE MINIMUM) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD-8U) ON 49.52 ACRES NORTH OF CASEY ROAD AND WEST OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD WHEREAS, on September 3, 2013, applications for General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, Zone Change No. 2013-02, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01, and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 were filed by Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC, for property owned by Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC, for a proposed development for a 390-Unit Senior Community on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2018-634, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve ZONE CHANGE NO. 2013-02, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RE (Rural Exclusive) and RE-5ac (Rural Exclusive-5 acre minimum) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD-8U), on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road, on the application of Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC.; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on January 16, 2019, the City Council considered the agenda report for Zone Change No. 2013-02 and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal and reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above together with any comments received during the public review process and determined that, with the incorporation of changes to the project or conditions of approval to mitigate potentially significant impacts with respect to biological resource and transportation/traffic, there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Zone Change No. 2013-02 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02 in that the proposed zoning of the project site to Residential Planned Development 8 Units Per Acre (RPD-8U) is CC ATTACHMENT 7 306 Ordinance No. Page 2 consistent with the General Plan land use category of Very High Residential Density (VH). SECTION 2. The Zoning Map described and referenced in Chapter 17.12 of Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code of the City of Moorpark is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the minutes of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall publish notice of adoption in the manner required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 2019. Janice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: Maureen Benson, City Clerk Exhibit A: Zone Change Map 307 Ordinance No. Page 3 EXHIBIT A ZONE CHANGE NO. 2013-02_,12 <w H i K 0 U 0.<\ II z D 0<p d J CCam }sad --- --- IL ,o,.....,,. .L.5 iiiV ```� 0a Tom' -- .'- 4=aid s moo_ l .•rt, 1/4��7 /? ? N : fi �' (2 .Q a 6114 / �,. ge t* •n ' c o/ z 7 RIM - - Win. a 308 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD) PERMIT NO. 2013-01 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 390-UNIT SENIOR COMMUNITY ON 49.52 ACRES NORTH OF CASEY ROAD AND WEST OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD, ON THE APPLICATION OF ERNIE MANS! FOR ALDERSGATE INVESTMENT, LLC. WHEREAS, on September 3, 2013, applications for General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, Zone Change No. 2013-02, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01, , and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 were filed by Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC, for property owned by Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC, for a proposed development for a 390-Unit Senior Community on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2018-634, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, to amend the General Plan land-use designation from Medium Residential (M) and Rural Low Residential (RL) to VH — Very High Density Residential, on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road, on the application of Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC.; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on January 16, 2019, the City Council considered the agenda report for Residential Planned Development No. 2013- 01 and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal and reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above together with any comments received during the public review process and determined that, with the incorporation of changes to the project or conditions of approval to mitigate potentially significant impacts with respect to biological resource and transportation/traffic, there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and the mitigation measures have been incorporated into this resolution. WHEREAS, on January 16, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019- adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02 and introduced Ordinance No. , approving Zone Change No. 2013-02, for the project referenced above. CC ATTACHMENT 8 309 Resolution No. 2019- Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and oral and written public testimony, the City Council makes the following findings in accordance with City of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.040: A. The site design, including structure, location, size, height, setbacks, massing, scale, architectural style and colors, and landscaping, is consistent with the provisions of the general plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance, and any other applicable regulations in that the site design is consistent with the better aspects of modern development practice, with siting and landscaping combining with building massing to prevent any external impacts, and with well-ordered architectural design to ensure a high-quality environment for residents, employees, and visitors. B. The site design would not create negative impacts on or impair the utility of properties, structures or uses in the surrounding area in that adequate provision of public access, sanitary services, and emergency services have been ensured in the processing of this request and the use proposed is similar to adiacent uses, and access to or utility of those adiacent uses are not hindered by this proiect. C. The proposed uses are compatible with existing and permitted uses in the surrounding area in that the siting of the proiect uses slopes and landscaped setbacks to isolate it from neighboring properties visually. As a denser, but less-intense category of residential use, it would not tend to create disturbances regardless of the physical context. SECTION 3. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: The City Council approves: A. Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01, subject to the Standard and Special Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. The effective date of the approval of Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01 shall be concurrent with the effective date of the Ordinance for Zone Change No. 2013-02 and the Ordinance for Development Agreement No. 2013-01, whichever occurs last. 310 Resolution No. 2019- Page 3 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 16th day of January, 2019. Janice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: Maureen Benson, City Clerk Exhibit A — Standard and Special Conditions of Approval for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01 311 Resolution No. 2019- Page 4 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2013-01 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The applicant shall comply with Standard Conditions of Approval for Planned Development Permits as adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2009-2799 (Exhibit A), except as modified by the following Special Conditions of Approval. In the event of conflict between a Standard and Special Condition of Approval, the Special Condition shall apply. SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 2013-01 1. This planned development permit will expire two (2) years from the date of its approval unless the use has been inaugurated by issuance of a building permit for construction. The Community Development Director may, at his/her discretion, grant up to two (2) additional one-year extensions for use inauguration of the development permit, if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if the applicant can document that he/she has diligently worked towards use inauguration during the initial period of time. The request for extension of this planned development permit shall be made in writing, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the permit and shall be accompanied by applicable entitlement processing deposits. 2. A development phasing plan shall be provided for Community Development Director approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading. 3. Contour grading shall be employed on the slopes for the North Hills Parkway to the extent feasible as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 4. All future phases or parcels shall be maintained as one development project subject to the same entitlements regardless of whether another entity owns and operates a specific portion of the facility. 5. A total of 328 parking spaces are required. The deficit of 8 parking spaces must be corrected to provide the required parking spaces, which may be distributed throughout the onsite parking areas, creating a fully conforming parking condition. A revised parking plan is required to be submitted, and approved by 312 Resolution No. 2019- Page 5 the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading. 6. Landscaping must be consistent with the City's Landscape Guidelines, ensuring plant species are capable of effective screening where appropriate, and suitable to the demands of slope conditions and growth rates. A landscaping and irrigation plan, subject to the review and approval of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Director and Community Development Director must be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading. 7. A fence/wall plan is required to be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading. Location, design, material and height of all fences and walls shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Architectural enhancements, such as window reveals and plant-ons are required on all side and rear elevations subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 8. There shall be no storage of recreational vehicles of any type on any lot, driveway, or street within the development. This requirement shall be reflected on the Homeowner's Association (HOA) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR's). 9. There shall be no parking on the main driveway. "No Stopping at Any Time" signs shall be installed or curbs painted red at the sole cost of the applicant to the satisfaction of the Ventura County Fire Prevention District and the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 10. Front yards of the residential villas shall be shall be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained by the Facility Operator, Homeowner's Association, or other appropriate entity. 11. All remainder areas not designated for resident use or vehicular maneuvering shall be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained by the Facility Operator, Homeowner's Association, or other appropriate entity as common area subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 12. Final colors and materials must be reviewed and approved to include a minimum of three color schemes per architectural style subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. 313 Resolution No. 2019- Page 6 13. Painted and decorative sectional roll up garage doors, including garage window glazing, compatible with the architectural style of each villa are required. 14. Durable materials are required for trim on the ground floor levels of the homes, such as wood window trim, or Y4" minimum cementous stucco coat over foam. 15. Any proposed change to the Architecture shall be considered by the Community Development Director upon filing of a Permit Adjustment application and payment of the fee in effect at the time of application. 16. Any gates to control vehicle access are to be located to allow a vehicle waiting for entrance to be completely off the intersecting roadway. A minimum clear open width of fifteen (15') feet in each direction shall be provided for separate entry/exit gates and a minimum twenty (20) for combined entry/exit gates. If gates are to be locked, a Knox system shall be installed. The method of gate control, including operation during power failure, shall be subject to review by the Fire Prevention Division. Gate plan details shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval prior to installation. A final acceptance inspection by the Fire District is required prior to placing any gate into service. Signage is required for the gate at the western end of the project site that it is only to be used for emergency exiting to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and City Engineer/Public Works Director. 17. LED street lights shall be used within the project, to be owned and maintained by the Facility Operator or Homeowners Association. Design of street lighting shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director to ensure consistency with future LED street lighting to be used in the City. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the plans shall be submitted to the Police Department for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) review and recommendations. 19. Consistent with the Development Agreement (Agreement), Developer shall have the right, at its election and without risk to or waiver of any right that is vested in it pursuant to the Agreement, to apply to the City Manager for modifications to the product mix for the Project (i.e., to reasonably vary the number of Villas, Independent Living Apartments and Assisted Living and Memory Care 314 Resolution No. 2019- Page 7 Apartments, as well as the mix of studio, 1, and 2 bedroom unit mix), and the City Manager shall have the authority to approve such modifications administratively provided that they do not cause the maximum development density of the Project to exceed 390 units. 20. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit in the Project, Developer shall at its sole cost irrevocably offer to the City all rights of way, permanent easements and construction easements on the north side of Casey Road necessary for construction of the Project's improvements to Casey Road for an ultimate 76-foot wide public right-of-way from Walnut Canyon Road to the westerly project boundary (the "Casey Road Improvements"), including a Caltrans-compliant curve radius at the northwest intersection of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road, 8-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Casey Road, an 8- foot wide bike lane on the north side of Casey Road, two 12' foot wide travel lanes, 14' wide parking/bike lane on the south side of Casey Road, and a 14-foot wide left turn median, with the design subject to review and approval by the City Engineer/Public Works Director and Caltrans. Developer shall also have prepared improvement plans for the Casey Road Improvements that are consistent with the City's and Caltrans requirements as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director, and finalize plans for the Casey Road Improvements so plans are submitted to Caltrans prior to issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit in the Project. Developer shall obtain a Caltrans encroachment permit for the construction of the Casey Road Improvements and complete construction of the Casey Road Improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residential unit in the Project. Upon receipt of a written request from Developer, City may construct all or part of the Casey Road Improvements and Developer shall reimburse City for all actual and reasonable costs thereof, including but not limited to construction, permits, contract administration, design, inspection, utility relocation and all other Caltrans requirements. 21. The replacement trees to be planted on the site (approximately 1,200 trees) shall have a value equal to, or greater than, the appraised value of $72,231.64 for the removed trees, as identified in the Oak Tree Report (Tree Life Concern Inc. (TLC), January 31, 2014). The replacement trees shall include no less than two 24"-box Quercus agrifolia. A five-year maintenance plan for the mitigation trees shall be required, consistent with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. Trees and their irrigation system shall be monitored at quarterly intervals for the first two years and biennially for the next three years. A Letter of Compliance shall be submitted by the Project Arborist to the Community Development Department at the end of each time period describing the condition of each tree and recording their chances for long- term survival. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining 315 Resolution No. 2019- Page 8 the mitigation trees for the five-year period and no longer. The proposed landscape plan must specify that mitigation trees are properly installed, staked/guyed and watered to help ensure their survival. An irrigation system designed for newly planted trees is mandatory for successful tree establishment. Drip-system irrigation is ideal for managing water distribution near newly planted trees." (TLC report #3) Protective fencing shall be installed around or along all trees listed to remain (see Tree Location Map for fence placement recommendations). Place protective fencing at the Protective Zone (PZ) or as shown on the Tree Location Map. Orange construction fencing is sufficient and its position must be approved by the Project Arborist, who must be present during the fence placement or repositioning. An Oak Tree Information Packet including the City's Tree Protection Municipal Code and the Oak Tree Report must be available during on-site construction. The applicant and contractor should be familiar with the contents of these documents. No oaks outside the property line are to be impacted by this construction project. The information tags numbering each oak on this site shall not be removed. No construction materials are to be stored or discarded within the PZ of any oak. Rinse water, concrete residue, liquid contaminates (paint, thinners, gasoline, oils, etc.) of any type shall not be deposited in any form at the base of an oak. 22. 10.82 acres of VCSS habitat shall be created and enhanced as in Figure 6 of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey (BioResource Consultants Inc., July 23, 2015, updated June 1, 2018). 23. To offset impacts to U.S. and State Wetland and Waters, onsite mitigation will be implemented in the southern portion of the proposed Project (Appendix E). The proposed mitigation/restoration will result in the creation of 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre-construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage to compensate for the impact to 1.022 acres of jurisdictional area. 24. The City has established traffic mitigation fee programs for purposes of funding traffic improvements as needed to maintain Level of Service C operating conditions on the local street system. The Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee and Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee Programs apply to this project. The City has identified and programmed construction of improvements to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of the addition of through lanes at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles 316 Resolution No. 2019- Page 9 Avenue/Spring Road that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Improvements have also been identified at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of adding additional phases to the existing traffic signal, that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance for first building permit, the applicant shall pay to the City Traffic Mitigation fee to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance for first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance for first building permit, the applicant shall submit a driveway plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director. - END - 317 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2013-01 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOORPARK AND GRAND PACIFIC ASSET 2 LLC FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-02, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2013-02, AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2013- 01, A 390-UNIT SENIOR COMMUNITY ON 49.52 ACRES NORTH OF CASEY ROAD AND WEST OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD WHEREAS, Section 65864, Article 2.5, Chapter 4, Division 1, Title 7 of the State Planning and Zoning Law provides that cities may enter into contractual obligations known as Development Agreements with persons having equitable interest in real property for development of that property; and WHEREAS, on September 3, 2013, applications for General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, Zone Change No. 2013-02, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01, and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 were filed by Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC, for property owned by Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC, for a proposed development for a 390-Unit Senior Community on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2018-634, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, Zone Change No. 2013-02, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01, and Development Agreement No. 2013-01, on the application of Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC.; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the City Council on January 16, 2019 to consider the Development Agreement and to accept public testimony related thereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all points of public testimony relevant to the Development Agreement and has given careful consideration to the content of the Development Agreement, and has reached a decision on the matter; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019- , adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02 and introduced Ordinance No. , approving Zone Change No. 2013-02, for the project referenced above. CC ATTACHMENT 9 318 Ordinance No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Moorpark does hereby find as follows: A. The Development Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit A) is consistent with the General Plan as most recently amended in that the project is consistent with the planned use and density of the General Plan Land Use Element and helps achieve the goals of the Housing Element and is consistent with the goals and policies of all other elements. There is no applicable Specific Plan for the area covered by the Development Agreement. B. The Development Agreement and the assurances that said agreement places upon the project are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code because the Development Agreement contains the elements required by Section 15.40.030, has been reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission following a noticed public hearing and otherwise contains the required contents and has been processed as required by law. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Development Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit A) between the City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation, and Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC and the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause one copy of the signed, adopted agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder no later than ten (10) days after the City enters into the development agreement pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65868.5. SECTION 3. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the Community Development Director shall cause the property that is the subject of the Development Agreement to be identified on the Zoning Map of the City by the designation "DA" followed by the dates of the term of said Agreement. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 319 Ordinance No. Page 3 SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a written record of the passage and adoption thereof in the minutes of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall publish notice of adoption in the manner required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2019. Janice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: Maureen Benson, City Clerk EXHIBIT A - Development Agreement 320 Ordinance No. Page 3 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2013-01 Recording Requested By And When Recorded Return to: CITY CLERK CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF MOORPARK AND GRAND PACIFIC ASSET 2 LLC 321 Ordinance No. Page 4 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement the ("Agreement") is made and entered into on , 2019 by and between the CITY OF MOORPARK, a municipal corporation (referred to hereinafter as "City") and Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC, the owner of real property within the City of Moorpark generally referred to as Residential Planned Development Permit 2013-01 (referred to hereinafter as "Developer"). City and Developer are referred to hereinafter individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the Parties: 1.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 15.40, City is authorized to enter into a binding contractual agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property within its boundaries for the development of such property in order to establish certainty in the development process. 1.2 Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC is the owner in fee simple of certain real property in the City of Moorpark identified in the legal description set forth in Exhibit "A", which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, referred to hereinafter collectively as the "Property". 1.3 Prior to, and in connection with, the approval of this Agreement, the City Council reviewed the project to be developed pursuant to this Agreement as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA.") On , 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019- , adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program the ("MMRP") prepared for this Agreement and the Project Approvals as defined in Subsection 1.4 of this Agreement. 1.4 General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2013-02, Zone Change (ZC) No. 2013-02, and Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2013-01 (approved on the application of Ernie Mansi for Aldergate Investment, LLC), including all subsequently approved modifications and permit adjustments to the RPD and all amendments thereto (collectively "the Project Approvals"; individually "a Project Approval") provide for the development of the Property with a 390-unit senior housing community and the construction of certain off-site improvements in connection therewith ("the Project"). 322 Ordinance No. Page 5 1.5 By this Agreement, City desires to obtain the binding agreement of Developer to develop the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. In consideration thereof, City agrees to limit the future exercise of certain of its governmental and proprietary powers to the extent specified in this Agreement. 1.6 By this Agreement, Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of City to permit the development of the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. In consideration thereof, Developer agrees to waive its rights to legally challenge the limitations and conditions imposed upon the development of the Property pursuant to the Project Approvals and this Agreement and to provide the public benefits and improvements specified in this Agreement. 1.7 City and Developer acknowledge and agree that the consideration that is to be exchanged pursuant to this Agreement is fair, just and reasonable and that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan of City, as currently amended. 1.8 On September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission commenced a duly noticed public hearing on this Agreement, and at the conclusion of the hearing on November 27, 2018, recommended approval of this Agreement. 1.9 On , 2019, the City Council of City ("City Council") commenced a duly noticed public hearing on this Agreement, and following the conclusion of the hearing closed the hearing and introduced and provided first reading to Ordinance No. ("the Enabling Ordinance") that approves this Agreement. On , 2019, the City Council gave second reading to and adopted the Enabling Ordinance. 2. Property Subiect To This Agreement. All of the Property shall be subject to this Agreement. The Property may also be referred to hereinafter as "the site". 3. Binding Effect. The burdens of this Agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of the Agreement inure to, each Party and each successive successor in interest thereto (subject to Subsection 3.2 below) and constitute covenants that run with the Property. Whenever the terms "City" and "Developer" are used herein, such terms shall include every successive successor in interest thereto. 3.1 Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Property shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to be bound by this Agreement, whether or not any reference to the Agreement is contained in 323 Ordinance No. Page 6 the instrument by which such person acquired such right, title or interest, subject to Subsection 3.2 below. 3.2 Release Upon Subsequent Transfer. Upon the conveyance of Developer's interest in the Property or any portion thereof by Developer or its successor(s) in interest, the transferor shall be released from its obligations hereunder with respect to the portion of Property conveyed as of the effective date of the conveyance, provided that the transferee expressly assumes all obligations of the transferred portion of the Property and a copy of the executed assignment and assumption agreement is delivered to the City prior to the conveyance. Failure to provide a written assumption agreement hereunder shall not negate, modify or otherwise affect the liability of the transferee pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to grant to City discretion to approve or deny any such conveyance, except as provided in Subsection 6.13 of this Agreement with respect to the sale of completed "affordable units" (as defined in that subsection) to qualified buyers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the transferee of a Completed Unit with respect to the transferee's interest in such Completed Unit, and the rights and obligations of Developer under this Agreement shall not run with the portion of the Property that is conveyed with the Completed Unit after such conveyance of the Completed Unit by Developer or its successor in interest. For purposes of this Agreement, "Completed Unit" means a completed residential unit within the Property for which the City has issued a certificate of occupancy. 4. Development of the Property. The following provisions shall govern the subdivision, development and use of the Property. 4.1 Permitted Uses. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses of the Property shall be limited to those that are allowed by the Project Approvals and this Agreement. 4.2 Development Standards. All design and development standards, including but not limited to density or intensity of use and maximum height and size of buildings, that shall be applicable to the Property are set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement. 4.3 Building Standards. All construction on the Property shall adhere to all City building codes in effect at the time the plan check or permit is approved per Title 15 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and to any federal or state building requirements that are then in effect (collectively "the Building Codes"). 324 Ordinance No. Page 7 4.4 Reservations and Dedications. All reservations and dedications of land for public purposes that are applicable to the Property are set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement. 5. Vesting of Development Rights. 5.1 Vested Right to Develop; Timing of Development. Developer and its successors in interest shall have the vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Project Approvals and this Agreement. The Parties intend that this Agreement, together with the Project Approvals, shall serve as the controlling document for all subsequent actions, discretionary and ministerial, relating to the development and occupancy of the Property, including, without limitation, all Subsequent Approvals (as defined below). Developer shall have the right, without obligation, to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. No future amendment of any existing City ordinance or resolution, or future adoption of any ordinance, resolution or other action, that purports to limit the rate or timing of development over time or alter the sequencing of development phases, whether adopted or imposed by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process, shall apply to the Property provided the Property is developed in accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit City's right to ensure that Developer timely provides all infrastructure required by the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and this Agreement. 5.2 Amendment of Proiect Approvals. No amendment of any of the Project Approvals, whether adopted or approved by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process, shall apply to any portion of the Property, unless the Developer has agreed in writing to the amendment. 5.3 Issuance of Subsequent Approvals. Applications for land use approvals, entitlements and permits, including without limitation subdivision maps (e.g. tentative, vesting tentative, parcel, vesting parcel, and final maps), subdivision improvement agreements and other agreements relating to the Project, lot line adjustments, preliminary and final planned development permits, use permits, design review approvals (e.g. site plans, architectural plans and landscaping plans), encroachment permits, and sewer and water connections that are necessary to or desirable for the development of the Project (collectively "the Subsequent Approvals"; individually "a Subsequent Approval") shall be consistent with the Project 325 Ordinance No. Page 8 Approvals and this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, Subsequent Approvals do not include building permits. Subsequent Approvals shall be governed by the Project Approvals and by the applicable provisions of the Moorpark General Plan, the Moorpark Municipal Code and other City ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, policies, standards and requirements as most recently adopted or approved by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process and in effect at the time that the application for the Subsequent Approval is deemed complete by City (collectively "City Laws"), except City Laws that: (a) change any permitted or conditionally permitted uses of the Property from what is allowed by the Project Approvals; (b) limit or reduce the density or intensity of the Project, or any part thereof, or otherwise require any reduction in the number of proposed buildings or other improvements from what is allowed by the Project Approvals; (c) limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval, development or construction of all or any part of the Project in any manner, provided that all infrastructure required by the Project Approvals to serve the portion of the Property covered by the Subsequent Approval is in place or is scheduled to be in place prior to completion of construction; (d) are not uniformly applied on a citywide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects or to all properties with similar land use designations; (e) control residential rents; (f) prohibit or regulate development on slopes with grades greater than 20 percent, including without limitation Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 17.38 or any successor thereto, within the Property; or (g) modify the land use from what is permitted by the City's General Plan Land Use Element at the Operative Date of this Agreement or that prohibits or restricts the establishment or expansion of urban services including but not limited to community sewer systems to the Project. 326 Ordinance No. Page 9 5.4 Modification of Approvals. Throughout the term of this Agreement, Developer shall have the right, at its election and without risk to or waiver of any right that is vested in it pursuant to this section, to apply to City for modifications to Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals. The approval or conditional approval of any such modification shall not require an amendment to this Agreement, provided that, in addition to any other findings that may be required in order to approve or conditionally approve the modification, a finding is made that the modification is consistent with this Agreement and does not alter the permitted uses, density, intensity, maximum height, size of buildings or reservations and dedications as contained in the Project Approvals. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Developer shall have the right, at its election and without risk to or waiver of any right that is vested in it pursuant to this Agreement, to apply to the City Manager for modifications to the product mix for the Project (i.e., to reasonably vary the number of Villas, Independent Living Apartments and Assisted Living and Memory Care Apartments, as well as the mix of studio, 1, and 2 bedroom unit mix), and the City Manager shall have the authority to approve such modifications administratively provided that they do not cause the maximum development density of the Project to exceed 390 units. 5.5 Issuance of Building Permits. No Building Permit shall be unreasonably withheld or delayed from Developer if Developer is in compliance with this Agreement and the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals. In addition, no Final Building Permit final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy will be unreasonably withheld or delayed from Developer if all infrastructure required by the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and this Agreement to serve the portion of the Property covered by the Final Building Permit is in place or is scheduled to be in place prior to completion of construction, the Developer is in compliance with all provisions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals, and all of the other relevant provisions of the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals and this Agreement have been satisfied. Consistent with Subsection 5.1 of this Agreement, in no event shall building permits be allocated on any annual numerical basis or on any arbitrary allocation basis. 5.6 Moratorium on Development. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent City, whether by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process, from adopting or imposing a moratorium on the processing and issuance of Subsequent Approvals and building permits and on the finalizing of building permits by means of a final inspection or certificate of occupancy, provided that the moratorium is adopted or imposed (i) on a Citywide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects 327 Ordinance No. Page 10 and properties with similar land use designations and (ii) as a result of a utility shortage or a reasonably foreseeable utility shortage including without limitation a shortage of water, sewer treatment capacity, electricity or natural gas. 6. Developer Agreements. 6.1 Development as a Residential Proiect. Developer shall comply with (i) this Agreement, (ii) the Project Approvals, (iii) all Subsequent Approvals for which it was the applicant or a successor in interest to the applicant and (iv) the MMRP of the MND and any subsequent or supplemental environmental actions. Developer agrees not to apply for any non- residential uses on the Property. The administrative and support offices, kitchen/dining facilities, personal care and service uses, sundries market, library, computer room, lounge, movie theater, bank, salon, recreational facilities and other structures and amenities to serve the residents of the Project are considered to be part of the residential use of the Property. 6.2 Condition of Dedicated or Conveyed Property. All lands and interests in land dedicated to City shall be free and clear of liens and encumbrances other than easements or restrictions that do not preclude or interfere with use of the land or interest for its intended purpose, as reasonably determined by City. 6.3 Development Fee Per Unit. As a condition of the issuance of a building permit for each residential dwelling unit within the Property, Developer shall pay City a one-time development fee as described herein (the "Development Fee"). The Development Fee may be expended by City in its sole and unfettered discretion. The amount of the Development Fee shall be as follows: Villas: $8,660.00/unit Independent Living Apartments: $5,802.00/unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Apartments: $2,858.00/unit The Development Fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2020, by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The annual CPI adjustment shall be determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month of October over the prior October. 328 Ordinance No. Page 11 In the event there is a decrease in the referenced Index for any annual indexing, the current amount of the fee shall remain until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. 6.4 Traffic Mitigation Fee. As a condition of the issuance of building permit for each residential dwelling unit within the boundaries of the Property, Developer shall pay City a one-time traffic mitigation fee as described herein ("Citywide Traffic Fee"). The Citywide Traffic Fee may be expended by City in its sole and unfettered discretion. The amount of the Citywide Traffic Fee shall be as follows: Villas: $8,791.00/unit Independent Living Apartments: $8,791.00/unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Apartments: $4,396.00/unit The Citywide Traffic Fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2020 and annually thereafter by the change in the Caltrans Highway Bid Price Index (Bid Price Index) for Selected California Construction Items for the twelve (12) month period available on December 31 of the preceding year ("annual indexing"). In the event there is a decrease in the Bid Price Index for any annual indexing, the current amount of the fee shall remain until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. 6.5 Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (LAAOC) Fees. Developer shall pay the LAAOC fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance for each residential dwelling unit within the Property. 6.6 Air Quality Fees. Developer agrees that the Mitigation Measures included in the City Council approved MND and MMRP, or subsequent environmental clearance document approved by the Council, set forth the mitigation requirements for air quality impacts. Developer agrees to pay to City a one-time air quality mitigation fee, as described herein ("Air Quality Fee"), in satisfaction of the Transportation Demand Management Fund mitigation requirement for the Project. The Air Quality Fee may be expended by City in its sole discretion for reduction of regional air pollution emissions and to mitigate residual Project air quality impacts. The Air Quality Fee shall be as follows: Villas: $1,268.00/unit Independent Living Apartments: $850.00/unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Apartments: $634.00/unit 329 Ordinance No. Page 12 The Air Quality Fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for each residential dwelling unit in the Project. If the Air Quality Fee is not paid by January 1, 2020, then commencing on January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, the Air Quality Fee shall be adjusted by any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) until all fees have been paid. The CPI increase shall be determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month of October over the prior month of October. In the event there is a decrease in the CPI for any annual indexing, the fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. 6.7 Park Fees. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for each residential dwelling unit within the Property, Developer shall pay a one-time fee in lieu of the dedication of parkland and related improvements ("Park Fee"). The amount of the Park Fee shall be as follows: Villas: $8,660.00/unit Independent Living Apartments: $5,802.00/unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Apartments: $2,858.00/unit If the Park Fee is not paid by January 1, 2020, the Park Fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2020 by the larger increase of a) or b) as follows: (a) The change in the CPI. The change shall be determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month of October over the prior October; or (b) The calculation shall be made to reflect the change in the Caltrans Highway Bid Price Index (Bid Price Index) for Selected California Construction Items for the twelve (12) month period available on December 31 of the preceding year (annual indexing). In the event there is a decrease in both of the referenced Indices for any annual indexing, the Park Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. 330 Ordinance No. Page 13 Developer agrees that the above-described payments shall be deemed to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement set forth in California Government Code Section 66477 et seq. for the Property. 6.8 Community Services Fee. As a condition of issuance of a building permit for each residential dwelling unit within the boundaries of the Project, Developer shall pay City a one-time community services fee as described herein (Community Services Fee). The Community Services Fees may be expended by City in its sole and unfettered discretion. The amount of the Community Services Fees shall be $2,700.00 per residential dwelling unit. Commencing on January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, the Community Services Fee shall be adjusted by any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) until all Community Service Fee have been paid. The CPI increase shall be determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for All Urban Consumers within the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim metropolitan area during this prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month of October over the prior month of October or in the event there is a decrease in the CPI for any annual indexing, the Community Service Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. 6.9 Art in Public Places Fee. Developer agrees to pay the Art in Public Places Fee (Art Fee) in effect at the time of building permit issuance for each building prior to the issuance of the building permit for that residential building within the Project consistent with City Resolution No. 2005-2408 or any Successor Resolution (1.0 percent of total building valuations excluding land value and off-site improvement costs, for such building). 6.10 Other Development and Processing Fees. In addition to fees specifically mentioned in this Agreement, Developer agrees to pay all City capital improvement, development, and processing fees at the rate and amount in effect at the time the fee is required to be paid. Said fees include but are not limited to Library Facilities Fees, Police Facilities Fees, Fire Facilities Fees, drainage, entitlement processing fees, and plan check and permit fees for buildings and public improvements. Developer further agrees that unless specifically exempted by this Agreement, it is subject to all fees imposed by City at the Operative Date of this Agreement and such future fees imposed as determined by City in its sole discretion so long as such fees are imposed on a citywide basis on all projects similar to the Project or on all property similar to the Property. 331 Ordinance No. Page 14 6.11 Processing Fees. On the Operative Date, Developer shall pay all outstanding City processing costs related to preparation of this Agreement, the Project Approvals and the MND. 6.12 Community Facilities District (a) It is the mutual intent of the Parties that the development of the Project will not have any impact on or require any contribution from the General Fund of the City. To facilitate such intent, the City and Developer shall use reasonable efforts to [form / annex to] [revise as applicable] a Community Facilities District(s) ("CFD"), pursuant to Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the California Government Code (the "CFD Act"), for the purposes of financing facilities and services required to be constructed, provided or funded under this Agreement, as the City determines are lawfully and appropriately financed by the CFD. Such facilities and services may include but are not limited to [public facility fees, construction and installation of landscaping, and future costs for the maintenance of landscaping and irrigation of the landscaped area] [revise as applicable]. (b) Developer shall: (i) file with the City a petition for the [formation of / annexation to] the CFD, (ii) provide any deposit required by Section 53318 of the CFD Act, (iii) not oppose [formation of/ annexation to] the CFD and (iv) vote in favor of the special tax to fund the CFD. (c) Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City will not accept any improvements or facilities to be maintained by the CFD nor shall the Developer receive any payments from the CFD for any improvements or facilities until such facilities and improvements have been inspected and the City determines in its reasonable discretion, that such improvements and facilities have been completed in accordance with the applicable plans, and have no liens outstanding. 6.13 Densities Allowed for Development and Affordable Housing. (a) Developer agrees that densities vested and incentives and concessions received in the Project Approvals include all densities available as density bonuses and all incentives and concessions to which Developer is entitled under the Moorpark Municipal Code, and Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917.5; Developer shall not be entitled to further density bonuses or incentives or concessions and further agrees, in consideration for the density bonus obtained through the Project Approvals, to provide twenty-six (26) housing units, on one or more sites, within the City of Moorpark but not on the Project Site, with a minimum of 1,200 332 Ordinance No. Page 15 square feet each, affordable to low income households (not to exceed 80% of median income adjusted for family size). These twenty-six (26) housing units are referred to herein as "affordable units" or "units affordable to low income households" or "required affordable units." (b) Developer must construct all twenty-six (26) units in accordance with this Agreement and the City's General Plan, Zoning Codes, and the Moorpark Municipal Code. Nothing in this Agreement requires City to consider a General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, or any other land use entitlement to allow or permit said proposed construction. (c) In order to provide some or all of the required affordable units, Developer may purchase and rehabilitate units within the City of Moorpark. All single family detached units shall include a standard size two-car garage with roll-up garage door and a minimum driveway length of eighteen (18) feet measured from the back of sidewalk, meet minimum setback requirements of the City RPD zone, include concrete roof tiles, and other amenities typically found in moderately priced housing in the City (e.g., air conditioning/central heating, washer/dryer hookups, garbage disposal, built-in dishwasher, concrete driveway, automatic garage door opener). The duplex type units in Tracts 3841, 3070-2, 3070- 3, 3070-4, 4170, and 5133 are considered to be single family detached units for the purposes of this subsection 6.13. Subject to City's sole discretion, this obligation, in whole or part, may be met by providing attached for sale-units in lieu of single family detached units at the ratio of one and one-half (11/2) attached for-sale unit for each single family detached unit. In the event such substitution results in any fraction of a unit, then the requirement shall be rounded up to the next higher whole number (e.g. the requirement of 3 single family detached units are met by 41/2 attached for-sale units, then 5 attached for-sale units are required). Each of the substituted units shall be at the income level of the units for which they are being substituted. The attached for sale-units shall provide the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms and contain all of the same amenities for a single family detached unit as described above, except the minimum driveway length. 333 Ordinance No. Page 16 Prior to acquiring any housing unit to meet the obligations of this subsection 6.13, Developer must first receive the written approval of City Manager or his/her authorized representative that the unit meets the requirements of this Development Agreement and any applicable Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project Approvals including RPD No. 2013-0. Developer agrees that lack of a written response from City is deemed a rejection of the Developer's request. (d) Developer agrees that it shall provide twenty-six (26) affordable housing units as specified above regardless of the cost to acquire or construct said housing units. Developer further agrees that City has no obligation to use eminent domain proceedings to acquire any of the required affordable housing units, that this Subsection 6.13 is specifically exempt from the requirements of Subsection 7.2, and that the cost of purchasing property, obtaining all necessary entitlements and permits, and completing design, engineering, and construction of the affordable units shall be entirely the obligations of the Developer. The City has no obligation to approve any entitlement or permit applications for the affordable units which do not meet applicable zoning requirements, or the engineering, and building standards of the City or are not of comparable quality to the market rate housing units. (e) Developer also explicitly acknowledges that its agreement to construct or provide these affordable units is given both as specific consideration for the density bonus and in general as consideration for City's willingness to negotiate and enter into this Agreement and for the valuable consideration given by City through this Agreement. Developer further acknowledges that its agreement to construct or provide these affordable units is not the result of an existing policy or regulation imposed by City but instead is the result of arm's length negotiation between Parties. (f) Prior to issuance of the first building permit for this Project, the parties agree to execute an Affordable Housing Agreement ("Affordable Housing Agreement") that sets forth the Developer's and City's obligations and provides procedures and requirements to ensure that all of the required affordable housing units are provided consistent with this Agreement and applicable State laws and remains affordable for the longest feasible time. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall include but not be limited to the following items: initial purchase price, market value, buyer eligibility, affordability and resale covenants and restrictions, equity share and 334 Ordinance No. Page 17 second trust deed provision, respective role of City and Developer, the responsibility of providing the affordable units by each developer in the event of successors and/or assigns to this Agreement, quality of and responsibility for selection of amenities and applicability of home warranties to meet all or a portion of its obligation and any other items determined necessary by the City. Developer shall pay the City's out-of-pocket costs (including attorneys' fees, but excluding staff time) for preparation and review of the Affordable Housing Agreement up to a maximum of ten- thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). (g) All affordable units shall meet the criteria of all California Health and Safety Code statutes and implementing regulations pertaining to for-sale affordable housing units affordable to low income households and to satisfy a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation. The affordable units required by this Agreement are consideration for City's entry into this Agreement; therefore, none of the affordable units shall duplicate or substitute for the affordable housing requirement of any other developer or development project. All subsequent approvals required of City under this Subsection 6.13 shall be made at City's sole discretion. If any conflict exists between this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Agreement required by clause (f) above or between the Affordable Housing Agreement and the conditions of approval for RPD No. 2013-01, then the Affordable Housing Agreement shall prevail. (h) In the event monthly HOA fees for any of the affordable units exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00), Developer shall deposit one hundred twenty dollars ($120.00) for each dollar or portion thereof of the monthly HOA fees that are in excess of two hundred dollars ($200.00) into a City administered trust account to assist with future HOA fees for each affected unit. (i) The Affordable Sales Price for low-income buyers shall not exceed affordable housing cost, as described in the first sentence of Section 50052.5(b)(3) of California Health and Safety Code. Section 50052.5(h) of the California Health and Safety Code provides that an appropriate household size in terms of determining purchase price, is one more person than the number of bedrooms. This means that the pricing for a three (3) bedroom unit will be based on a household of four (4) regardless of the actual size of the household purchasing the unit. For example, the monthly "affordable housing cost" for a three (3) bedroom unit would be 335 Ordinance No. Page 18 30% times 70% of the current median income for a household of four (4) in Ventura County, divided by twelve (12). This monthly amount includes the components identified in Section 6920 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulation shown below (See Section 50052.5(c) of the Health and Safety Code). The Affordable Sales Price for a low income household purchasing a three (3) bedroom unit under current market conditions, based upon the following assumptions: Low Income Buyer Item Detail Amount 3 Bedroom Affordable Sale $208,000.00 Down Paymenl 5% of Affordable Sales Price $10,400.00 Loan Amount Affordable�a\nl/en Price less $197,600.00 Interest Rate 4.65% Monthly 1.25% of Initial 217.00 Property Tax Purchase Price LMD Not Currently N/A HOA 200.00 Fire Insurance 60.00 Maintenance 30.00 Utilities 180.00 (j) The assumptions associated with the above figures for low income households include a 5% down payment, based on Affordable Sales Price for a three (3) bedroom unit, mortgage interest rate of 4.65%, no mortgage insurance, property tax rate of 1.25%, based on Affordable Sales Price, homeowners' association dues of $200.00 per month, fire insurance of $60.00 per month, maintenance costs of $30.00 per month, and utilities of $180.00 per month for a three (3) bedroom unit. (k) Developer acknowledges that changes in market conditions may result in changes to the Affordable Sales Price, down payment amounts, mortgage interest rates, and other factors for both low income and very low income buyers. Furthermore, if "affordable housing cost", as defined in the first sentence of Section 50052.5(3) of the California Health and Safety Code, should change in the 336 Ordinance No. Page 19 future, the above figures will be modified. The Affordable Housing Purchase and Sale Agreement negotiated pursuant to this Agreement shall address any such changes. Consequently, Developer acknowledges that amounts listed in the "Low Income Buyer" table in Subsection 6.13(g), above, are for illustration purposes only and are subject to change. (I) The City, may, in its sole discretion purchase one or more of the units from Developer in lieu of a qualified buyer buying such units. In that event, (and in the case of any units purchased by City under clause (u) below), the Affordable Sales Price shall be based on a household size appropriate to the number of bedrooms in the unit being purchased by the City, consistent with all requirements of this Subsection 6.13. Developer agrees that, pursuant to City's rights under this Agreement and/or the Affordable Housing Agreement, and prior to and upon the sale of a required unit to a qualified buyer (or City in lieu of a qualified buyer, as determined by City at its sole discretion), City may at its sole discretion take any actions and impose any conditions on said sale or subsequent sale of the unit to ensure ongoing affordability to low income households and related matters. After the sale of a housing unit by Developer to a qualified buyer (or City in lieu of a qualified buyer, as determined by City at its sole discretion), City, not Developer, shall have sole responsibility for approving any subsequent sale of that housing unit. (m) Developer agrees that City shall be responsible at its sole discretion for marketing the affordable units, selecting and qualifying eligible buyers for these units, and overseeing the escrow processes to sell the affordable units to low income households, providing (for approval by City) the forms of Deed of Trust, Promissory Note, Resale Refinance Restriction Agreement and Option to Purchase Property and Notice of Affordability Restriction on Transfer of Property and all necessary contracts and related documents to ensure that the referenced affordable units remain occupied by low income households for the longest feasible time (the "Affordability Documents"). Developer further agrees that the difference between the Affordable Sales Price (as referenced in this Agreement) paid by a qualified buyer and market value shall be in a promissory note by the buyer to the City secured by a second deed of trust in favor of City. 337 Ordinance No. Page 20 (n) Developer shall pay closing costs for each affordable unit, not to exceed eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00). Beginning January 1, 2020 and on January 1st for each year thereafter, the maximum eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) to be paid for closing costs shall be increased annually by any percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month of October over the month of October. In the event there is a decrease in the CPI for any annual indexing, the closing costs for each affordable unit shall remain at its then-current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. The referenced Developer-funded closing costs shall be for the benefit of qualified buyers (or City in lieu of qualified buyers, for any required units purchased by the City) in their acquisition of a unit from Developer (not Developer's acquisition of a unit from one or more third parties). However, the Developer's escrow cost shall not exceed the then-applicable maximum amount per unit regardless of the number of escrows that may be opened on a specific unit. (o) Developer warrants that the quality of materials and construction techniques of the affordable units sold to the qualified low income buyers, or City shall in all manner be substantially identical to that of all other units constructed in this Project and subject to all Conditions of Approval and shall meet all Building Codes. (p) Developer agrees that the City shall have approval authority over basic finish options in the affordable units and final walk-through approval of condition of unit before close of sale. Basic finish options provided to buyers of affordable units shall be provided to City for review and approval, including but not limited to color and style choices for carpeting and other floor coverings, counter tops, roofing materials, exterior stucco and trim of any type, fixtures, and other decorative items. The City staff person responsible for affordable housing will select basic finish options for the affordable units. This applies to both new affordable housing units, or existing housing stock, purchased and rehabilitated pursuant to this Agreement. (q) Developer agrees that all warranties for the affordable units shall be consistent with California Civil Code Sections 895-945 for new residential construction and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the ultimate occupants of the affordable units and that all warranties by subcontractors and suppliers shall also inure 338 Ordinance No. Page 21 to the benefit of and be enforceable by such occupants. The home warranties for the new affordable units shall be the same duration as warranties for new housing units and not less than the durations required under California Civil Code Sections 895-945. Developer shall be required to provide an extended 10 year warranty from a reputable 3rd party for foundation, structural, plumbing and electrical building systems and a one year fit and finish warranty. (r) Developer agrees to provide comparable quality standard features for the affordable units (purchased by the low income buyer, or City) as those amenities that are provided for the market rate Villa units. The standard features shall include but not be limited to concrete roof tiles; air conditioning/central heating; garage door opener; washer/dryer hook-ups; garbage disposal; built-in dishwasher, stove, oven and microwave; windows; wood cabinets; shelving; counter-tops; floor coverings; electrical outlets, lighting fixtures and other electrical items; plumbing fixtures including sinks, bathtubs and showers; and door and cabinet hardware, and shall all be of the same quality and quantity as provided in the Project's market rate Villa units as determined by the City's Community Development Director and City staff person responsible for City's Affordable Housing Programs. (s) For newly constructed affordable units, the floor plan and size of the units shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City staff person responsible for City's Affordable Housing Programs, and include a downstairs bathroom if the affordable units are two stories. (t) [The parties agree that prior to and upon the sale of an affordable unit to a qualified buyer or City, City may at its sole discretion take any actions and impose any conditions on buyer eligibility and on said sale or subsequent sale of the unit to ensure ongoing affordability to low income households and related matters. Developer agrees if it sells any of the affordable units directly to qualified low income buyers, all requirements of the buyer noted in clause M above, including, but not limited to, completion of a City approved homebuyer education training workshop and the Affordability Documents, shall be included as a requirement of the sale. The language of all such documents shall be approved by City at its sole discretion. Developer may select lenders, escrow and title companies to assist with the sale of the affordable units, however, selection of said professionals is subject to City approval at its sole discretion. Lenders submitted for consideration shall be 339 Ordinance No. Page 22 required to provide confirmation in writing that they are able to underwrite the loans for the affordable units, with no mortgage insurance, subject to the City's Affordability Documents described In Section M Developer's selected lender shall not be exclusive to the program. Future buyers of the affordable units shall be able to choose any qualified lenders. City shall provide a qualified real estate professional to work with the affordable home buyers at City's cost. Developer may select whatever real estate professional they deem appropriate to represent the Developer's side of the transaction. (u) In the event City is unable to provide a qualified buyer when one of the low-income units has received final inspection approval, Developer shall be allowed to continue to obtain building permits and/or final inspection approval for the non-affordable units. Any low-income units remaining unsold six (6) months after the final inspection approval of the last unit associated with RPD No. 2013- 01 will be purchased by the City, and that obligation will be included in the Affordable Housing Agreement. Developer is required to maintain low-income units in move-in condition until such time as the City finds a buyer. For purposes of this schedule, final inspection approval requires approval of the City's Building Official and Community Development Director. (v) Developer also agrees that subsidiaries, divisions or affiliates of Developer may not be used to provide lending or escrow services relevant to the purchase transactions for the affordable units. (w) If a qualified low income buyer is identified by City prior to or at the time of final inspection approval of any of the affordable units, Developer shall open escrow for the sale of said unit as provided for in the Affordable Housing Agreement, and shall enter escrow directly with the buyer identified by City, and proceed to closing of said escrow. If a qualified low income buyer has not been identified at the time Developer receives final inspection approval for an affordable unit, City, at its option, may agree to purchase the affordable unit required to be provided by Developer for the amount and at the time as provided for in this agreement. If City elects to purchase, Developer and City agree to use their best efforts to complete the close of escrow within forty-five (45) days of the final inspection approval of an affordable unit. 340 Ordinance No. Page 23 (x) Developer shall satisfy all mechanic's, laborer's, material man's, supplier's, or vendor's liens and any construction loan or other financing affecting any affordable unit, before the close of escrow for that affordable unit. (y) Developer agrees that the required construction of the low income affordable units must receive City final inspection approval on terms consistent with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Agreement as specified in the following schedule: Prior to Occupancy of Number of Affordable Units 75th Market Rate Unit 6 Units 150th Market Rate Unit 6 Units 225th Market Rate Unit 6 Units 300th Market Rate Unit 8 Units TOTAL 26 Units (z) In addition to the twenty-six (26) affordable units required in Subsection 6.13 (a) above, Developer also agrees to pay to City a one-time In-Lieu Fee (In-Lieu Fee) of $5,200,000.00 equivalent to the [estimated subsidy of $200,000 per unit for 26 additional affordable units (16 Low-Income and 10 Very Low Income). The one-time In-Lieu Fee shall be paid as follows: Prior to Building Permit for In-Lieu Fee Amount 100th Market Rate Unit $1,300.000.00 175th Market Rate Unit $1,300.000.00 250th Market Rate Unit $1,300.000.00 325th Market Rate Unit $1,300.000.00 TOTAL $5,200.000.00 6.14 Casey Road Improvement. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit in the Project, Developer shall at its sole cost irrevocably offer to the City all rights of way, permanent easements and construction easements on the north side of Casey Road necessary for construction of the Project's improvements to Casey Road for an ultimate 76-foot wide public right-of-way from Walnut Canyon Road to the westerly project boundary (the "Casey Road Improvements"), including a Caltrans- compliant curve radius at the northwest intersection of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road, 8-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Casey Road, an 8-foot wide bike lane on the north side of Casey Road, two 12' foot wide travel lanes, 14' wide parking/bike lane on the south side of Casey Road, and a 14-foot wide left turn median, with the design subject to review and approval by the City Engineer/Public Works Director and 341 Ordinance No. Page 24 Caltrans. Developer shall also have prepared improvement plans for the Casey Road Improvements that are consistent with the City's and Caltrans requirements as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director, and finalize plans for the Casey Road Improvements so plans are submitted to Caltrans prior to issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit in the Project. Developer shall obtain a Caltrans encroachment permit for the construction of the Casey Road Improvements and complete construction of the Casey Road Improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residential unit in the Project. Upon receipt of a written request from Developer, City may construct all or part of the Casey Road Improvements and Developer shall reimburse City for all actual and reasonable costs thereof, including but not limited to construction, permits, contract administration, design, inspection, utility relocation and all other Caltrans requirements. 6.15 Annual Review Procedures. Developer agrees to comply with Section 15.40.150 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto for annual review of this Agreement and further agrees that the annual review shall include evaluation of its compliance with the approved MND and MMRP. 6.16 Eminent Domain. Developer agrees that any election to acquire property by eminent domain shall be at City's sole discretion, and only after compliance with all legally required procedures including but not limited to a hearing on a proposed resolution of necessity. 6.17 Street Improvement Standards. The street improvements for all streets scheduled for dedication to the City shall be designed and constructed by Developer to provide for a 50-year life as determined by the City Engineer. 6.18 Implementation Plan. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, Developer shall submit and gain approval from City Council a plan to guarantee the Developer agreements contained in this Agreement and in the conditions of approval for the RPD. The plan shall address the entities responsible and method and timing of guarantee for each component of Developer's obligations and is subject to City approval at its sole discretion. 6.19 Fee Protest Waiver. Developer agrees that any fees and payments specifically provided for in this Agreement for the Project shall be made without reservation, and Developer expressly waives the right to payment of any such fees under protest pursuant to California Government Code 342 Ordinance No. Page 25 Section 66020 and statutes amendatory or supplementary thereto. Developer further agrees that the fees it has agreed to pay pursuant to Subsections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.8 of this Agreement are not public improvement fees collected pursuant to Government Code Section 66006 and statutes amendatory or supplementary thereto. 6.20 CPI Indexes. In the event the "CPI" referred to in Subsections 6.3, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8 or the Bid Price Index referred to in Subsections 6.4 and 6.7 are discontinued or revised, a successor index with which the "CPI" and or Bid Price Index are replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would otherwise have been obtained if either or both the "CPI" and Bid Price Index had not been discontinued or revised. 6.21 North Hills Parkway Improvements. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for filing of a Final Map, Developer agrees to provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for a two-hundred-foot (200') wide future right-of-way along the entire northerly boundary of the Property for North Hills Parkway, along with necessary slope easements for construction. Developer agrees to construct the full width grading of North Hills Parkway from the top of slope at the eastern end of the Developer's Property to the eastern boundary of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property. Additionally, Developer agrees to construct the southern one-half (1/2) of North Hills Parkway, including a driveway for a northern project entrance, two (2) lanes of travel, emergency parking/bicycle lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, full median and parkway landscaping and street lighting along the entire frontage of the project and west to the eastern boundary of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property (the "North Hills Parkway Improvements"). Developer shall cause the North Hills Parkway Improvements to be completed prior to occupancy of the 225th residential unit in the Project. Developer agrees that all horizontal and vertical alignments of the North Hills Parkway shall be determined by the City in its reasonable discretion. The cost to acquire any fee title property or easements necessary to complete the required construction and maintenance of the North Hills Parkway Improvements that are outside the Property boundaries shall be borne by the Developer. Per Section 7.7 of this Agreement, City agrees that credit will be given by the City toward the payment of the Citywide Traffic Fee in Section 6.4 of this Agreement for the fair market value of off-site property acquired by the City or Developer as determined by City to be necessary to complete these improvements. 6.22 City Ability to Modify. Developer acknowledges the City's ability to modify the development standards and to change the General Plan designation and zoning of the Property upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement (if the Project has not been built), and Developer hereby 343 Ordinance No. Page 26 waives any rights they might otherwise have to seek judicial review of such City actions after the termination or expiration of this Agreement (if the Project has not been built) to change the development standards, General Plan designation and zoning to those development standards and density of permitted development to those that were in existence prior to the approval of GPA 2015-02 and ZC 2015-03. 6.23 Proposed Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Developer agrees that if a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District ("CFD") is formed consistent with Section 7.8 of this Agreement, Developer shall submit the required deposit and reimbursement agreement to fund all City costs associated with the proposed CFD formation. Developer also agrees that the City Council upon the conclusion of the public hearing required by applicable law and in its sole and unfettered discretion may abandon establishment of the CFD. In addition, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the first building permit or the approval of any final map for the Project, the City Council shall determine if a CFD will be required for this project to fund ongoing maintenance and service costs instead of an LMD per Section 6.12 of this agreement. Developer agrees that any CFD bond proceeds in the Project Improvement Fund in excess of the amount required to fund authorized costs, including any City and CFD consultant costs associated with the redemption of bonds shall be applied to redeem a portion of the bonds, consistent with applicable provisions of State and Federal laws and regulations. Developer also agrees that if a CFD is authorized, the CFD may include on-going annual special taxes for services provided to the Project. Developer agrees that it shall prepay all special taxes levied, or which may be levied in the future (except special taxes for on-going services), on any of the affordable units as part of the CFD or any successor or any additional CFD prior to the sale of any of the affordable units to the City or qualified buyer. The intent of this section is that the owners of the affordable units shall at no time have any obligations to make any special tax payments to or for the benefit of the CFD or its bondholders except special taxes for services. Developer further acknowledges and agrees that the City Council shall determine the total amount of CFD bonds to be sold and the amount Developer may receive as reimbursement from the CFD bonds proceeds. 344 Ordinance No. Page 27 7. City Agreements. 7.1 Commitment of Resources. At Developer's expense, City shall commit reasonable time and resources of City staff to work with Developer on the processing of applications for Project Approvals and all Subsequent Approvals and Building Permits for the Project area and if requested in writing by Developer shall use overtime and independent contractors whenever possible. 7.2 Easement and Fee Title Acquisitions. If requested in writing by Developer and limited to City's legal authority, City at its sole and absolute discretion shall proceed to acquire, at Developer's sole cost and expense, easements or fee title to land in which Developer does not have title or interest in order to allow construction of public improvements required of Developer including any land which is outside City's legal boundaries. The process shall generally follow Government Code Section 66462.5 et seq. and shall include the obligation of Developer to enter into an agreement with City, guaranteed by cash deposits and other security as the City may require, to pay all City costs including but not limited to, acquisition of the interest, attorney fees, appraisal fees, engineering fees, City staff costs, and City overhead expenses of 15% on all out-of-pocket costs. 7.3 Concurrent Entitlement Processing. City agrees that whenever possible as determined by City in its sole discretion to process concurrently all land use entitlements for the Project so long as the application for such entitlements are "deemed complete" in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 4.5 Review and approval of Development Projects (Permit Streamlining Act) of the California Government Code. 7.4 Park Fees. City agrees that the Park Fee required under Subsection 6.7 of this Agreement meets all of Developer's obligations under applicable law for park land dedication. 7.5 Reimbursements from other Developments. City shall facilitate the reimbursement to Developer of any costs incurred by Developer that may be subject to partial reimbursement from other developers as a condition of approval of a tract map, development permit or development agreement with one or more other developers and at City's discretion may include provisions requiring such reimbursement to Developer for the same in such other development project conditions of approval. 7.6 Early Grading Agreement. The City Manager is authorized sign an early grading agreement on behalf of the City to allow rough grading of the 345 Ordinance No. Page 28 Project prior to City Council approval of a final subdivision map. Said early grading agreement shall be consistent with the conditions of the Project's approved tentative map and contingent on City Engineer and Director of Community Development acceptance of a performance bond in a form and amount satisfactory to them to guarantee implementation of the erosion control plan and completion of the rough grading; construction of on-site and off-site improvements consistent with the City Council approved Project and Tentative Map. In the case of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the early grading agreement, the City Council may by resolution declare the surety forfeited. 7.7 Credit toward Payment of Citywide Traffic Fees. City agrees that credit will be given by the City toward the payment of the Citywide Traffic Fee in Section 6.4 of this Agreement for the fair market value of off-site property acquired by the developer as determined by City to be necessary to complete the improvements identified in Section 6.21 of this Agreement. 7.9 Hillside Management Ordinance. City agrees that per Section 17.38.030(M) of the Moorpark Municipal Code, this project is exempt from the provisions of the Hillside Management Ordinance. 8. Supersession of Agreement by Change of Law. In the event that any state or federal law or regulation enacted after the date the Enabling Ordinance was adopted by the City Council prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of the Agreement, such provision shall be deemed modified or suspended to comply with such state or federal law or regulation, as reasonably determined necessary by City. 9. Demonstration of Good Faith Compliance. In order to ascertain compliance by Developer with the provisions of this Agreement, the Agreement shall be reviewed annually in accordance with Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 15.40. of City or any successor thereof then in effect. The failure of City to conduct any such annual review shall not, in any manner, constitute a breach of this Agreement by City, diminish, impede, or abrogate the obligations of Developer hereunder or render this Agreement invalid or void. At the same time as the referenced annual review, City shall also review Developer's compliance with the MMRP. 10. Authorized Delays. Performance by any Party of its obligations hereunder, other than payment of fees, shall be excused during any period of "Excusable Delay", as hereinafter defined, provided that the Party claiming the delay gives written notice of the delay to the other Parties as soon as possible after the same has been ascertained. For purposes hereof, Excusable Delay shall mean delay that directly affects, and is beyond the reasonable control of, the Party claiming the 346 Ordinance No. Page 29 delay, including without limitation: (a) act of God; (b) civil commotion; (c) riot; (d) strike, picketing or other labor dispute; (e) shortage of materials or supplies; (f) damage to work in progress by reason of fire, flood, earthquake or other casualty; (g) failure, delay or inability of City or other local government entity to provide adequate levels of public services, facilities or infrastructure to the Property including, by way of example only, the lack of water to serve any portion of the Property due to drought; (h) delay caused by a delay by other third party entities which are required to approve plans or documents for Developer to construct the Project, or restrictions imposed or mandated by such other third party entities or governmental entities other than City, (including but not limited to, Ventura County Watershed Protection District); or (i) litigation brought by a third party attacking the validity of this Agreement, a Project Approval, a Subsequent Approval or any other action necessary for development of the Project. 11. Default Provisions. 11.1 Default by Developer. The Developer shall be deemed to have breached this Agreement if it: (a) practices, or attempts to practice, any fraud or deceit upon City; or willfully violates any order, ruling or decision of any regulatory or judicial body having jurisdiction over the Property or the Project, provided that Developer may contest any such order, ruling or decision by appropriate proceedings conducted in good faith, in which event no breach of this Agreement shall be deemed to have occurred unless and until there is a final adjudication adverse to Developer; or (b) fails to make any payments required under this Agreement within five (5) business days after City gives written notice to Developer that the same is due and payable; or (c) breaches any of the other provisions of this Agreement and fails to cure the same within thirty (30) days after City gives written notice to Developer of such breach (or, if the breach is not able to be cured within such thirty (30) day period, Developer fails to start to cure the same within thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice by City of such breach or fails to thereafter diligently prosecute the cure to completion). 11.2 Default by City. City shall be in breach of this Agreement if it breaches any of the provisions of this Agreement and fails to cure the breach within thirty (30) days after Developer gives written notice to City of the breach (or, if the breach is not able to be cured within such thirty (30) day period, 347 Ordinance No. Page 30 City fails to start to cure the same within thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice from Developer of such breach or fails to thereafter diligently prosecute the cure to completion). 11.3 Content of Notice of Violation. Every notice of breach shall state with specificity that it is given pursuant to this section of this Agreement, the nature of the alleged breach, and the manner in which the breach may be satisfactorily cured. Every notice shall state the applicable period to cure. The notices shall be given in accordance with Section 20 hereof. 11.4 Remedies for Breach. The Parties acknowledge that remedies at law, including without limitation money damages, would be inadequate for breach of this Agreement by any Party due to the size, nature and scope of the Project. The Parties also acknowledge that it would not be feasible of possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of the Agreement has begun. Therefore, the Parties agree that the remedies for breach of this Agreement shall be limited to the remedies expressly set forth in this subsection. The remedies for breach of the Agreement by the City shall be injunctive relief and/or specific performance. Developer shall not be entitled to monetary damages or consequential damages for the City's breach. In addition, in the event this Agreement is terminated by City pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code, and such termination is found invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, Developer shall not be entitled to monetary damages for the termination or consequential damages incurred that are the result of the termination. In addition, and notwithstanding any other language of this Agreement, if the breach is of Subsection 6.13, 6.14 or 6.21 of this Agreement, City shall have the right to withhold the issuance of building permits from the date that the notice of violation was given pursuant to Subsection 11.3 hereof until the date that the breach is cured as provided in the notice of violation. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to preclude City from prosecuting a criminal action against Developer if it violates any City ordinance or State statute. 12. Mortgage Protection. 12.1 Discretion to Encumber. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any 348 Ordinance No. Page 31 improvements thereon then owned by such person with any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device ("Mortgage") securing financing with respect to the Property or such portion. Any mortgagee or trust deed beneficiary of the Property or any portion thereof or any improvements thereon and its successors and assigns ("Mortgagee") shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges. 12.2 Lender Requested Modification/Interpretation. City acknowledges that the lenders providing financing to Developer for the Property may request certain interpretations and modifications of this Agreement. City therefore agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Developer and representatives of such lenders to discuss in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement, provided, further, that any modifications of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement pertaining to modifications and amendments. 12.3 Mortgage Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but this Agreement shall be binding and effective against the Mortgagee and every owner of the Property, or part thereof, whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure, trustee sale or otherwise; provided, however, Mortgagee and such owner shall not be responsible for any matters that occurred prior to their acquisition of the Property or such portion. 12.4 Written Notice of Default. If a non-monetary default is not cured by Developer within thirty (30) days after written notice by City to Developer or a monetary default is not cured with in five (5) days after written notice by City to Developer, then each Mortgagee shall be entitled to received written notice from City of the applicable default by Developer under this Agreement provided the Mortgagee has delivered a written request to the City for such notice and shall have provided its address for notices in writing to the City. Each such Mortgagee shall have a further right, but not the obligation, to cure such default for an additional period of thirty (30) days after delivery of such notice of default by City to the Mortgagee. City shall not commence legal action against Developer by reason of Developer's breach without allowing the Mortgagee to cure the same as specified herein. 349 Ordinance No. Page 32 13. Estoppel Certificate. At any time and from time to time, Developer may deliver written notice to City and City may deliver written notice to Developer requesting that such Party certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended, or if amended, the identity of each amendment, and (iii) the requesting Party is not in breach of this Agreement, or if in breach, a description of each such breach. The Party receiving such a request shall execute and return the certificate within ten (10) days following receipt of the notice. City acknowledges that a certificate may be relied upon by successors in interest to the Developer who requested the certificate and by holders of record of deeds of trust on the portion of the Property in which that Developer has a legal interest. 14. Administration of Agreement. Any consent or approval herein to be given by the City may be given by the City Manager provided it is express and is in writing. Any decision by City staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and development of the Property in accordance herewith may be appealed by the Developer to the City Council, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk of City within thirty (30) days after the affected Developer receives written notice of the staff decision. The City Council shall render its decision to affirm, reverse or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) days after the appeal was filed. The Developer shall not seek judicial review of any staff decision without first having exhausted its remedies pursuant to this section. 15. Amendment or Termination by Mutual Consent. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code of City or any successor thereof then in effect, this Agreement may be amended or terminated, in whole or in part, by mutual consent of City and the affected Developer. 15.1 Exemption for Amendments of Project Approvals. No amendment to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approvals shall require an amendment to this Agreement and any such amendment shall be deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement at the time that the amendment becomes effective, provided that the amendment is consistent with this Agreement and does not alter the permitted uses, density, intensity, maximum height, size of buildings or reservations and dedications as contained in the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals. 16. Developer Indemnification. Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City and its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all losses, liabilities, fines, penalties, costs, claims, demands, damages, injuries or judgments arising out of, or resulting in any way from, Developer's performance pursuant to this Agreement including, but not 350 Ordinance No. Page 33 limited to, Developer's construction of the Project on the Property and any injury sustained by any person in connection with the construction or partial construction of buildings and improvements on the Property by or on behalf of Developer. Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City and its officers, employees and agents from and against any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Agreement, or any provision thereof, the environmental documents prepared and approved in connection with the approval of the Project, or any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval or modifications thereto, or any other subsequent entitlements for the project and including any related environmental approval. 17. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 18. Operative Date. As described in Subsection 1.9 above, this Agreement shall become operative on the Operative Date, being the date the Enabling Ordinance becomes effective pursuant to Government Code Section 36937. 19. Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a term of twenty (20) years commencing on the Operative Date or until one year after the issuance of the final building permit for occupancy of the last unit of the Project, whichever occurs last, unless said term is amended or the Agreement is sooner terminated as otherwise provided herein. Expiration of the term or earlier termination of this Agreement shall not automatically affect any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval or Building Permit or Final Building Permit that has been granted or any right or obligation arising independently from such Project Approval or Subsequent Approval or Building Permit or Final Building Permit. Upon expiration of the term or earlier termination of this Agreement, the Parties shall execute any document reasonably requested by any Party to remove this Agreement from the public records as to the Property, and every portion thereof, to the extent permitted by applicable laws. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement: (i) all obligations arising under this Agreement prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement; and (ii) Subsection 6.22 of this Agreement. 20. Notices. All notices and other communications given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received when personally delivered or upon the third (3rd) day after deposit in the United States mail, registered or 351 Ordinance No. Page 34 certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the Parties at the addresses set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. Any Party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address which shall be substituted for the one above specified. 21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and those exhibits and documents referenced herein contain the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and all prior agreements or understandings, oral or written, are hereby merged herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, except as expressly provided herein. 22. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar; nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision. No waiver shall be binding, unless it is executed in writing by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of the waiver is sought. 23. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be effective to the extent the remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform, taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 24. Relationship of the Parties. Each Party acknowledges that, in entering into and performing under this Agreement, it is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of any of the other Parties in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as creating the relationship of partners, joint ventures or any other association of any kind or nature between City and Developer, jointly or severally. 25. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole benefit of the Parties and their successors in interest. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 26. Recordation of Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement and any amendment thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of Ventura by the City Clerk of City within the period required by Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code of City or any successor thereof then in effect. 27. Cooperation Between City and Developer. City and Developer shall execute and deliver to the other all such other and further instruments and documents as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. 352 Ordinance No. Page 35 28. Rules of Construction. The captions and headings of the various sections and subsections of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only, and they shall not constitute a part of this Agreement for any other purpose or affect interpretation of the Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement be found to be in conflict with any provision of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals, the provision of this Agreement shall prevail. 29. Joint Preparation. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly and equally by the Parties, and it shall not be construed against any Party on the ground that the Party prepared the Agreement or caused it to be prepared. 30. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement is made, entered into, and executed in the County of Ventura, California, and the laws of the State of California shall govern its interpretation and enforcement. Any action, suit or proceeding related to, or arising from, this Agreement shall be filed in the appropriate court having jurisdiction in the County of Ventura. 31. Attorneys' Fees. In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement or declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to, or as a result of any alleged breach of, this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and costs, and any judgment, order or decree rendered in such action, suit or proceeding shall include an award thereof. 32. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which constitute one and the same instrument. 33. Authority to Execute. Developer warrants and represents that to its knowledge as of the Operative Date and with respect to each entity that is defined as Developer: (i) it is duly organized and existing; (ii) it is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement; (iii) by so executing this Agreement, Developer is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement; (iv) Developer's entering into and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement do not violate any provision of any other agreement to which Developer is bound; and (v) there is no existing or threatened litigation or legal proceeding of which Developer is aware that could prevent Developer from entering into or performing its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 353 Ordinance No. Page 36 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Development Agreement effective as of the Operative Date. CITY OF MOORPARK Janice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: Maureen Benson, City Clerk GRAND PACIFIC ASSET 2 LLC, a California limited liability company By: Gil Priel — Managing Member 354 Ordinance No. Page 37 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION For APN/Parcel ID(s): 513-0-130-070, 513-0-130-060, 511-0-110-115, 511-0-110- 125, 511-0-040-190, 511-0-110-035 and 511-0-030-180 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Parcel 1 : Those portions of Lots "T" and "U" of Tract "L", Rancho Simi, in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 5, Page 5 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of Lot 1 of Walnut Grove Tract, as per Map recorded in Book 8, Page 22 of Maps; thence along the Westerly line of said Lot 1, 1st: North 10° 48' East 46.25 feet; thence, 2nd: North 0° 26' West 405.9 feet; thence, 3rd: North 89' 34' East 40 feet; thence, 4th: North 0° 26' West 16.91 feet to an angle point in the Northwesterly line of the land described in deed to Pilar Dominguez, recorded August 21, 1942, Book 660, Page 264 of Official Records; thence along said Northwesterly line to and along the Northwesterly line of the land described in deeds to Refugio Garcia, recorded August 21, 1942, Book 660, Page 263; Basilio Reyes, recorded August 21, 1942, Book 660, Page 264; Antonio Aguirre, recorded July 1, 1941, in Book 638, Page 460; Santos Hernandez, recorded August 21, 1942, Book 660, Page 262; Joe Dominguez, recorded August 21, 1942, Book 660 Page 262; and Mary Macias, recorded August 21, 1942, Book 660, Page 261 all of Official Records, by the following three courses, 5th: North 31' 41' East 235.84 feet to an angle point in the Northwesterly line of said land of Basilio Reyes; thence, 6th: North 33° 41' East 339.91 feet to an angle point in the Northwesterly line of said land of Joe Dominguez; thence, 355 Ordinance No. Page 38 7th: North 35° 48' East 304.7 feet, more or less, to the most Northerly corner of said land of Mary Macias; thence along the Northeasterly line of said last mentioned land, 8th: South 41° 12' East 120.38 feet to the Northwesterly line of said Walnut Grove Tract; thence along said last mentioned Northwesterly line, 9th: North 35° 48' East 56.50 feet to the most Westerly corner of Lot 24 of Walnut Grove Tract; thence along the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 24, 10th: South 89° 58' East 6.67 feet to the most Easterly corner of the land described in Parcel 2 in deed to Alfonso Valenzuela and wife, recorded October 17, 1957, Book 1558 Page 181 of Official Records; thence along the boundary of said Parcel 2 by the following two courses, 11th: North 49° 21' 34" West 140.90 feet; thence in a direct line, 12th: North 1° 35' East 29.5 feet, more or less, to the most Westerly corner of the land described in deed to Eduvijar Addapa, recorded November 19, 1929, Book 290, Page 305 of Official Records; thence along the Northwesterly line of said last mentioned land to and along the Northwesterly line of the land described in deeds to Toribia Rosas Herrez, recorded June 20, 1929, Book 275, Page 37; Jubencio Guerrero, recorded September 27, 1930, Book 328, Page 181 ;Virginia R. Armenta, recorded June 22, 1940, Book 615, Page 642; Manuel Banuelos, recorded August 21, 1942, Book 659, Page 219; and Patrick J. Chavez, as Administrator, recorded December 29, 1941, Book 648, Page 684 all of Official Records, 13th: North 35° 48' East 565.3 feet, more or less, to the Southerly line of Lot 36 of Vallette Tract, as per Map recorded in Book 3, Page 41 of Maps; thence along the Southerly line of Lots 36 and 32 of said Vallette Tract, 14th: South 89° 53' West 1476.27 feet, more or less, to the Northwesterly corner of the land described in deed to Maxwell W. Wright, recorded October 1, 1914, Book 144, Page 283 of Deeds; thence along the Westerly line of said last mentioned land, 15th: South 1360.3 feet, more or less, to the most Northerly corner of the land described in deed to Letha C. Richards, recorded October 10, 1929, Book 286, Page 292 of Official Records; thence along the boundary of said last mentioned land by the following three courses, 16th: South 68° 17' East 222.42 feet to the Northeasterly corner thereof; thence, 17th: South 4° 01' West 46.56 feet to an angle point; thence, 356 Ordinance No. Page 39 18th: South 22° 33' East 128.24 feet to the Northeasterly corner of the land described in deed to R. R. Casey, recorded April 3, 1930, Book 309, Page 319 of Official Records; thence along the boundary of said last mentioned land by the following two courses, 19th: South 22° 33' East 9.7 feet to an angle point; thence, 20th: South 28° 54' East 178.22 feet to the most Westerly corner of the land described in Parcel 3 in deed to the County of Ventura, recorded October 21, 1931, Book 358, Page 107 of Official Records; thence along the Northerly line thereof, 21st: North 89° 59' 30" East 266.56 feet to the Westerly line of the land described in deed to County of Ventura recorded December 12, 1922, Book 189, Page 269 of Deeds; thence along said Westerly line, 22nd: North 10° 48' East 47.96 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT all public roads lying within said land. ALSO EXCEPT that portion thereof described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Westerly line of the land described in deed to Maxwell W. Wright, recorded October 1, 1914, Book 144, Page 283 of Deeds; being also the Westerly line of the herein before described Parcel 1, distant along said Westerly line North 736.09 feet from the Northwesterly corner of the land described in deed to Moorpark Memorial Union High School District, dated July 3, 1920, recorded in Book 176, Page 275 of Deeds; thence along said Westerly line, 1st: South 285.05 feet to the most Northerly corner of the land described in deed to Letha C. Richards, recorded October 10, 1929, Book 286, Page 292 of Official Records; thence along the Northeasterly line of said last mentioned land, 2nd: South 68° 17' East 222.42 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said land of Letha C. Richards; thence, 3rd: North 4° 01' East 162.37 feet; thence, 4th: North 4° 30' West 152.20 feet; thence, 5th: North 19° 51' West 72.64 feet; thence in a direct line, 6th: South 85° 23' West 182.04 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT the property described in deed recorded February 1, 1957, Book 1479, Page 316 of Official Records, described as follows: 357 Ordinance No. Page 40 Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 23 of Walnut Grove Tract; thence, North 35° 48' East 2.17 feet; thence, North 41° 12' West 120.48 feet to the true point of beginning of said Parcel to be described; thence, 1st: North 41° 12' West 33.50 feet to a point; thence, 2nd: South 25° 37' 24" West 184.74 feet to a point; thence, 3rd: North 35° 48' East 174.29 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT 49% of oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances and minerals, but without the right to enter on the surface or within 500 feet of the surface on a line drawn vertically, as reserved by Arnold F. Dush and Ethel M. Dush, also known as A. F. Dusch and Ethel M. Dusch, in deed recorded May 27, 1959, Book 1739, Page 9 of Official Records. Parcel 2: A part of Lot "U" of Tract "L", Rancho Simi, in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 5, Page 5 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, and a part of Lots 32 and 36 of Vallette Tract, being a Subdivision of Lot."2", Block "L" of Rancho Simi, as per Map recorded in Book 3, Page 41 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, said real property particularly described as an entirety as follows: Beginning at the corner common to Lots "T" and "U", as per Map first above described, and at the corner common to Lots 32 and 36, as per Map last above described; thence from said point of beginning. 1st: North 89° 53' East 10 chains to a redwood fence post set at an angle of fence on spur of hills at the Southwest corner of that certain parcel of land as described in the deed to Maxwell W. Wright to James M. Robinson, dated February 12, 1912, recorded in Book 128, Page 319 of Deeds; thence, 2nd: North 89° 58' East 2.715 chains to a point in the West line of Lot 35, as per Map entitled, "Map of Walnut Grove Tract", recorded in Book 8, Page 22 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along the Westerly line of Lots 35 to 44, inclusive as per Map last above described, by the following three courses and distances, 3rd: North 35° 48' East 4.193 chains to a point at an angle in the Westerly line of Lot 40 of Walnut Grove Tract; thence, 358 Ordinance No. Page 41 4th: North 5° 18' East 2.716 chains to a point in the Westerly line of Lot 43 of Walnut Grove Tract; thence, 5th: North 17° 18' East 1.052 chains; at 0.735 of a chain, the Northwest corner of Lot 44 of Walnut Grove Tract; at 1.052 chains a point in the South line of Lot 36 of Vallette Tract; thence, 6th: North 89° 58' West 20.415 chains to a 2" x 2" stake set on West bank of a barranca at the Northeast corner of that certain parcel of land, containing 4.123 acres, as conveyed by James M. Robinson to George M. Carter, by deed dated February 28, 1919, recorded in Book 162, Page 265 of Deeds; thence Southerly along the general course of the Westerly bank of said barranca by the following two courses and distances, 7th: South 24° 59' East 1.879 chains to a 2" x 2" stake; thence, 8th: South 13° 35' West 5.560 chains to a 2" x 2" redwood stake set on the Westerly bank of said barranca in the South line of Lot 32 of Vallette Tract, and at the Southeast corner of said lands of George M. Carter; from which a 2" x 2" stake set at the Northeast corner of that certain parcel of land, containing 10 acres, as conveyed by Alice M. Graham, et al. to Maxwell W. Wright, by deed dated September 10, 1914, recorded in Book 144, Page 283 of Deeds, bears South 89° 53' West 4.894 chains distant; thence, 9th: North 89° 53' East 5.116 chains along the South line of Lot 32 of Vallette Tract to the point of beginning. Parcel 3: Lot 23 of Walnut Grove Tract, in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 8, Page 22 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 359 Ordinance No. Page 42 EXHIBIT "B" ADDRESSES OF PARTIES To City: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Attn: City Manager To Developer: Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC 300 E. Esplanade Dr. Suite 1550 Oxnard, CA 93036 360 OQ.QPA C44L O #s ��'L Zaaisii MIWill Ariallo as Ai°S1 103 ilviler A0,9q r 0 3‘)•' General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, Zone Change No. 2013-02, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01, and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC . Recommendation 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2019- adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02. 3. Introduce Ordinance No. , approving Zone Change No. 2013-02, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for February 20, 2019, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 2019- approving Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01. 5. Introduce Ordinance No. , approving Development Agreement No. 2013- 01, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for February 20, 2019, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance. Project For construction of a 390-unit Senior Community (CCRC) on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). Retirement communities with accommodations for independent and assisted living offering a continuum of care. A person can live in a CCRC permanently, moving between levels of care as needed. Independent Living Buildings (76 single story duplex and fourplex villas. 184 apartments in six 2 and 3 story buildings) Memory Care/Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing (130 units in a 2 and 3 story complex). Commons (Great Room/Dining; Theater/Recreation Rooms in a 2 story building) Fitness/Recreation (1 story building) Location Map S. C , ..,... .• • • Mon'pii .e. .; fig, 6,0 Ott - I I. 1 1 11 Aerial .,+:"" , .,, 5,-,f� t,�P ....0--.Mr. M „ `^7a "_.• &;/''�* # •,'"1�OR �"%_ ... - ,,;lit. i , . a10;e ! I✓/jr� " • sR � L r �� I • � • � t ,e7az-.7"- ', ', . .••• •• ' • . ' • .. , ' ii 1, 1 . 4.. . !..i. :, 44 ,'� • .tile • • . 4, Vt7.: .- I fl'ii. - -. .......-43,1,. . 0 • 43 -ir . - *::� 4,40. rI �i '�• •a ter' " ,elpti, .r.! ,--,1„: . ,..,,,D •..., .c.s> 01,relve.-1. . I 4k:-7---: • 4•11" i' ' X 444.° 0. ..j.1 .o. IF,. ,•••• ,,,11 • ,,., •'14,0.1, ,.. ,,� ver '5' ! �;, r7 u, � 4 '‘f .1 . pit, ,. L I , ">� moi. r� "`I `',i ►, j, .:-�` s . 91ilii ..t Plat, �e'i°5� i c.i. .Ik milt 6ii, Site _..„., _„__ __._____„„...„ ....... . = • _ - di ae- - = 1I,1110 IIIII -.4,oky -" .-- g.._ :e_ fir,ip .....-driliOp _ 1010 O. __M41400.060- . ,) -044‘11100 _St— __ _, Ali t', '',1. ----- ,-;„ 0--kC e.Nini -•-- -iklitt '-....mid •dr• , ,t voricit le hir,ww, ..0.: _tiri i ...„0,0ev.... 4 ,.......„„Tiviii it ./, ,, _ _... ro __ „,„,„..?,,,, fri,,,,,A, .......... :,sv n , : , , .„.... . ............. ,, , ..., i. . . i, . „l ' . ,.,.:,.,,,, 1 1 1St. 1 ilti,4SEy) .dr sif1-‘*. "'"' i T I W ' 1 fi 4/ .<1. /I: •••••16 - lift* ti.' I... ice ` 4- -_ iIIj61•11 :111r... - t : Lt'----�' \l�irip ,l-ri./ I ! Ii'4ite... a*mgr.•••• L- `ii \•\ \`IS j 1 4\--0‘‘ !'I0ri Commons 1 . , fl A, �•-,. s .tis��� .��...- , `.. .. ..y - K4,',s. yr . :-.ti ��� P' L I� t. Illi 111111 ii ord. It III f1 , r— II t 4��.11 OW* Mr mem airor iiir '4 -14110111111° CASEY ROAD CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE - COMMONS A2.IS Independent Living Y C _____ u■ rill ■■■ ■t1 rail i 1 '_,' ■ Ir NM NM ■■. ■■� ��_ i. lir ` aim tli _ 1 i . i i in pr % CASEY ROAD CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE ' INDEPENDENT LIVING BUILDING C 42,1 Independent Living i1S . �. S . ,. . . f T i m I . iri , - _miii G 11 Aug 1 me . t, iti. 1 ,,,, II ,, :..- - . c-4,,,,. = -- ,, 1, !Fe 1 1 ' - Ant CASEY ROAD senior m CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE - INDEPENDENT LIVING BUILDING C A2.2 Commons r __, , . . _... ....... , , i',. Linn': 1 i • • - . :, stivii' di ,, ,.. .__ , .. , _ , ...Mr . a A A. 4,1 : ',1 1 - 11- I I 1 liiiiiii !II .1 , .: , - . jorg,„mmit,____, . . • CASEY ROAD io muCONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE - COMMONS A2.I Ii•• l l 1as 1 t -+ 41 ii"14 1, ii: '' . 1' '.'.: . .1164. V : . I .--, -r- .. ,_ , . „ i L. , vailltilik, ,* r It Ri .) ,. 7 r n t =,,., ,, r IA •-, , . ....._,____ _ .. . . ____- - Ala -- I opor _ ,_ �414►ra 3 - -L 11111111.11."---r- CASEY ROAD o,mr CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE - VILLA D A3.I Recreation • . .. . . . . . , , .„. .. . • __ .,. _vet . i4 jiliF . r L , : \ 4 , 67, i , stle.4 a Fri. ;�...i;. �� .y It �'i ,II'I!, � , , I t • t CASEYROAD senior communIty CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE - RECREATION A2.22 Walnut Canyon Sections • C. aw A i Pc am)r &c:i i k r., 70 WWI • 41=N++ti 5f FTiiR.um. .. 11-11 Existingand P 530- 640-_ _-—- . 075— SJNGLE—STORY'-— 6.30— BUILDING 'r` 525— �` i PAD=524.00 5.5- 5:5 EX. .DART ROAD--, 605- ; - EISNG - (TO RFM*Wl ! 800- FG RESIDENCE r cos_ FF=585.12VIX SsG— , \ I 5f5- Cr 6'RETMgPlG NgLL� 560- 575- 570- 565- r DOR 660- 0.,,, ` North Parkway Sections Rus l.i YNlr A:rrr rr,YSIMN irt•r Sr/ 0/1"// /." /F.FIWZ4),/1/1A/45//4 /;61/49/A4 /40, Rivre D Rut l./Y�YIY1Yr ilF4P A}x rL ILIA{ i Jr>.r g —4C,-//, LA",94)2,44 / /, /6000 .00V/AorA'° Breibo "4,1, i Jaw f VIVI/FK: "illie"11111/1,71 :::„::>::„7/10n400 Aht~,00 Mead .# fJ Y�IGaf', +j'�Y' 11ti tWYtIQ���� /fj Analysis Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following areas for City Council consideration: Biological Resources Land Use Open Space Hillside Management Ordinance Biological 92 mature native and non-native living trees to be removed. Includes one oak tree. Approximately 1200 Replacement trees to be planted on the site shall have a value equal to, or greater than, the appraised value of $72,231.64 and shall include no less than two 24"-box Quercus agrifolia. Approximately 17 acres of fragmented existing Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) to be removed. CSS Mitigation is 10.9 acres of new CSS proposed to be created on the site, which has a higher habitat value for California Gnatcatcher than the existing. A drainage field subject to classification as wetlands is affected. The proposed mitigation/restoration of drainage field will result in the creation of 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre-construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage to compensate for the impact to 1.022 acres of jurisdictional area. Land Senior Housing has a lower volume of vehicle trips than other age groups. More internalized than other institutional uses. Similar developments are quiet and peaceful neighbors. University Village in Thousand Oaks, reports emergency medical calls ranging from 5 to 25 trips per month. The land use is appropriate to the setting, when compared to the existing zoning, or a comparable single family residential project. Open Space Residents less likely to venture offsite independently for either passive or active recreation. Open space in setback areas is too steep to be useful as either passive or active recreation area. Project includes large open spaces for passive and active recreation. Sweeping views create a sense of place needing less actual open space than would a confined site. Open space is adequate and appropriately distributed . Hillside Management Ordinance Implements the goals and policies of the general plan as they relate to development and resource management in hillside areas. Properties having development agreements may be exempted from the provisions of the Hillside Management Ordinance. No protected ridgelines on the site, except for within the future North Hills Parkway. In the proposed Development Agreement, the City agrees that grading associated with the North Hills Parkway, not considered for determining compliance with Hillside Management Ordinance (provided that contour grading is employed). Project would not impact prominent landforms or ridgelines. Grading on project's east side would lower a ridgeline abutting residential parcels on Walnut Canyon Road. This is addressed by grading, landscaping, and building setbacks. On-site open space and habitat preservation, further alleviate the effects of hillside grading and development on this site. Environmental Based upon the Initial Study, the Community Development Director determined there was no no substantial evidence the project may cause a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared and circulated. A letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife offered mitigation recommendations regarding wetlands, tree removals, and Coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. A letter from an interested party, known as Better Neighborhoods suggested the City did not adequately study several issues where there is a reasonable probability of potentially significant environmental impacts from the Project. Staff reviewed the technical appendices of all special studies and incorporated additional information addressing these concerns into the Initial Study. The MND/Initial Study included as part of Attachment 4 is the document as amended. Development Agreement The terms of the DA were negotiated by the developer and an Ad- Hoc committee of the City Council consisting of Councilmember Pollock and Former Councilmember Van Dam. Planning Commission is a recommending body on the DA. DA provides for off-site development of 26 affordable housing units and payment of $5,200,000 as an in-lieu fee which is the estimated subsidy for 26 additional affordable units. Provides improvements to Casey Road and dedication and partial improvement of North Hills Parkway. Identifies development fees consistent with those of other recent projects. Addresses the provisions of the Hillside Management Ordinance by acknowledging grading associated with the North Hills Parkway not considered for determining compliance of the Project with the standards of Hillside Management. Recommendation 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2019- adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02. 3. Introduce Ordinance No. , approving Zone Change No. 2013-02, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for February 20, 2019, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 2019- approving Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01. 5. Introduce Ordinance No. , approving Development Agreement No. 2013- 01, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for February 20, 2019, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance. ATTACHMENT 8. REVISED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN AS PROVIDED AT THE JANUARY 16, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING BY THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, JOHN NEWTON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Tract No. 5437 Prepared 01/04/19 REVISED 1/9/19 This CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (°CMP") represents the construction operations restrictions to be imposed and followed by the Developer/Builder during the completion of Tract No. 5437. The restrictions shall at a minimum comply with Federal and State laws as well as with City of Moorpark municipal ordinances and Conditions of Approval specific to the development of the tract. Additional restrictions will be self- imposed by the Developer/Builder in order to help minimize the impacts to the adjacent neighbors; specifically, the residents of Tract No. 5045-8 (aka Pinnacle at Highlands). Development Schedule The anticipated Development Schedule is estimated to be, as follows: • Month 1 —Grading t Month 2 —Grading • Month 3 —Grading Month 4 — Underground Utilities Month 5 — Underground Utilities Month 6 — Underground Utilities Month 7 —Streets Month 8—Model (1 home) Foundation Month 9— Model Home Framing and Phase 1 (4 homes) Foundations Month 10 — Model Home Mechanicals and Phase 1 Framing Month 11 — Model Home Stucco & Roofing and Phase 1 Framing Month 12— Model Home Drywall and Phase 1 Mechanicals Month 13— Model Home Interior Finishes and Phase 1 Stucco & Roofing Month 14— Model Home Completion and Phase 1 Drywall Month 15— Phase 1 Interior Finishes Month 16 — Phase 1 Completion and Phase 2 (6 homes) Foundations Month 17 — Phase 2 Framing Month 18— Phase 2 Framing Month 19— Phase 2 Mechanicals Month 20— Phase 2 Stucco & Roofing and Phase 3 (5 homes) Foundations Month 21 — Phase 2 Drywall and Phase 3 Framing Month 22— Phase 2 Interior Finishes and Phase 3 Framing Month 23— Phase 2 Completion and Phase 3 Mechanicals Month 24— Phase 3 Stucco & Roofing and Phase 4 (5 homes) Foundations Month 25 — Phase 3 Drywall and Phase 4 Framing Month 26— Phase 3 Interior Finishes and Phase 4 Framing Month 27— Phase 3 Completion and Phase 4 Mechanicals Month 28— Phase 4 Stucco & Roofing Month 29 — Phase 4 Drywall Month 30— Phase 4 Interior Finishes Month 31 — Phase 4 Completion Note: The above monthly activities and completions are approximate. The activities may be affected (delayed or accelerated) by conditions beyond the control of the Developer/Builder, i.e. (but not limited to); market demand of the sales of the homes in each phase, weather delays, market labor conditions and governmental regulations not in effect as of the drafting of this CMP, etc. Work Hours Per City of Moorpark Municipal Code 15.26.010 Construction Activity Restricted to Certain Hours, the allowed construction hours are Monday through Saturday from 7AM until 7PM*. No work is allowed on Sundays*. The referenced code does not restrict work from progressing on Federal (national) holidays. The Developer/Builder will generally restrict the subcontractors to working between the hours of 7AM to 5PM Monday thru Friday. Saturday work (if necessary) shall be restricted to the hours of 8AM to 5PM. The construction site will be closed on the following holidays*: • New Years Day • Presidents Day • Memorial Day • 4th of July plus the Monday before if the 4th of July occurs on Tuesday, and on the Friday after if the 4th of July should occur on Thursday • Labor Day • Thanksgiving Day along with the immediate Friday following • Christmas Eve Day and Christmas plus the Friday after if the Christmas should occur on Thursday The construction site "closure"will not preclude construction management from utilizing the onsite construction office on the referenced holidays and/or on Sundays or after hours. Construction Access Most of the construction traffic onto the site will be accommodated via the existing concrete driveway on the western perimeter of the development site. The driveway is accessed off Walnut Canyon Road. Heavy equipment (i.e. earth movers, bulldozers, excavators, etc.)will be trucked onto and then off the site via a haul route thru the orchard to the north of the project. Tractor trailer combo's delivering lumber, drywall, etc. shall also gain access on the same orchard route when it is determined that the trucks will not be able to navigate the driveway. See attached Trucking Access Schedule. Dust Control Dust will be generated in due course as part of the construction operation. Fugitive dust control is mandated by Rule 55 as provided by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). See attachment. I addition to compliance with Rule 55, water shall be applied continuously during the grading operation of the site along with the excavation, stockpile and backfill operations of the underground utility installation. Construction traffic on dirt roads shall be restricted to 15 MPH maximum speed limit Most of the dust conditions will occur during the first 7 months of the construction activity which incorporates the grading, underground utility and street installations. Once the asphalt paving is installed on the streets there will be little necessity for any subcontractor to drive onto a dirt lot during the construction of the homes. Examples of exceptions are trenching for foundations and masonry wall footings, and for establishing the finish grade as the home nears completion; a total of approximately not more than 4- or 5-days' time during the entire construction cycle. For any lot not to be constructed upon for at least 6 months of completion of the grading operation,the Developer/Builder will stabilize the surface of that lot by applying an organic polymer binder which shall include a winter rye grass mix. The grass mix is intended to germinate without the application of irrigation water, and it should establish a shallow root system which will die off in warm weather leaving the root system in place and therefore greatly reducing dust emission. Additionally, all subcontractors will be contractually restricted from driving onto these lots until the Developer/Builder pulls construction permits and proceeds with the house construction. The Developer/Builder may designate a vacant lot within the development for the purpose of providing a location for an onsite construction office and/or temporary sales office.Also, vacant lot(s) may be designated from time to time for materials and equipment storage or as a staging area. These lots shall be stabilized for these purposes to the extent of the parking and/or storage areas by using crushed gravel or temporary paving materials. Compliance and Monitoring This Construction Management Plan shall be attached to all subcontractor construction agreements issued by the Developer/Builder and the conditions shall be strictly enforced as contractual obligations. The Developer/Builder's on-site construction manager shall monitor the compliance daily, and non-compliant events shall be logged and forwarded to senior development management to formally notify subcontractor owners and/or field supervisors of their violation. Contact Information The Developer/Builder shall provide a phone number and email address for specific contact with the appointed project manager who will be responsible for resolving any issues regarding non-compliance with this CMP. The contact information shall be provided to the Pinnacle HOA management representative for distribution to the homeowners. A sign shall be posted at the access easement at Elk Run Way advising that any concerns regarding construction impact issues may be addressed to the project manager along with the providing the phone number and email address for direct contact. The same contact information will be provided to designated City staff. The Developer/Builder will also provide immediate email notification to the designated City representative(s) regarding any complaints received from adjacent homeowners including the steps being taken to resolve the issue. Attachments • I LT•w. M0 M. w ter..r.• AT MYI Tr, mAP L((NO I • •••• Iuw A1A.•.Irl rt w 0/+r•r► J „ f.1+ 10.111 AM f '� °C. Tim MTV. J .011 11.•00 ,M 1 H" • HJal•arrow a'D �:� I�Oo.` .. • , pt1 /OPT /wl.ly �}CAS •.a TOW . Mr♦ WM AM J M. �l•.)•w nnor.me OPEN `- {`rreI M1I JnAI AA,I MT Al"• .1 NM as QQ�� rSPfl�E u• I i Cr gain ro r-. •� � �..1 f . . . , ..§ J�S vttn (o/S) 7.-zit . •1 V. l�� AIM, I S .., .+..R.•r•. It M/. JLrM PO.t A.v TRAIL —'R— 1R IJ JM. +&>.+ 1 • •• '- LOCATIONS �« .•0.1 , fAIfJ PIM J MtT1 A on •• ~IAL SW SO•14, + , a MO •I r� Jnro..°w ME. OPEN ® . WI ,,w . T(..[IV.r newt • `/` w, 1 WOW.. ..0 •.Ncw c°ntiVA•..J•. •• SPACE 1 /L ..leo Ila.�mrsnmr l0 ft i. .4.•N A.cr .., JA..L J/ y,. Jt1•• ` `• (WS) .e•wa M ` �/ 1 A nwc/ „inn. • WPM 1 Mt an � . V .6. . � 1. ft •..." re:: ,,„4.11,-1,.._.i:f. . '' ' "1 _ , , .... -01j."Wr7r4/14111 /4 ---,'" Far:4461.1/44,11tial I t E , 0 1"111141118/14/1114r4.7* "`... `J /<-: i 1 4 1 I ,tzso.:,..-..-. ! _.,„,,i. ..- •� M• . I ., 1 ., iii `tet lisi `1�``\may ..._ ., )1 rr :. Nip 0........,.t.,,....„4,, , /. ).„,„. . ..... , . , II Ili ,,, \filk .k...-\• ..........0...•••iro'Mrc.-)..uw<o !_.,0_ iir- ��� ��F'a��i1U t r. ��1,1� /..• .' , \‘ �..:li�+ '-' ;1 q,' I gnu ri�� '---7t' *•� t R�Val� , NOrE tots to-i6 do �8-21 RE54RIcrEO � `•:�'J14.J. `. � \\� �. NO HORSES ALLOWED ta • .."-y-l n ......,,,...„. N.•"°• , �f NOT FOR GONSrRUCT/ON wc•tl..-+ MT, M.MIM..rwn•;re IVR.•J•Wtr7o .----- 17''' '''''''''.:111' J`I(• ` Rr - ;. Q o ...,...00:11.....111.1111 ,. \ \ rtsrinc rfnr�tnt nutr r!o sa]1 /•' L�`) .�W.t 1 M 1 d'MICfl.er•d Ur+'AfTeM•p M.p7 Q VVV l J. _�'_ 11}1 PO .I m p/MOW..fM4 Ts Jf[OSYC Y.Al J PO. MR..1.r.d M.rIM+.VIWIRT n 0,m M M 5?f f/WM 01/,U+nrrf5 Al T[ "'�Ftp..tourrr~mai A'D'O tl T' ." .�». \..' rrc r M.+rQ a Mt ca.r.r.rmq.a..e O'wrl. IC':!T.Y.•��+.l:.Jf.� —7-/" - A.,L AT !l._! ���ili- eraam►T lft _ Belson eoml.�elwn nro�tn.e f )rxr I'.SO ..�fT..TI.�. i awn,J* °'' to )..ww w•a.r•.•. i>.,or....n.. ,... • • t.1 DAa•i<I.fT1•vR0 .1•.. . ....b. � O(Rm K R ...JTMA1•yy,G.iNI C..r+.Mr.F«+ (.D):pl-}r4 IQI tel•--• p S1rM.L 1014)Up 17_1— `".7'"751.9.1477ac I fOUESlRIAN EXHIBIT •5 MOO # 437 21 SINGLERPARK FAMILYTRACT HOMES TRUCKING ACCESS SCHEDULE ,i" 11p 21 21 GRADING GRADING GRADING UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES Apr14 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 MONTH 5 MONTH 8 TASK INK WK2 WK3 WK4 WK5 WK6 WK WK8 WK9 WK10 WK11 WK12 WK13 WK14 WK15 WK16 INK 17 WK18 WK19 WK20 WK21 WIC 22 WK23 WK24 GRADING MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT ME DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT 11111 UTILITIES MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT IIIM PIPE DELIVERY _ 2 2 _ _ _ DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT NM STREETS MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT BASE AND AC MATERIAL DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT LUMBER DELIVERY TRUSS DELIVERY ROOF TILE DELIVERY DRYWALL DELIVERY TOTAL TRIPS 358 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 10 MODEL PH 1 Starts> 1 „ Mal 11011111111111 MODEL HOME MODEL HOME MODEL HOME MODEL HOME STREETS MODEL HOME PHASE 1(4 HOMES) PHASE 1(4 HOMES) PHASE 1(4 HOMES) PHASE 1(4 HOMES) October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 MONTH 7 MONTH 8 MONTH 9 MONTH 10 MONTH 11 MONTH 12 TASK WK 25 WK 28 WK 27 WK 28 WK 29 WK 30 WK 31 INK 32 WK 33 INK 34 WK 35 WK 36 WK 37 WK 38 WK 39 WK 40 WK 41 WK 42 WK 43 WK 44 WK 45 WK 46 INK 47 WK 48 GRADING MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT UTILITIES MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT PIPE DELIVERY DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT STREETS MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT a 1 BASE AND AC MATERIAL 160 DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT 1 4 LUMBER DELIVERY .117.111 111.111111111.11.7.0 TRUSS DELIVERYM.711 111117 ROOFTILE DELIVERY DRYWALL DELIVERY TOTAL TRIPS 4 0 162 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 4 3 3 3 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 Page 1 of 3 pages. This schedule Is confidential.The intended recipient hereby agrees that any redistribution to 3rd parties without the express written permission from R G Development is strictly prohibited. MOORPARK TRACT#5437 21 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TRUCKING ACCESS SCHEDULE PH 2 Star as 9• 11.11111111111 1 _ MODEL PH 1 MODEL HOME MODEL HOME PHASE 1(4 HOMES) PHASE 1(4 HOMES) PHASE 1(4 HOMES) PHASE 1(4 HOMES). PHASE 2(6 HOMES. PHASE 2(6 HOMES) PHASE 2(6 HOM) Apnl 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 MONTH 13 MONTH 14 MONTH 15 MONTH 16 MONTH 17 MONTH 18 TASK WK 49 WK 50 WK 51 WK 52 WK 63 WK 54 WK 55 WK 56 WK 57 WK 58 WK 59 WK 60 WK 61 WK 62 WK 63 WK 64 WK 65 WK 66 WK 67 WK 88 WK 69 INK 70 WK 71 INK 72 GRADING MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT UTILITIES MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT PIPE DELIVERY DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT STREETS MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT BASE AND AC MATERIAL DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT LUMBER DELIVERY TRUSS DELIVERY ROOF TILE DELIVERY Mil DRYWALL DELIVERY MEI 1.1111.11.1=11 1=1.111.111.1117.1111.1167 TOTAL TRIPS 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 PH3 PH4 _M PH2 PHASE 2(8 HOMES). PHASE 2(6 HOMES) PHASE 2(6 HOMES) PHASE 2(6 HOMES) PHASE 3(5 HOMES. PHASE 2 f6 HOMES) PHASE 3(5 HOMES). PHASE 3(5 HOMES) PHASE 3(5 HOMES) PHASE 3(5 HOMES) PHASE 4(g HOMES). October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 MONTH 19 MONTH 20 MONTH 21 MONTH 22 MONTH 23 MONTH 24 TASK WK 73 WK 74 INK 75 INK 76 WK 77 WK 78 INK 79 WK 80 WK 81 INK 82 INK 83 WK 84 WK 85 INK 86 WK 87 WK 88 INK 89 WK 90 WK 91 INK 92 WK 93 INK 94 WK 95 WK 96 GRADING MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT UTILITIES MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT PIPE DELIVERY DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT STREETS MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT BASE AND AC MATERIAL DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT LUMBER DELIVERY TRUSS DELIVERY ROOF TILE DELIVERY DRYWALL DELIVERY lir911611.111MIIMMIIM=tr 1.1.1117111rIMMIUMEirlilimmil TOTAL TRIPS 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 4 4 3 4 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Page 2 of 3 pages. This schedule is confidential.The intended recipient hereby agrees that any redistribution to 3rd parties without the express written permission from R 3 Development Is strictly prohibited. MOORPAR SINGLEK TRACT#E 5: S5437 21 RF AK TRUCKING ACCESS SCHEDULE woo 111111111•111 MIN PH 3 PHASE 3(5 HOMES) PHASE 3(5 HOMES) PHASE 3(5 HOMES1 PHASE 4(5 HOMES) PHASE 4(5 HOMES) PHASE 4(5 HOMES), PHASE 4(5 HOMES) PHASE 4(5 HOMES) PHASE 4(5 HOMES) April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2051 MONTH 25 MONTH 26 MONTH 27 MONTH 28 MONTH 29 MONTH 30 TASK WK97 WK98 WK99 WK 100 WK 101 WK 102 NAC 103 WK 104RNK 105 WK 108 WK 107 WK 101iNK 109 WK 110 WK 111 WK 112 WK 113 WK 114 WK 116 WK 116 WK 117 WK 118 WK 119 WK 120 GRADING MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT UTILITIES MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT PIPE DELIVERY DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT STREETS MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT BASE AND AC MATERIAL DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT LUMBER DELIVERY111171111117.1 1.1111.1171r111111.1.1.1M6=1111.11.11.1 TRUSS DELIVERY ROOF TILE DELIVERY DRYWALL DELIVERY • TOTAL TRIPS 4 4 3 3 4 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MN PH 4 PHASE 4(5 HOMES) June 2021 MONTH 31 TASK WK 101 WK 102 WK 103 WK 104 GRADING MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT UTILITIES MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT PIPE DELIVERY DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT STREETS MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT BASE AND AC MATERIAL DEMOBILIZE EQUIPMENT LUMBER DELIVERY TRUSS DELIVERY ROOF TILE DELIVERY DRYWALL DELIVERY TOTAL TRIPS 0 0 0 0 Page 3 of 3 pages. This schedule Is confidential.The intended recipient hereby agrees that any redistribution to 3rd parties without the express written permission from R G Development is strictly prohibited. ,W 4 ►►'.YY .,e• ars` f�T'4•llD,+� �,� �' -'� ,+ �•.r i «, �• 'i .. - nab ' �+<ti � �/ Ai • • •t, • r • .-.mai' •' 1 A.y-• • �.t1 + .r 0,0' y 11 .. V., .. f I , ' ck ' r 1,411 ` - ,•• Ste, .• I � riL',.. . • Sf 'fr J • I 1 + - __ 16' 1 tim- • 1 1 I 1 t - ..",.r. • 4 -•-•-• -•• .�•a c ,'. - Mr r .f / -As-- ,' .. I. ' "Nit ! ir ) WE" 117.0.-- ...• -. - , � • _. �' ‘. . �� ' ,• ` Pi.• -- .. ,—;-:-T-0• •tom ,: _ �. , '. I-IR} - 1l-nctpfF ". ."""` _ ` -- i .t�Ynwrwwelpywr ''�i-•'y '7c� iYV r R � MM •`;tl'►HI'IN4Mq�Y,►1try••..}t.c '�.R 't...' rl.. ,- •�^ r t. d,/ . .. �} ,1.r.. ••rrY 11117 1 r' y.117,.'• w ' 1 ',vv.,.. }*..1�1. .r ; .}- ' "11i,, .. .• I`r.. .. .r• '.'I•. : •i'yge/,� 1 !' L. '" ' ' ` M' , if 4 `, ::1;riii,ileirle•t;� r!+r r 1��• r '111}1Ffltil.r;.. Tr�} , �; . I t ..,k ,,, - ;�^ay.,. »I��•N* ••,;•• 1, _ Vit;' .. }'� y r",., /1', itryFr•H�}rT4• rf 1);tt 't�i 1 fl 1 i 7 f••H • •••r ! • •y•• YYvr\.1WI .� .111;„ ..I. Tom' , t a . t - �/ '(c o- • . . �•• ....... f'•^• r..t Fnr11 1 - 1 ., .iC/ T .. , r. i �'. 6, M •0� , ..•;,� • •}.,1 ',■ " '',.• •��}' ` f•: ; Mi...�w r....�. mss. • .�....., �rr�r• r• .. �� ` �1 1 - ! ./•. 01 � •� r - ■ ' 1�'L ,, " ,., 1. �, ,1. ,�} k•t 111,r ;till fj ` r• it j r •.. it w+ • ' ? !1 ', �' �l �' / Ir 1•: "iIIII rk'' ..�...�,�.•:2::f t!.1,,1 f.., iy r,,, r r ii a1/24.11..-..v.''''' it.' el �f iii �+M+- r. 1 t:•• `_-' 111 I _ �, 1'. �' 7 ' f11 t t r _ J (0+] 1 r 1 K j• '1 M','9.a. ., ,1f1 .y w , '•X1 rlr '�f�t / • a •.4 . • ,� i , . .. •�::k. ifr rf "0ti 4 r• r-•t, _ r, .42•+•f r - • 'v r. .+ 1 IIJ AAr P 1r1 s r t rr f IP 1► il. r. ,yv y ¢ talc ��j " : y- . 1/4 111 .,,r1° '.: `tl —� . - .. -Ale( it Joillo. - ter. - w7 �IA� A"' �p' w��n�;�_ =w - .�.N, - * r A,' n ,`r .K., ,. . W i / _ -• _ ..'r�' 'tet+ 1• ,MY� �, .-Alm„._, ^l_ 1� .,.„. .; " `� f..t ' ' ✓ �. heavens Ranches LLC , , A Family Farming Company Sunkist A- r; December 21, 2018 John W. Newton &Associates, Inc. Professional Consultants 159 Moonsong Court P.O. Box 471 Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Proposed Temporary Construction License Agreement APNs 502-0-070-03 & 12 Dear John, In response to your letter from Dec. 14, 2018, regarding a proposed temporary construction license agreement, the J.G. Leavens Trustees have met today and give tentative approval to your clients, Canyon Crest Partners, LLC (Dr. DeeWayne Jones and The Birdsall Group, LLC) request for access to our property. We look forward to following up with you regarding the access plan. Sincerely, C. David Schwabauer Vice President/Moorpark Operations cc: Andrew P. Gilmour J. Link Leavens Paul David Carlson P.O. Box 4278 • Saticoy, CA 93007 • Phone: 805-656-1568 12484 W. Telegraph Road • Santa Paula, CA 93060 • Fax: 805-525-6440 VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT RULE 55—FUGITIVE DUST (Adopted 6/10/08 ) A. Applicability The provisions of this rule shall apply to any operation,disturbed surface area,or man-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust,including bulk material handling,earthmoving, construction,demolition,storage piles,unpaved roads,track-out,or off-field agricultural operations. B. General Requirements—All Fugitive Dust Sources 1. Visible Dust Beyond the Property Line: No person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any applicable source such that the dust remains visible beyond the midpoint(width) of a public street or road adjacent to the property line of the emission source or beyond 50 feet from the property line if there is not an adjacent public street or road 2. Opacity: No person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any applicable source such that the dust causes 20 percent opacity or greater during each observation and the total duration of such observations(not necessarily consecutive)is a cumulative 3 minutes or more in any one(1)hour. Only opacity readings from a single source shall be included in the cumulative total used to determine compliance. 3. Track-Out a. No person shall allow track-out to extend 25 feet or more in length unless at least one of the following three control measures is utilized: i Track-Out Area Improvement: Pave or apply chemical stabilization at sufficient concentration and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface starting from the point of intersection with public paved surface,and extend for a centerline distance of at least 100 feet with an acceptable width to accommodate traffic ingress and egress from the site. ii. Track-Out Prevention: Check and clean the undercarriage and wheels on all vehicles before leaving unpaved surface or install a properly functioning and well-maintained track-out control device(s) that prevents track-out of soil onto paved public roads. ill Track-Out Removal: Remove track-out from pavement as soon as possible but no later than one hour after it has been deposited on the paved road. Lf a street sweeper is used to remove any track-out,only RULE 55: 1 PM10-effcient street sweepers certified to meet South Coast AQMD Rule 1186 requirements shall be used. The make and model information and certification documentation of any sweeper used shall be made available upon request. b. Notwithstanding the preceding,all track-out shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift subject to the same condition regarding PM- 10 efficient street sweepers as outlined in Subsection B.3.a ni. The use of blowers for removal of track-out is expressly prohibited under any circumstances. C. Specific Activity Requirements 1. Earth-Moving: No person shall engage in earth-moving activities in a manner that creates visible dust emissions over 100 feet in length 2. Bulk Material Handling Facilities Track-Out Prevention: No person shall conduct an active operation with a monthly import or export of 2150 cubic yards or more of bulk material without utilizing at least one of the following measures at each vehicle egress from the site to a public paved road: a. Install a pad consisting of washed gravel(minimum size:one inch)...a:,it.;.,ed in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 30 feet wide and at least 50 feet long. b. Pave the surface at least 100 feet long and at least 20 feet wide. c. Utilize a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device,also known as a rumble grate, consisting of raised dividers(rails,pipe,or grates)at least 24 feet long and sufficient width to allow all wheels of vehicle traffic to travel over grate to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. d. Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. e. Any other control measure or device that prevents track-out onto public paved roads. 3. Truck Hauling: No person(minding facility or site operator)shall load or allow the loading of bulk materials or soil onto outbound tucks unless at least one of the following dust prevention techniques is utilized: RULE 55:2 a. Use properly secured tarps or cargo covering that covers the entire surface area of the load or use a container-type enclosure. b. Maintain a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard below the rim of the truck bed where the load touches the sides of the cargo area and insure that the peak of the load does not extend above any part of the upper edge of the cargo area. c. Water or otherwise treat the bulk material to,,,iUi mLc loss of material to wind or spillage. d. Other effective dust prevention control measures. D. Exemptions 1. This rule shall not apply to: a. On-field agricultural operations. b. Off-field agricultural operations necessary to minimize adverse effects on agricultural or horticultural commodities caused during officially declared disasters or states of emergency. c. Active operations conducted during emergency life-threatening situations,or in conjunction with any officially declared disaster or state of emergency. d. Active operations conducted by essential service utilities to provide electricity, natural gas,telecommunication,water or sewer during periods of service outages or emergency disruptions. e. Weed abatement operations provided that: i Mowing,cutting or other similar process is used which maintains weed stubble at least three inches above the soil,or ii. Any disking or similar operation where effective dust emission prevention control measures are used. f Abrasive blasting operations meeting the requirements of Rule 74.1. g. Unpaved service roads having traffic volume of 20 vehicle trips or fewer per day used by one or more public agencies for inspection of infrastructure and not used for construction or maintenance-related activity. RULE 55:3 h. Motion picture,television,or video production activities when dust emissions are required for visual effects. In order to obtain this exemption,the APCO must receive notification in writing at least 72 hours in advance of any such activity and no nuisance results from such activity. i Temporary earth coverings of public paved roadways where such coverings are approved by a local government agency for protection of the roadway,and where such roadway is closed to through traffic and visible roadway dust is removed within one day following cessation of activities. j. Any paved road unless it has track-out or any publicly-owned unpaved road. k. Demolition operations using blasting explosives,which have been permitted by the California Division of Industrial Safety. L The disturbance(i.e.,disking,ripping,or scraping)of spreading ground lands in preparation for percolative groundwater recharge. Spreading ground lands are ponds,a system of ponds,or basins into which surface water is introduced for the purpose of allowing or enhancing the infiltration of water into underlying aquifers. 2. Frequently Traveled Private Unpaved Road Conditional Exemption: The requirements in Subsections B.l (Visible Dust Beyond the Property Line)and B2 (Opacity) shall not apply to fugitive dust from frequently traveled(more than 20 vehicles per day passing in either direction)unpaved private roads if the operator has covered them with a low silt content material such as recycled mad base or gravel to a minimum of four inches;or has implemented all of the following control measures: a. Control Speed: Control speed to 15 miles per hour or less on unpaved roads through worker notification,signage,and any other necessary means. b. Restrict Access: Restrict access to private unpaved roads currently used by the public either through signage or physical access restrictions. c. Road Treatments: Treat unpaved and uncovered frequently traveled roads with water,mulch, or a non-toxic chemical dust suppressant that complies with all applicable air and water quality government standards. If treated,roads shall be treated in a manner that will avoid the sticking of mud to tires that will be carried onto paved public roads. 3. Lightly Traveled Unpaved Private Road Conditional Exemption: The requirements in Subsections B.1 (Visible Dust Beyond the Property Line)and B.2 (Opacity) shall not apply to fugitive dust from lightly traveled unpaved private roads if the operator has implemented both of the following control measures: RULE 55:4 • a. Control Speed: Control speed to 15 miles per hour or less on unpaved roads through worker notification,sigge,and any other necessary means. b. Restrict Access: Restrict access to private unpaved roads currently used by the public either through signage or physical access restrictions. 4. Storage Pile Conditional Exemption: The requirements in Subsections B.1 (Visible Dust Beyond the Property Line)and B2(Opacity) shall not apply to fugitive dust from storage piles if the has implemented at least one of the following control measures: a. Wind Sheltering: Enclose material in a three or four sided barrier equal to the height of the material. b. Watering: Apply water at a sufficient quantity and frequency to prevent wind driven dust. c. Chemical Stabilization: Apply a non-toxic dust suppressant that complies with all applicable air and water quality government standards at a sufficient quantity and frequency to prevent wind driven dust. d. Covering: Install and anchor tarps,plastic,or other material to prevent wind driven dust. 5. High Wind Exemption: The requirements in Subsections B.1 (Visible Dust Beyond the Property Line). B.2(Opacity),and C.1 (Earth-Moving) shall not apply to fugitive dust when on-site wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour (mph) for at least 5 minutes in any one hour period as measured by an anemometer with a minimum resolution of 1.0 mph provided: a. Applicable control measures outlined in Table 1 have been implemented, and b. Daily records of specific dust control measures have been maintained. 6. Track-out Exemption: The provisions of Subsection B.3 (Track-Out)shall not apply to on-mad vehicles(trucks and passenger vehicles)associated with agricultural operations that have caused track-out due to excessively muddy conditions resulting from rainfall. E. Recordkeeping Requirements 1. Bulk Material Handling Records: Any operator handling bulk materials and having an APCD Permit to Operate shall keep a monthly log,available upon request, containing or referencing the following information: a. Operator name, location of operation,and dates of operation. RULE 55:5 b. Amount(in yards)of bulk material imported or exported per month. c. Diagram or map of all egress sites to a public paved road and description of corresponding track-out control measure,if required by this rule. 2. Frequently Traveled Unpaved Road Exemption Records: Any operator or owner of an private unpaved road claiming exemption from the requirements in Subsection B.1 (Visible Dust Beyond the Property Line)and Subsection B.2(Opacity)shall keep the following records: a. Operator name,location of operation,dates when road is open to travel b. List and diagram of unpaved private roads that have more than 20 vehicle trips per day with corresponding method and description of fugitive dust control. If an unpaved private road is being treated,then describe the method used to control speed and restrict access. 3. Storage Pile Exemption Records: Any owner or.,r;,.u..,. of a storage pile claiming the exemption from the requirements in Subsection B.1 (Visible Dust Beyond the Property Line)and Subsection B.2(Opacity)shall keep the following records: a. Operator name,location of operation,dates of operation b. Description of control measure used to minimize fugitive dust including amount of material applied and frequency of application if watering or chemical suppressants are used. 4. High Wind Exemption Records: Any operator claiming the high wind exemption in Subsection D.5 shall keep daily records of specific dust control actions taken. 5. Track-Out Area Exemption Records: Any operator claiming an exemption from track-out area requirements in Subsection B.3.a shall keep the following records: a. Operator name,location of operation,and dates of operations. b. Description of control measure used in the improvement of the track-out area or control measure used to prevent track-out. 6. Dust Suppressant Records: Any person using dust suppressants shall keep the following records:Description of dust control measure;Location and extent of coverage;Date,amount,and frequency of application of dust suppressant;and Manufacturer's dust suppressant product information sheets. RULE 55:6 7. Any recordkeeping required by this rule shall be made available to APCD compliance personnel upon request. Records shall be retained for a minimum of two years. F. Test Methods Compliance with the opacity limit in Subsection B.2 shall be determined using EPA Method 9 with the following modifications: 1. Position: Stand at least 16.5 feet from the plume(s)with the sun oriented in the 140° sector to your back. If feasible,make opacity observations so your line of sight is approximately perpendicular to the direction of plume travel. To the extent possible, position yourself to make opacity observations using a contrasting background. 2. Field Records: Note the following on a record sheet a. Description and location of activity generating emissions,and method of control used,if any. b. Observer's name,certification data,and affiliation,and a sketch of the observer's position relative to the dust generating activity and the sun,including estimated distances and direction to the plume. c. Time that reading began,approximate wind speed and direction,description of the sky condition(presence and color of clouds),color of the plume,and type of background. 3. Observations: For each reading,make the observation at the highest opacity in the dust plume starting at an elevation line 5 feet above the emission source. Do not look continuously at the source,but make momentary observations once every 15 seconds. Record each observation to the nearest 5 percent. Each reading represents a 15 second period. If multiple plumes exist, do not include more than one plume in the line of sight at one time. 4. Compliance Determination: If the observer records twelve(12)readings of 20 percent or greater during a one-hour period,the source is not in compliance and observations may stop. The 20 percent or greater opacity readings are not required to be consecutive. 5. Only observers certified by the California Air Resources Board,or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may determine compliance with opacity limits. RULE 55:7 G. Violations Failure to comply with any provision of this rule is a violation of this rule. H. Definitions 1. "Active Operation": Any source capable of generating fugitive dust,including,but not limited to,bulk material handling,earth-moving activities,construction or demolition activities,or vehicular movement on unpaved surfaces. 2. "Bulk Material": Sand,gravel,aggregate material less than two inches in length or diameter,and other organic or inorganic particulate matter. 3. "Construction/Demolition Activities": Any on-site mechanical activities conducted in preparation of,or related to,the building,alteration,rehabilitation,demolition,or improvement of property,including,but not limited to,grading,excavating,loading, crushing,cutting,planing,or ground breaking. 4. 'Disturbed Surface Area": This means a portion of the earth's surface which has been physically moved,uncovered,destabilized,or otherwise modified from its undisturbed natural soil condition,thereby increasing the potential for emission of fugitive dust This definition excludes those areas which have: a. Been restored to a natural state,such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby natural conditions; b. Been paved or otherwise covered by a permanent structure. 5. "Earth-Moving Activities": This means the use of any equipment for any activity where soil is being moved or uncovered,and shall include,but not be limited to the following: grading,earth cutting and filling operations,loading and unloading of dirt,adding to or removing from open storage piles,landfill operations,mining operations,and weed abatement operations. 6. "Frequently-Traveled Unpaved Private Road": For the purpose of defining the conditional exemption in Subsection D.2,any private unpaved road where the count of vehicles traveling in either direction on the road exceeds 20 in any 24 hour period . 7. "Fugitive Dust": Any solid particulate matter that becomes airborne,other than emitted from an exhaust stack,directly or indirectly as a result of the activities of any person(s). 8. "Lightly-Traveled Unpaved Private Road": For the purpose of defining the conditional exemption in Subsection D.3,any private unpaved road where the count of vehicles traveling in either direction on the road is 20 or less in any 24 hour period RULE 55:8 9. "Off-field Agricultural Operations": Any activities excluding those considered by this rule to be on-field agricultural operations. 10. "On-field Agricultural Operations": Activities,excluding travel on field access roads, conducted solely for the purpose of preparing land for the growing of agricultural or horticultural commodities,tree fruits,or raising of fowl or animals,such as: a. Brush or timber clearing,grubbing,scraping,ground excavation,land leveling, grading,turning under stalks,disking or tilling. b. Drying,pre-cleaning,handling,or storing of agricultural commodity material on the field where it was harvested. c. Handling of fowl,or animal feed materials at sites where animals or fowl are raised. d. Disturbing of cultivated land as a result of fallowing,seeding,planting,plowing, disking,fertilizing the soil,cultivating,inigating,controlling weeds,thinning, heating,pruning,fumigating,spraying,dusting, or harvesting. 11. "Paved Road": A public or private improved street,highway,alley,public way,or easement that is covered by typical roadway materials including,but not limited to, asphalt paving or concrete. For this purpose of this rule,roads covered with recycled road base or gravel are not considered to be paved. 12. "PM-10 Efficient Street Sweeper": Any street sweeper certified by the South Coast AQMD to meet their Particulate Matter(10 microns and less)capture efficiency criteria outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1186 Appendix A. 13. "Source": A source includes all activities and operations that are located on contiguous property under common ownership or control,and includes associated facility-access and haul roads. 14. "Stabilized Surface": Any surface that has been treated,worked,or modified to increase soil stability in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. Methods used to stabilize surface include but are not limited to the following: watering,dust palliatives,vegetation, aggregates,and paving. 15. "Storage Pile": Any accumulation of bulk material or soil,which attains a height of three feet or more and a total surface area of 150 or more square feet. 16, "Track-Out': Any material that adheres to and agglomerates on the exterior surface or tires of motor vehicles,haul trucks,or mobile equipment that have been released onto a RULE 55:9 r - named,numbered,or lettered public paved road and can be removed by a PM-10 efficient street sweeper under normal operating conditions. I. Compliance Schedule: The requirements of this rule shall become effective on October 8,2008. J. Compliance Status Compliance with this rule shall not guarantee that a person will be in compliance with any other district rule or state regulation,including but not limited to,Rule 50(Opacity),Rule 51 (Nuisance),Health and Safety Code Section 41700(Nuisance),or Health and Safety Code Section 41701 (Opacity). Table 1 Control Measures Needed to Qualify for High Wind Exemption in Subsection D.5 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL MEASURES SOURCE CATEGORGY Earth-Moving 1. Cease all active operations;OR 2. Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to earth-moving activities. Disturbed Surface 1. On the last day of active operations prior to any Sunday, 1-day holiday,or Area any other period when active operations will not occur for at least four consecutive days,apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer diluted to not less than 5 percent by volume of the chemical stabilizer or to chemical stabilizer manufacturer specifications;OR 2. Apply chemical stabilizers at least 30 minutes prior to the wind event; OR 3. Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas at least every 4 hours during the wind event. If there is any evidence of wind-driven dust;water frequency is increased until wind-driven dust is minimized;OR 4. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground within 90 days of planting,and at all times thereafter. Unpaved Roads 1. Apply chemical stabilizers prior to allowing traffic;OR 2. Apply water at least twice per hour during active operations;OR 3. Stop all vehicular traffic. Open Storage Piles 1. Apply water at least twice per hour during the wind event; OR 2. Install temporary coverings. RULE 55: 10 APPENDIX NO. 8 PAX Environmental, Inc. 226 West Ojai Ave.,Ste. 101,#157 Ojai, California 93023 805.570.4451 www.paxenviro.com June 1, 2018 Attn: Joseph Fiss, Planning Manager City of Moorpark Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: May 2016 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Focused Survey Report for the Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, California Dear Mr. Fiss: I was the principal author of the May 2016 report regarding the results of the focused surveys for Coastal California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) conducted at the Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project site from March through May of 2015. The results of the focused surveys were presented in this report with additional discussion of the impacts of the project on Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat on the site that could result in indirect impacts on CAGN, and mitigation for the impact of the project on Coastal Sage Scrub habitat included in the project. The project will require the removal of approximately 17 acres of existing CSS habitat on the site. As noted in the report, the existing CSS habitat on the site is fragmented, consisting of patches of CSS distributed across the site, with the density of this habitat uneven and varied. Pax Environmental has reviewed the final grading plan to identify areas that are suitable for CSS revegetation on the site. As shown on the attached updated map, 10.9 acres of CSS can be created on the site. This habitat will consist of large continuous bands of CSS habitat along the edges of the site. This habitat will have a higher habitat value for CAGN than the existing uneven CSS on the site as it will include not only shrub species associated with CSS but also mulefat, coyote bush, and blue elderberry found in the higher quality CSS habitat on the site. Regarding suitability for restoration, CSS occurs on drier sites with shallow soils, and lower elevations than chaparral, especially on coastal south-facing slopes (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolfe). The steepest slopes within the project area exist along its eastern edge and currently support CSS habitat. The slopes within the project area are well-suited to support the proposed CSS restoration/mitigation. For purposes of the environmental review the City is currently conducting to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, the 10.9 acres of high quality CSS revegetation proposed as part of the Project adequately mitigates the impact of removing 17 acres of lower quality CSS habitat. 1 APPENDIX NO. 8 As noted in the May 2016 report, subsequent approvals from the California Department of Fish &Wildlife and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be needed before the project can be constructed because modifications to drainage features subject to the jurisdiction of these agencies is proposed. We noted in the May 2016 report that if either of these agencies requests additional mitigation for CSS impacts, since the amount of onsite mitigation cannot be increased, mitigation credits could be purchased at an approved mitigation bank in the area to provide additional mitigation, if any, that may be identified during the processing of these applications after approval of the project by the City. As these applications cannot be filed until after the project is approved by the City, it cannot be determined at this time if these agencies will require additional mitigation. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Brian E. Holly, Principal 2 APPENDIX NO. 8 References BioResource Consultants, Inc. 2016. Coastal California Focused Survey for the Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA. May, 2016. CDFW[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]. 2018. Aldersgate Senior Living Project in the City of Moorpark, Ventura County, SCH No. 2018021010. Comment Letter to the City of Moorpark. March, 2018. CDFW[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]. 2017. Special animals list, July 2017. California Natural Diversity Database, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. CDFW [California Department of Fish and Wildlife]. 2018. Special plants list, January 2018. California Natural Diversity Database, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. CNDDB [California Natural Diversity Database]. 2017. Rarefind 5 [Internet]: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. July 30, 2017. City of Moorpark Initial Study for the Aldersgate Senior Living Facility. 2018. City of Moorpark, CA. March, 2018. Sawyer, J. 0., T. Keeler-Wolfe, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 3 APPENDIX NO. 8 ] BRC BioResource Consultants Inc. PO Box 1539,Ojai,CA 93023 805.646.9006 May 12, 2016 Attn: Matt Mansi Aldersgate Investment, LLC 300 E Esplanade Drive, Suite 430 Oxnard, California RE: Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Focused Survey for the Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA Dear Matt: Following is a report summarizing findings with respect to a Coastal California Gnatcatcher focused survey that was conducted for the Casey Road Assisted Living Facility project(Project) in Moorpark, CA. INTRODUCTION Arthur Davenport was contracted by BioResource Consultants, Inc. (BRC), to complete a focused survey for the Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (CAGN). Mr. Davenport was the only investigator for this survey (U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit number TE802450-7). The CAGN was listed as a Federal Endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on March 25, 1993 (USFWS 1993). Critical habitat was designated for the CAGN on December 19, 2007 (USFWS 2007). Project Description The Project consists of a proposed multi-faceted assisted living complex comprised of 390 units. These units will cater to the diverse needs of active and non-active seniors. The facility will include assisted, non-assisted and memory care facilities. Project Location and Site Description The Project area is located in Moorpark, Ventura County, California, on the U.S. Geological Survey Moorpark 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Section 4 & 5, T2N, R19W; Sections 32 & 34, T3N, R19W(Figure 1). The Project boundary encompasses 47.5 acres and is comprised of low hills and two arroyos. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 1 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION , . , ilMf-/ ,' „ . 11A7,17 ,c; , O r . - ` 4 ,,, .` `,r eve 1' r . •- ,t' . •.p , 1,110., } icy ;. - . 1 • .. 3 • ' t fr'7,.Ir , f r1114 Project Location { frill** .�3�*:c` `i�{TC. 1_ ,,fir . �. �lr�, of al •` . / Moorpark;- I 144 a. I. 111 ' •Alliiti ,,,,--7.k..,z--, 071!..... :::1911° - aellift, .1' '' r,•'. �.. Nye !` I P • I sc mento Of BRC ,\ Project Location florsco BioResource Consultants Inc. N MaP .4. Location 5„ f I I I Miles °"°° 0 0.25 0.5 1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 2 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. METHODS The survey for CAGN was initiated on March 23, 2015 and was completed on May 7, 2015 by Mr. Arthur Davenport (U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit number TE802450-7). The survey of the entire Project site was repeated six times. Survey passes were conducted weekly unless adverse weather conditions prevented the survey. Surveys were generally initiated around 0730 and completed by 1430 hours. The dates and weather condition of each survey pass are provided below in Table 1. The survey was completed by walking transects located within and along the edges of coastal sage scrub habitat encountered on the Project site; transects were spaced no more than 50 meters (54.6 yards) apart. During the survey, the call of the CAGN was played, followed by a quiet period to listen for the species, and then repeated. Call stations were spaced at approximate 25 meter(27 foot) intervals. The survey methodology followed the survey guidelines provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (UFWS 1997). In order to increase the information regarding spatial use of habitat, multiple observations of each CAGN were recorded and mapped. All bird species observed during surveys were identified (Appendix A). TABLE 1.DATES,TIMES,AND WEATHER CONDITIONS OF EACH CAGN SURVEY. Survey Dates Time(24 Hour) Temperature (F°) Wind Speed (mph) Cloud Cover(%) 23 Mar 2015 0730/1430 60/79 0-2/0-3 0/0 31 Mar 2015 0700/1300 52/75 0-1/1-5 0/0 9 Apr 2015 0730/1030 55/63 0-1/0-1 0/70 23 Apr 2015 0730/1030 55/63 0-3/1-4 0/30 30 Apr 2015 0730/1030 69/82 0/0-2 0/0 7 May 2015 0800/1130 55/61 0-1/0-5 50/70 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 3 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. FIGURE 2:VEGETATION COMMUNITIES FOUND WITHIN PROJECT AREA if, . _ AT I 1 Amp ,.. �' , �. F .. CSS . . .., _ . ,,,,„ ; .,...„.. _;.(w d„ _lb All ,.. . jz/ s: I / NNG ' • 1 T i .•' icy y �_ * " NNG NNG "f� / .. . --;'t ,? ' • • a _ ' r` , I +--UI 8 id• .:, � x u r- j a rIN.e f�1 ' , I it 3E(rl Giga-i5lob I.= ,' ]P ,1n[�E1ftE D:1-- l.. X1,1) ,,,l'E� c-..W. 4 ,, e i ICeINIJ �P• IARK4 C�xxD f;�a5' : - I i l , iB ,EC ft 3M war uc�n�oi m-roN,nliv -,i —, Project Property(48.24 acres) -Disturbed[D](5 70 acres) Project Impact Area(Grading Area 40.55 Acres) Mulefat Thicket[MF] (0.32 acres) Of BRC 1\ _ Arroyo Willow Thicket[AW](034 acres) Non-native Grassland[NNG](12.08 acres) fila Reaaurce Coneultante Inc. —Coastal Sage Scrub[CSS] (21.51 acres) Upland Mustard Semi-herbaceous Stands[UM] (0.27;.,.,,,.., N -Cement Spillway[Cern](0.016 acres) =Wetland[Wet](0.34 acres) I I I I Feet —••- Drainage(1995 feet) 0 100 200 400 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 4 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. RESULTS Coastal sagebrush scrub (Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance) (CSS)was the dominant vegetation type observed within the Project area. Characteristic plants of CSS found in the study area included California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), California brittlebush(Encelia californica), California buckwheat(Eriogonum fasiculatum), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra). The coastal sage scrub was patchily distributed across the Project area (Figure 2). Additionally, the density of coastal sage scrub plants was uneven and varied across the site. Non-native Grassland occurs interspersed and integrating with CSS. Arroyo Willow Thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland alliance), Mulefat Thickets (Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance), Non-Native Annual Grassland and Upland Mustard—Semi Natural Herbaceous Stand occur along the unnamed ephemeral drainage. Two pairs of CAGN were detected during this survey; one west of the Project area(Pair No. 1), and one within the Project area (Pair No. 2) (Figure 3). A total of 46 avian species were observed during this survey (Appendix A). DISCUSSION Two pairs of CAGN were observed during the surveys. The first pair was observed to the west and outside the boundary of the Project area during the first survey pass. The second pair of CAGN was observed on the fifth and sixth survey passes within the Project area. Although the CSS has been disturbed in the past within the Project site, suitable habitat for this species is located throughout the site. In some areas, the habitat was contiguous while in other areas it occurs in small patches. It is important to note that suitable habitat for the CAGN includes more than shrubs associated with CSS. CAGN forage within scrub that occurs on site that is dominated by mule fat, coyote bush, blue elderberry, and patches of annuals such as summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana)in association with coastal CSS. The nesting season territory of the pair observed within the proposed Project area remains unknown. However, most of the CSS located within the proposed Project site is anticipated to be used by this pair and any fledglings produced. Also, because CAGN do not migrate, CAGN are anticipated to use suitable habitat within the proposed Project area on a yearly basis. The observance of another pair of CAGN to the west of the Project indicates that additional CAGN occur in the surrounding patches of coastal CSS. It is unknown at this time how many pairs occur to the west or how large the population of CAGN is within the Moorpark area. Based on a limited review of additional information from the USFWS, CAGN have also been detected approximately two miles east of the Project area (Figure 3). Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 5 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. FIGURE 3:LOCATION OF CAGN PAIRS IN RELATION TO THE PROJECT SITE IN v .9 8 e" q 8ar. /401 / w' t � m y� l -*v-. Wrens ;I _ j(F`l 1 • • r 60 r C3 O r ` - Moor,PaiirU�7.�Jb.,Sw Ca �. "� s. .. . _N I, � G , _�,�ETROLINK- •,-- `-.�• • Ma•rp�rk _ _,,._,••7 aap imam uutut-9 PWndec I. Ave.,• '- - - . •. , .;;43- Id �--':--,t-70 '�- ,,.�--,a Q7lf77-" L41 f — lj- , .' roirh.i = ao ,q . 1 J • CA Gnatcatcher-Pair 1 KLRC.. \\1 • CA Gnatcatcher-Pair 2 N BioResource Consultants Inc. Project Boundary(48.24 acres) I I I I Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 6 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. PROJECT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION The proposed development of the Project site will impact CSS, suitable habitat for CAGN. Permanent impacts will occur due to grading activities, resulting in crushing and removal of individual plant species characteristic of the CSS community. Impacts to CSS will result in a loss of CAGN habitat and could result in indirect impacts to CAGN as this species relies on CSS habitat for foraging and nesting activities. The proposed Project will impact approximately 17.01 acres of CSS habitat. To offset impacts to CSS, onsite mitigation (restoration and habitat enhancement) of up to 10.82 acres of CSS habitat will be implemented (Figure 4). Currently, the habitat at the Project site is fragmented. A goal of the restoration effort will be to create larger contiguous areas of CSS habitat surrounding the development adjacent to offsite CSS habitat. A Project Habitat Conservation Plan will be developed prior to Project construction activities and approved by USFWS. It is anticipated that USFWS could require mitigation for impacts to CSS habitat at a 1:1 ratio. As 10.82 acres of restored habitat will be provided onsite, this would require the purchase of up to 6.91 acres of offsite CSS habitat from a USFWS-approved mitigation bank or conservancy. There are approved mitigation banks in the area with CSS mitigation credits available for purchase. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 7 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. FIGURE 4: PROJECT CSS IMPACT AND MITIGATION AREAS I .• - f ) • _ - ,_ d • •gi . 1" r --,i,_ ---7 Future North H-kms Pac"" , Y. Ad 1--, l ` .rn Air r �' :.11 , t.:24 jt-co .,t,„-. 00y / �•., S N -Lei /// zfitt/ i. 44 447 cf. 4/1 'r...)A I/ li M , , i / / 7,,eat , 4. ,;,,,, f , • #',— *1 , , i. ,)il _ ...,. ,.. o • it / ,� ?,, , /4,.........i / i...:Project Property r'v�► �. ir' M Project Impact Area(Grading Area) -'^ ' . - Existing Coastal Sage Scrub(CSS) /// Coastal Sage Scrub(CSS)Impact Areas: 17.01 Acres . ;, y �= ,jib- Proposed CSS Mitigation Areas: 10.82 Acres 3V OU .I•.i—s .ey .,Cain CV I' IIS, JV -`I . GI'2 UP-at Gammon Wlg Egol.NG�-GSR,ri arfml�I,, PmyI oi.aCre agf.%Gal c ® 1311I1 I I I IFeet Z\ BioResource Consultants Inc. 0 200 400 800 N Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 8 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. CONCLUSION As a result of the presence of CAGN and suitable CSS habitat within the proposed Project area, consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the CDFW will be required prior to implementation of the Project. An incidental take permit, pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, may be required by the USFWS prior to disturbance of habitat within the Project site. USFWS is responsible for issuance of incidental take permits and providing guidance related to these permits. As part of the consultation process, a Habitat Conservation Plan outlining onsite restoration and habitat enhancement will be developed and submitted to USFWS for approval. Please contact me if you have any questions, or require additional information regarding this report. Sincerely, Brian E. Holly Vice President/Senior Ecologist cc: Carl G. Thelander, President/CEO Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 9 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Checklist of North American Birds. 5th ed. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. Garrett, K. & J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California. The Artesian Press, Los Angeles California. Published by the Los Angeles Audubon Society. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Federal Register 58: 16742. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Federal Register 59: 4845. Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and Evens.2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 10 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. APPENDIX A: AVIAN SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN PROJECT AREA Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 11 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. TABLE 2.AVIAN SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT SITE DURING CAGN SURVEYS. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated swift Agetalus phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Aphelocoma californica Western Scrub-jay Buteojamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Callipepla californica California quail Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Calypte costae Costa's Hummingbird Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Chamaea fasciata Wrentit Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow Columba livia Rock Dove Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Corvus corax Common Raven Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler Falco sparverius American Kestrel Geococcyx californianus Greater Roadrunner Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Icterus bullockii Bullock's Oriole Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 12 APPENDIX NO. 8 BioResource Consultants, Inc. Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated Flycatcher Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow Pipilo crissalis California Towhee Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee Piranga ludoviciana Western Tanager Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit Sayoris saya Say's Phoebe Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe Sialia mexicana Western bluebird Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-wing Swallow Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian Collared Dove Sturnus vulgaris European Starling Tachycineta biclor Tree Swallow Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Toxostoma redivivum California Thrasher Turdus migratorius American Robin Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's Kingbird Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's Warbler Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Zonotrichia albicollis White-crowned Sparrow Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project, Moorpark, CA 13 APPENDIX NO. 9 Veneklasen Associates IA, Consultants in Acoustics I AV I IT I Environmental Noise January 16,2014 Aldersgate Investments 300 Esplanade, Suite 430 Oxnard, CA 93036 Attention: Mr.Matt Mansi Subject: Senior Assisted Housing Project-Moorpark,CA Tentative Map 36x48 Acoustical Analysis Report V.A.Project No.4787-002 Dear Mr.Mansi: Per your request and authorization Veneklasen Associates,Inc. (VA)completed a noise analysis study for your subject project located in the City of Moorpark, CA. The project must comply with California Noise Insulation Standard(Title 24)and UBC standard. These regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL. The acoustical analysis is required if the noise levels exceed 60 CNEL. If the noise exposure is below 60 CNEL no analysis is required. The primary source of noise,with potential to impact the site is the traffic on Route 23(Walnut Canyon Road)running in north—south direction to the east of the site. The traffic on Casey Road,to the south portion of the site,is very light and is primarily used for access to the school parking lot. We also reviewed the schematic site plan,including the locations of the structures in the project.No structure in the project will have a direct line of sight to Route 23 due to the intervening terrain between the site and Route 23. A long term noise survey was performed on the east property line of the site for documenting the existing ambient noise levels. Additionally short term measurements were performed at various locations in and around the site. The measured CNEL on the east property line was 59.5. Based on the results of our noise survey we have concluded that the noise levels at all locations in the project are below the threshold of CNEL 60 level,therefore no acoustical analysis is required.The proposed project will be in compliance with all acoustical codes and requirements of Title 24 and UBC. If you have any questions concerning information contained in this report please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Veneklasen Associates,Inc. Hooshang Khosrovani,Ph.D.,P.E. Associate Principal G:AaldersgateAMoorpark\14HK001 1711 Sixteenth Street - Santa Monica California 90404 tel:310.450.1733 fax:310.396.3424 • www.veneklasen.com APPENDIX NO. 10 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR TTM 5505, MOORPARK, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. Matt Mansi Aldersgate Investments 300 Esplanada Drive Suite 430 Oxnard, CA 93036 Prepared by: W & S Consultants 2242 Stinson Street Simi Valley, California 93065 805-581 -3577 12 January 2014 APPENDIX NO. 10 Management Summary An intensive Phase I archaeological survey was conducted for TTM 5505, Moorpark, Ventura County, California. This involved background studies of the prehistory and ethnography of the area; an archival records search of relevant maps, site forms and documents; and an on-foot survey of the subject property. No cultural resources had been recorded within the study area, and none were noted during the intensive survey of it. Development of the property, therefore, does not have the potential to result in adverse impacts to cultural resources. No additional archaeological work is recommended for this property. APPENDIX NO. 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 2 3.0 BACKGROUND STUDIES 2 3.1 Ethnographic Background 2 3.2 Archaeological Background 3 3.3 Historical Background 8 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH 10 5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY 11 6.0 SURVEY RESULTS 11 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 8.0 CITED REFERENCES 12 9.0 FIGURES 16 10.0 APPENDIX A: ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH 17 APPENDIX NO. 10 1 .0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Mr. Matt Mansi, Aldersgate Investments, Oxnard, California, an intensive Phase I archaeological survey was conducted for TTM 5505, Moorpark, Ventura County, California (Figure 1 ). This survey was intended to evaluate any known historical or prehistoric cultural resources lying within this 48.2 acres study area, and to identify, record and assess previously undiscovered archaeological sites. Following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purpose of this investigation was to provide baseline data from which a preliminary assessment of the adverse impacts to any such cultural resources could be made, should this property be developed, and to provide management recommendations for the further study or treatment of any archaeological sites or localities identified within the study area. This study was undertaken by W & S Consultants, and was conducted in December 2013. Joseph M. Simon and Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D., were responsible for the field work and preparation of this manuscript. A series of procedures and studies were conducted in order to adequately inventory and evaluate the cultural resources within the study area at the Phase I level. These included: a review of published reports and studies to establish the aboriginal cultural history of the region in question; an examination of historical reports and sources to outline the history of the study zone; a compilation of existing archaeological site records and files to identify known cultural resources within or adjacent to the study area; and a field survey to assess any such known cultural resources, as well as to identify and evaluate previously unknown or unreported archaeological sites. This report summarizes the findings and conclusions of each of these aspects of the Phase I investigation. We begin with a description of the study area. We then turn to a summary of local cultural history, including both ethnography and prehistory. We also consider the previous archaeological research that has been conducted in inland Ventura County. Subsequently we summarize the results of an archaeological records search, conducted by the staff of the California State University, Fullerton, Archaeological Information Center (AIC). Next we summarize the field procedures we followed in conducting the survey of the study area, and then turn to the results of the field study. We conclude with management recommendations for the study zone. 1 APPENDIX NO. 10 2.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The 48.2 acres TTM 5505 study area is located within the corporate limits of the City of Moorpark, Ventura County, California (Figure 1 ). It consists of a roughly triangular parcel located west and above Walnut Canyon, north of Union High School and the Moorpark civic complex. This places it immediately west of the neighborhood of houses along Highway 23 in Walnut Canyon, on a series of low ridges that form a portion of the much larger Somis Mesa. Elevation within the study area ranges from about 540 feet a.s.l, at the southern end, to approximately 760 feet a.s.I., at the northern limit of the property. A small drainage runs north-south through the central-western side of the study area. 3.0 ETHNOGRAPHIC AND PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND 3. 1 Ethnographic Background The Moorpark region, including the TTM 5505 study area, lies within the territory of the Chumash ethnolinguistic group (Kroeber 1925). These were Hokan speaking people, who occupied the area from Topanga Canyon northwest to approximately San Luis Obispo. Because of their location in an area of early Spanish missionization, Chumash culture and lifeways were heavily disrupted prior to any modern efforts at ethnographic research, hence our knowledge of them is limited. However, based on fragmentary records and various means of inferential and analogical studies, a certain amount can be reconstructed about their way of life. The Chumash followed a hunting-gathering-fishing subsistence pattern, which incorporated a heavy reliance on maritime resources, including pelagic and littoral fishes, and shellfish. Indeed, the bountiful sea resources that they were able to exploit may have been a key factor in their evolutionary success (Landberg 1965): at the time of the arrival of the Spanish they had reached levels of population density, and complexities in social organization, unequaled worldwide by other non-farming groups (Moratto 1984:118). These included permanent coastal villages along the Channel Islands area containing as many as 1000 inhabitants (Brown 1963), as well as a hierarchical sociopolitical organization consisting of at least two major 2 APPENDIX NO. 10 chiefdoms (Whitley and Beaudry 1991 ). Further, based on recent reconstructions using mission registers, the Chumash appear to be have a matrilocal, and perhaps matrilineal, clan-based society (Johnson 1988). It is likely that the study region was a part of a large political body, probably a simple chiefdom, headquartered at Muwu, at modern Point Mugu (Whitley and Clewlow 1979). This was known as Lulapin, a domain whose limits stretched from the southeastern extreme of Chumash territory to just beyond modern Santa Barbara, at Dos Pueblos. According to oral traditions, Lulapin was ruled (and perhaps created) by a lineage of Santa Cruz Islanders; "Chumash", in fact, is a word that means "islander". Its use as the generic name for this Hokan language attests to the importance of island groups throughout the Chumash realm. 3.2 Archaeological Background Regional prehistory is best viewed in reference to a chronological scheme that has its origins in the research of D.B. Rogers (1929), working on the Channel Islands and the Santa Barbara coastline. At a later date, Rogers' scheme was modified in terminology and improved with additional and more detailed data and radiocarbon dates by W.J. Wallace (1955). Modifications have been made subsequently; notably, by King (1981 ) who, using an analogy with Central California chronology, proposed again a different terminology than that suggested by Wallace. However, Wallace's terminology remains intact throughout most of southern California, and easily accommodates recent refinements in the chronology. Wallace's chronology for southern coastal California includes four time periods, the earliest of which (Early Man/Big Game Hunting period) was considered speculative, and thought to correlate with the end of the Pleistocene. It is likely that occupation of the southern California coastal region occurred during this early time period, particularly given that there is growing evidence for Late Pleistocene occupation of the desert portions of California (e.g., Whitley and Dorn 1988, 1993). Currently, the only evidence of such in the coastal zone has been limited to a few discoveries of fluted projectile points, found in isolated locales (e.g., Erlandson et al 1987). However, the characteristic geomorphological instability of the California coastline and Transverse Mountain Ranges, combined with the major change in erosional/degradational regimes that occurred at the end of the 3 APPENDIX NO. 10 Pleistocene, does not favor the preservation of remains from this period in inland/coastal or coastal California proper (cf. Whitley and Dorn 1993). With the transition towards a modern environment, starting approximately 9 to 10 thousand years ago, however, an adaptation referred to as the Early Millingstone period (or Early Horizon) began and is evident in the archaeological record. Most sites of this stage date between 8500 and 3500 years in age, and are dominated by assemblages containing large numbers of groundstone artifacts, along with crude choppers and other core/cobble tools, including the so-called "scraper plane". This assemblage has been thought to represent an adaptation to gathered foods, especially a reliance on hard-shelled seeds. More recently, it has been suggested that scraper planes, in particular, may have served in the processing of agave (Kowta 1969; Sails 1985); that the association of groundstone and core/cobble tools represents a generalized plant processing toolkit, rather than one emphasizing hard-seeds, per se (Whitley 1979a), and one that was used in appropriate environmental settings throughout the prehistoric past. That is, that the so-called early millingstone toolkit is environmentally rather than chronologically specific and reflects localized exploitation patterns, rather than a wide-ranging adaptational strategy (Leonard 1971 ). However, on the coastal strip, per se, there continues to be evidence that at least some such sites date to the earlier end of the time-frame, and are generally located on terraces and mesas, above the coastal verge. Recent studies by Erlandson (1988a; see also Erlandson and Colton 1991 ), further, provide evidence of a significant, even if small, population of coastal hunters-gatherers in the region before 7000 years ago, or at the beginning of the Early Millingstone period. He has shown that these were neither Big Game hunters, nor specialized, hard-seed gatherers, but instead generalized foragers that relied on a variety of different kinds of terrestrial, coastal and marine resources, and that they were adapted to estuarine embayments that have long-since disappeared from the local environment. Further, his evidence indicates that their primary protein sources were shellfish and other marine resources. Extending a pattern first identified by Meighan (1959) on the Channel Islands, in other words, this suggests that the adaptation to the seashore is a very ancient and long-lived tradition in local prehistory. 4 APPENDIX NO. 10 Following the Early Millingstone, a transitional stage, referred to as the Intermediate period (or Middle Horizon), occurred. It is believed to have gotten underway about 4000 to 3500 years ago, and to have lasted until about A.D 1200 (cf. Arnold 1990:112). It is marked on the coast by a growing exploitation of marine resources, the appearance of the hopper mortar and stone bowl/mortar, and a diversification and an increase in the number of chipped stone tools. Projectile points, in particular, are more common at sites than previously, while artifacts such as fish hooks and bone gorges also appear. Further, there is substantial evidence that it was at the early end of this Intermediate period that inland sites, such as those found in the Conejo Corridor on the north side of the Santa Monica Mountains (discussed below), were first established and occupied, suggesting the exploitation of more varied environments and perhaps an increase in population (Whitley and Beaudry 1991 ), as well as a movement of coastal sites down towards the beaches. In general, however, the Intermediate period can be argued to have set the stage for the accelerated changes that took place immediately following it. With the transition to the Late Prehistoric period at approximately A.D. 1200, following the earlier appearance of the bow and arrow (around A.D. 500) which represented a major reduction in the size of projectile points, along with certain changes in bead types, we can correlate local prehistory with Chumash society as described (even if in abbreviated form) by early chroniclers and missionaries. However, this is not to suggest that society was in any way static, for the transition to the Late Prehistoric period was marked by the evolution and eventual dominance of a sophisticated maritime economy. Further, the rise in Chumash social complexity has been shown to have been associated with the development of craft specialization, involving the use of standardized micro-drills to mass produce shell beads on Santa Cruz Island (Arnold 1987). This occurred sometime around A.D. 1200, and resulted in the Lulapin chiefdom noted previously. While Moorpark study area must be viewed within this general prehistoric and ethnohistoric context, it is nonetheless true that the reconstruction of Chumash prehistory and ethnohistory have largely been based on coastal evidence. That is, sites and minor regions inland from the coast obviously vary from those on the coastal strip (lacking, for example, access to coastal and maritime resources) and therefore exhibit not only some differences in 5 APPENDIX NO. 10 terms of general site characteristics and adaptational trajectories, but differences in general chronological parameters too (W and S Consultants 1985; Whitley 1985). The Moorpark region is located in an inland area generally referred to as the Simi Corridor. This comprises part of a series of east-west trending valleys and intervening hill systems lying northward (and therefore inland) of the Santa Monica Mountains and Conejo Corridor. It includes the Simi Valley proper, the Tierra Rejada, Little Simi and the Santa Rosa Valleys, all of which are tributary to the Calleguas Creek drainage. Although little archaeological research in the Simi Valley/Moorpark area and Simi Corridor, as well as the Santa Clara Valley to the north, has been published, the prehistory of this area may be profitably compared to that of the adjacent Conejo Corridor, located immediately to the south, and to the Santa Clara Valley, to the north. Using evidence from the Conejo Corridor and Santa Clara Valley as a model, and unlike the Chumash region in a more general sense, the first indication of aboriginal occupation in this inland area appears to date to the beginning of the Intermediate period, or from about 3500 years B.P. (W & S Consultants 1985:69, 1991 ; Whitley and Beaudry 1991 ). This comprised the initial occupations of a series of what have been termed site complexes. These are agglomerations of small habitation and special purpose sites that are localized in relatively restricted areas (Whitley 1979, 1980, 1985), and are generally associated with springs or other permanent water sources. A series of site complexes have now been identified and studied in the Conejo Corridor region and, although the evidence is less complete for the Santa Clara Valley and the Simi Corridor, they are known to exist in these regions as well. For example, site complexes have been identified in the Tierra Rejada, in upper Happy Camp Canyon, and on the extreme eastern side of the Hidden Creek Ranch, in the Simi Corridor (W & S Consultants 1991 , 1995), while a number are present in the Santa Clara Valley. Almost without fail, each of these complexes contains deposits or components that represent the entire temporal span of inland occupation. As well, there is no clear functional or adaptational differentiation between earlier versus later temporal components of these complexes. That is, even while there is a general tendency towards more complexity in the nature and variability of the tool assemblages towards the present, it is now clear that even some of 6 APPENDIX NO. 10 the earlier temporal components in the region exhibit subsistence emphasizes found in the later components (W & S Consultants 1984). And this is to say that, from the initial occupation of this inland region, a very generalized foraging strategy was followed, not necessarily by every site complex in the area, but certainly by the inland occupation when considered as a whole (ibid; Whitley and Beaudry 1991 ). Thus, not only do we see early occupations exhibiting artifact assemblages that resemble more typically 'later' assemblages, with their heavy emphasis on hunting and hunting tools, but we also see late sites very much appearing like temporally 'earlier' sites, with a dominance of groundstone tools and chopping implements (ibid). The inference that results, consequently, is that the establishment of inland sites some 3500 years ago in inland Ventura County appears to represent an effort to exploit a variety of non-coastal environments, following a number of different subsistence strategies. This point of initial exploitation and occupation may correlate with a shift to the modern climatic regime, which also appears to occur at this time (G. Smith, personal communication, 1990). Regardless of cause, however, it is apparent that it was part of a far western North American-wide expansion in population and settlement (W & S Consultants 1993). Further, it is clear that no single subsistence strategy uniquely characterized any specific time period; instead, a generalized foraging pattern appears to have held for the entirety of the prehistoric occupation of the inland area. Finally, it is worth noting the differences that are appearing between site complex distributions in the Conejo Corridor and the Santa Clara Valley, and the implications these have for the Simi Corridor generally, and the Moorpark region specifically. In The Conejo Corridor, site complex distributions are both relatively dense and surprisingly regularly spaced: generally, they are present every one to 1 .5 km across the entire Conejo Corridor, apparently reflecting the widespread availability of potable water, and the high carrying capacity of the area. In the Santa Clara Valley below approximately Newhall, in contrast, site complexes are restricted to the upper terraces of the river itself, and are tied to permanent streams flowing southwards out of the Los Padres Mountains. That is, they are much more widely-spaced, and are essentially absent in the foothills on the southern side of the valley, all reflecting the limited availability of water in this drier portion of inland coastal southern California. However, a provisional interpretation is that, while the Santa Clara Valley site complexes are less numerous and more 7 APPENDIX NO. 10 widely spaced than those in the Conejo Corridor, they are somewhat larger in size. Again, at a provisional level, it appears that the Moorpark/Simi Valley region is transitional between the densely spaced, smaller complexes characteristic of the Conejo Corridor and the very widely spaced larger complexes of the Santa Clara Valley. This suggests that archaeological sites in the Moorpark area should be localized into a relatively few areas, should show a strong association with natural water sources, and should represent relatively large concentrations of sites. 3.3 Historical Background The Moorpark region, including study area, was originally part of El Rancho Simi land grant (or, more properly, San José de Nuestra Senora de Altagracia y Simi), ceded by the Spanish crown to the Santiago de la Cruz Pico family in 1795 (Havens n.d.; Thompson and West 1883:49, 389) and headquartered at the 'Simi Adobe' (at modern Strathearn Historical Park within the City of Simi Valley). Although now in Ventura County, El Rancho Simi was originally placed under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Mission San Fernando (Cameron 1963:5). Rancho Simi was evidently a successful enterprise until 1842, when it was purchased by Don José de la Guerra y Noriega, who added it to his substantial holdings that were said to stretch from Santa Barbara to San Diego (Thompson and West 1883:44; Sheridan 1926:168). In 1862, this 113,009.21 acres parcel was ceded to Mr. Guerra by the U.S. Land Commission following the war with Mexico, and the property was patented on June 19, 1865 (Sheridan 1926:168; Allen 1987:3). Subsequently the rancho in general served principally for sheep grazing until purchased by eastern investors, involved in oil speculation. Because they failed to find oil, the Simi Land and Water Company was formed under the leadership of Thomas R. Bard, representing Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, in 1887, and an effort was made to sell the land in parcels (Havens n.d.). In 1889, Robert Strathearn purchased 18,000 acres of Rancho Simi, including portions of what are now Moorpark. At that time, the Moorpark area constituted the western limits of the Strathearn Ranch, and thus served for livestock grazing. During the 1850s and 1860s, however, the first settlers moved into the Moorpark region (Cameron 1967:9), apparently on land peripheral to what would be the Strathearn Ranch. Whether these individuals were squatters or not is unclear from existing records, although this is likely. The first 8 APPENDIX NO. 10 recorded subdivision in the area was know as Fremont or Fremontville, which was also sometimes referred to as Little Simi. This was established in 1893 by Robert and Madeline Poindexter. A map, recorded with the County Assessor in April, 1894, shows the study area as one of a series of sub- divided lots along Spring Street (Cameron 1967), probably Lot 61 or 62. Little appears to have resulted from the Poindexter's first attempt to subdivide their property, and it is not clear that any of the laid-out lots were sold at that time. Moorpark proper, meaning the area of the original old town around High Street and the railroad, was subdivided and recorded in 1900, following the reorganization of the Simi Land and Water Company, and the completion of the rail line. The Poindexters were responsible for laying out the new township, including the planting of the California Pepper trees along High Street, and the establishment of a school site (ibid:3, 23), in anticipation of the appearance of the railroad, work for which began in 1899. Robert Poindexter served, at that time, on the board of directors of the Simi Land and Water Company. Another subdivision map was filed by the Pointdexters for the Simi Land and Water Company in November 1900 (ibid). This shows much fewer lots (i.e., bigger properties) that the previous Fremont subdivision. This shows the study area within a property labeled P.M. Green, presumably as the owner. It is not clear, however, whether the study area specifically was developed by Green, or subsequently. By 1901 a rail depot, warehouse, post-office, blacksmith shop, general store and barber shop, however, had been established in Moorpark. In 1905 the school that had formerly stood on Peach Hill in Fremont was moved into town. Shortly thereafter, the Methodist Church that had been built in Epworth was moved to the corner of Walnut and Charles Streets, and the town quickly developed into an important farming community (ibid:24). The Virginia Colony, located to the southeast of downtown Moorpark, developed at about this same time. It was occupied by Hispanic ranch workers, and was named after a female preacher involved in missionary work among the Hispanic population (Triem 1985:113). By 1920, Moorpark had established itself as the apricot center of the county, and its name apparently derives from a variety of this fruit. 9 APPENDIX NO. 10 Moorpark remained a rural farming community into the latter half of this century: in 1957 the population had only reached 2463 people (Cameron 1967:24). However, since that time the town's growth has become increasingly related to the suburban development of the county as a whole. It was incorporated a decade ago and has grown rapidly ever-since. The study area, per se, appears to have been peripheral to the historical development of the region, despite its proximity to High Street and areas of early development. 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH In order to determine both if the 48.2 acres TTM 5505 study area had ever been systematically surveyed by archaeologists, and whether or not prehistoric and/or historical archaeological sites were known to exist on the property, an archaeological records search of the CSUF AIC site files and maps was commissioned. This record search was conducted by the AIC staff. We include a copy of their records search as Appendix A of this report. According to the maps, site records and reports on file at the AIC, no prehistoric or historical archaeological sites had been recorded within the study area. Furthermore, roughly the northern two-thirds of the study area had been surveyed previously. One prehistoric site (56-001574) was found to be located withhin a 1 /8 mile radius of the subject property. Historical maps, consisting of the 1921 and 1941 USGS Piru 15' topographical quadrangles, were also examined in an effort to identify historical structures or features that might have existed on the property. None were found to exist within the study area, although there was development within the general vicinity by 1921 . In addition to these historical maps, we also consulted the Subdivision Map of Fremont (April 1894), and the Subdivision Map of Moorpark (November 1900; Cameron 1967). None of these early maps showed any evidence of development extending into the study area during historical times. 10 APPENDIX NO. 10 5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY An intensive, Phase I archaeological field survey was conducted on the 48.2 acres study area in December 2013. Field procedures involved walking the property in transects spaced at approximately 15 to 20 meter intervals. The groundsurface was examined during these transects to identify archaeological specimens in the form of worked artifacts, or archaeological indicators, which might consist of specimens of shellfish, bone or waste lithic material resulting from the tool-making process. During the survey special attention was paid to geomorphological conditions that affect the preservation of archaeological remains. In particular, rodent backdirt piles were carefully examined inasmuch as they can reveal the presence of buried archaeological deposits. 6.0 SURVEY RESULTS Conditions for the field survey were found to be, in general, very good. The property had burned in the past and, while there was a light covering of grass, surface visibility was excellent. The property was found to be disturbed through previous grading, probably related to agriculture. Ridges had been graded and scraped and the area to the north, in slope, had been terraced, mostly likely for an orchard. No cultural resources of any kind, prehistoric of historical, are present within the study area. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS An intensive Phase I archaeological survey for the TTM 5505 study area, Moorpark, Ventura County, California, was conducted by W & S Consultants. This study involved a literature, maps and records review of the prehistory, history and status of archaeological research in the region, and an intensive 11 APPENDIX NO. 10 on-foot survey of the approximately study area. No cultural resources of any kind were found during this study. Based on this fact, the development of the study area does not have the potential to result in adverse impacts to cultural resources. It is recommended that no additional archaeological work be required on this property. In the unlikely event that cultural resources are uncovered during grading or construction, it is recommended that an archaeologist be contacted to evaluate any such remains. 8.0 CITED REFERENCES Arnold, J. 1987 Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology, 18. 1990 An Archaeological Perspective on the Historic Settlement Pattern of Santa Cruz Island. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12:112-127. Brown, A.K. 1967 The Aboriginal Population of the Santa Barbara Channel. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 69. Berkeley. Cameron, J.S. 1963 Simi Grows 142. Los Angeles, Anderson, Ritchie and Simon. 1967 .Moorpark: Star of the Valley. Los Angeles, Anderson, Ritchie and Simon. Erlandson, J. 1988 C)f Millinastones and Molluscs: The Cultural Ecology of .rlv Holocene Hunter-Gatherers on the California Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSB. Erlandson, J. and R. Colton, editors 1991 Hunters-Gatherers of Early Holocene California Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1 . Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. Erlandson, J., T.G. Cooley and R. Carrico 1987 A Fluted Point Fragment from the southern California Coast: Chronology and Context at CA-SBA-1951 . Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9:120-128. 12 APPENDIX NO. 10 Havens, P. ri.d. Brief History and Description of Rancho Simi. Unpublished manuscript on file, Strathearn Historical Park, Simi. Johnson, J. 1988 Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. PhD dissertation, UCSB. King, C.D. 1981 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Reaion. PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis. Kowta, M. 1969 The Savles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblaae from the C:alon PasInd the Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes.. Publications In Anthropology, 6. University of California, Berkeley. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Landberg, L. 1965 The Chumash Indians of Southern California. Southwest Museum Papers 19. Highland Park. Leonard, N.N., III 1971 Natural and Social Environments of the Santa Monica Mountains (6000 B.C. to 1800 A.D.). Archaeological Survey. Annual Report 13:93-136. UCLA. Meighan, C.W. 1959 The Little Harbor Site, Catalina Island: An Example of Ecological Interpretation in Archaeology. American Antiquity 24:383-405. Moratto, M. 1984 Lafifornia Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Rogers, D.B. 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, California. Sails, R. 1985 The Scraper Plane: A Functional Interpretation. .Journal of_ Field Arcb enloav 12(1 ):99-106. Sheridan, S.N. 1926 History of Ventura County, Volume 1 . Chicago, S.J. Clarke. 13 APPENDIX NO. 10 Thompson, T.H. and A.A. West 1883 History of eta Barbara and Ventura Counties. California. With Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. (reprinted, 1961 , Berkeley, Howell-North). Triem, J.P. 1985 Ventura County: Land of Good Fortune, Chatsworth: Windsor Publications. Wallace, W.J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Louthwestern Jolicnal of Anthropology 11 (3):214-230. W & S Consultants 1984 Archaeological investigations at sites CA-Ven-315, -323, -324, -325, -326 and -327, Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, California. Unpublished manuscript on file, City of Thousand Oaks. 1985 An Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Stafford Road Realignment Corridor, Lake Sherwood, Ventura County, California. Unpublished manuscript on file, County of Ventura. 1991 Phase II Archaeological Test Excavations at CA-VEN-478, - 1038, -1042/H, -1043, -1044, -1045 and -1046, TPM 4687, Ventura County, California. Manuscript on file, Ventura County Planning Department. 1993 Phase II Archaeological Test Excavations and Determination of Site Significance at CA-SBA-1661 , The Hitchcock Ranch Site, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County, California. Manuscript on file, City of Santa Barbara. • 1995 Phase II Test Excavation and Determination of Significance at CA-VEN-508, -1132, -1133, -1134, -1 135, AND -1 136, Moorpark, Ventura County, California. Manuscript on file, City of Moorpark. Whitley, D.S. 1979 A Historical Perspective on the Research at Oak Park. In The Archaeology of Qpk Park. Ventura County., California, Volume 3. Edited by C.W. Clewlow and D.S. Whitley. Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 11 . UCLA. 1980 Shell Beads to Glass Bangles: The Evolution of a Chiefdom in Southern California. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Albuquerque. 1985 Site Types and Settlement Patterns in the Conejo Corridor. Paper presented at the University of California, Davis. Whitley, D.S. and M.P. Beaudry 14 APPENDIX NO. 10 1991 Chiefs on the Coast: Developing Chiefdoms in the Tiquisate Region in Ethnographic Perspective. In The Development of Complex Societies in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. Fowler. CRC Press: Orlando. Whitley, D.S. and C.W. Clewlow, Jr. 1979 The Organizational Structure of the Lulapin and Humaliwo. In The Archaeology of Oak Park. Ventura County. California. Volume III, edited by C.W. Clewlow, Jr. and D.S. Whitley, pp 149-174. UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 11 . Whitley, D.S. and R.I. Dorn 1988 Cation-ratio dating of petroglyphs using PIXE. Nuclei Instruments and Methods in Physics. B:35:410-414. 1993 New Perspective on the Clovis vs Pre-Clovis Debate. American Antinuitx 58:626-647. 15 APPENDIX NO. 10 9.0 FIGURES IT T OF FIGURES 1 - Map of the study area. Base map: USGS MOORPARK 7.5' quadrangle. 16 APPENDIX NO. 10 Mir )._/\,______-----k,f2141Wir iti,,....cv/./ (7-1,9..;07,-Iiii? : W ir- ' ,.,, (\c/!....'...) N17ki fi"2•-•:-.-.: f ? --SW8-5-1 . `$ I ��- --:IN _. .' ,.. , _-- .1 , r v- -,;� � --• -. - fig. -. ._ .- .�. N. A J9041 J , O -- - - 1-` ti LCL, `�N y�.9 4� 85 R � u Ifi �.,n f,-., ;} $`_ ;` -'Ja _:,( +1 fir ..„, ri- ) LIE.,;—.7-.,. r\'-r--1:1-..- A* '-. ." _r) 4 It'?' pli i 1 ‘"i• l , - 1 \ .-_-:-..7-_,..?-i ,/clt, i -it : ,...„. - , -- 1 1. . ' •-• ,..^.--.. • 11".., 1 ;.;,. . ' .2 ))1,..._:.- Ind �" , j" • Ar:'•,.-;-0, ,; f{ 1 �. -/-\\ :_.. kk .. is,.� . ! • -`' t el p �•�_ -41-;.N,., r.; ff, L.,- , Ljpj •,•• ,i, ,iik. ;;,,,,f --.._,,_, (L.," , _-_- rf r� j s4).,i1c. \,, ! J If .. _ ----__,,,-_ ,9 -7:1,1 :' :Orki4m4All . - ----- / , c)ii) ( (6) . /!.1 1141,s44,13\ . 1 1 n i i - - as ,•�-"c3. -`-� , f 1 �.� r i�` �r' -: APPENDIX NO. 10 10.0 APPENDIX A: RECORDS SEARCH 17 APPENDIX NO. 10 South Central Coastal Information Center California State University, Fullerton Department of Anthropology MH-426 800 North State College Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92834-6846 657.278.5395/ FAX 657.278.5542 anthro.fullerton.edu/sccic.html - sccic(afullerton,edu California Historical Resources Information System Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties December 17, 2013 SCCIC #13584.0265 Mr. Joseph Simon W & S Consultants 2242 Stinson St Simi Valley, CA 93065 (805) 581-3577 RE: Records Search for a Phase I archaeological resource survey of TTM 5505 (48.2 ac) in Moorpark, Venture County, California Dear Mr. Simon, As per your request received on December 12, 2013, records search was conducted for the above referenced project. The search includes a review of all recorded archaeological sites within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest (SPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (SHL), the California Register of Historical Resources (CAL REG), the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) listings were reviewed for the above referenced project. The following is a discussion of the findings. Moorpark, CA USGS Z5'Ouadranale MAPPED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: One archaeological site (56-001574) has been identified on our maps within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. No archaeological sites are located within the project site. One site is listed on the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (DOE) list. No isolates have been identified within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. No isolates are located within the project site. MAPPED HISTORIC BUILT-ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES: No above-ground historic resources have been identified on our maps within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. No above-ground historic resources are located within the project site. ADDITIONAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (all other listings) The California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) lists no properties that have been evaluated for historical significance within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. These are APPENDIX NO. 10 additional resources that are listed in the Historic Property Data File and are located either within the project site or within the search radius. The California Point of Historical Interest (SPHI) of the Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, lists no properties within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. The California Historical Landmarks (SHL) of the Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, lists no properties within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. The California Register of Historical Resources (CAL REG) lists no properties within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. These are properties determined to have a National Register of Historic Places Status of 1 or 2, a California Historical Landmark numbering 770 and higher, or a Point of Historical Interest listed after 1/1/1998. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) lists no properties within a 1/8- mile radius of the project site. HISTORIC MAPS: Copies of our historic maps — Piru, CA (1921 & 1941) 15' USGS - are enclosed for your review. PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS: Eleven studies (VN191, VN322, VN557, VN1102, VN1329, VN1548, VN1656, VN1680, VN23114, VN2852*, VN2981) have been conducted within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. Of these, one is located within the project site. There are three additional investigations located on the Moorpark, CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle that are potentially within a 1/8-mile radius of the project site. These reports are not mapped due to insufficient locational information. (* = Located within the project site) Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at 657.278.5395 Monday through Thursday 9:00 am to 3:30 pm. Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the SCCIC number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice. Sincerely, SCCIC Lindsey Noyes Lead Staff Researcher APPENDIX NO. 10 Enclosures: (X) Maps— Moorpark CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle, Piru, CA (1921 & 1941) 15' USGS Quadrangle -- 8 pages (X) Bibliography — 4 pages (X) ALOE — 1 page (X) National Register Status Codes — 1 page (X) Site Records — (56-001574) — 9 pages (X) Invoice #13584.0265 APPENDIX NO. 10 SCCIC Bibliography: TTM 5505 (48.2 ac.) in Moorpark VN-00191 — — Author(s). Lopez, Robert Year: 1979 Title: An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Korwasser Estates,Tract 3271,Moorpark,Ventura County,California (m-2774.3). Affliliation: Robert Lopez,Archaeological Consultant Resources: Quads: MOORPARK,SIMI Pages: Notes: VN-00322 — — Author(s): Lopez,Robert Year: 1979 Title: An Archaeological Reconnaissance of 230+-Acres of Tentative Tract No. 3218,Moorpark,Ventura County, California. Affliliation: Resources: Quads: MOORPARK Pages: Notes: VN-00557 — - - - Author(s): Callison,Sheila Year: 1980 Title: Cultural Resource Survey for Pm-3496 Affliliation: Ventura County Resources: Quads: MOORPARK Pages: Notes: VN-01102 — - — - Author(s): Singer,Clay A. Year: 1977 Title: Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey and Potential Impact Assessment for Thirteen Areas in Southern Ventura County,California Affliliation: ARI Resources: 56-000003,56-000004,56-000005,56-000013, 56-000014,56-000031,56-000032,56-000033,56-000075, 56-000076,56-000077, 56-000087,56-000135, 56-000136,56-000137,56-000138,56-000140,56-000142, 56-000148,56-000149, 56-000150,56-000158, 56-000163,56-000164,56-000165,56-000458,56-000478, 56-000479 Quads: CALABASAS, CAMARILLO,FILLMORE,MATILIJA, MOORPARK, NEWBURY PARK,OJAI, OXNARD, PIRU,SANTA PAULA,SANTA SUSANA, SATICOY,SIMI,THOUSAND OAKS,VENTURA Pages: Notes: Page 1 of 3 12/17/2013 1:52:05 PM APPENDIX NO. 10 SCCIC Bibliography: TIM 5505 (48.2 ac.) in Moorpark VN-01329 Author(s): Whitley, David S.and Joseph M.Simon Year: 1994 Title: Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Levy Specific Plan Study Area, Ventura County,California Affiliation:iation: W&S Consultants Resources: Quads: MOORPARK Pages: Notes: VN-01548 — - — Author(s): Anonymous Year: 1997 Title: Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Moorpark Street Improvements Project Study Area,Ventura County, California Affliliation: W&S Consultants Resources: Quads: MOORPARK Pages: Notes: VN-01656 - -- - Author(s): Home, Stephen Year: 1998 Title: Report of Phase I Archaeological Investigation Westpointe Moorpark Project Tentative Tract No.4620 Moorpark,California Affliliation: Stephen Home Anthropological Consultation Resources: 56-001573 Quads: MOORPARK Pages: Notes: VN-01680 - — — Author(s): Maxon,Patrick O. Year: 1998 Title: Archaeological Test Excavation of CA-VEN-1574 on the Suncal Development,Tentative Tract 5130, Moorpark,Ventura County,California Affliliation: RMVV Paleo Associates, Inc. Resources: 19-001574 Quads: MOORPARK Pages: Notes: Page 2 of 3 12/17/2013 1:52:05 PM APPENDIX NO. 10 SCCIC Bibliography: TTM 5505 (48.2 ac.) in Moorpark VN-02314 -- Author(s): Whitley,David S. and Joseph M.Simon Year: 2003 Title: Phase I Archaeological Survey of Hitch Ranch, Moorpark,Ventura County,California Affliliation: W&S Consultants Resources. Quads: MOORPARK Pages: Notes: VN-02852 - Author(s): Whitley, David S. Year: 2004 Title: Phase I Archaeological Survey for TTM 5505, Moorpark,Ventura County,California Affliliation: W&S Consultants Resources: 56-000671,56-000791, 56-001264,56-001270,56-001573,56-001574 Quads: MOORPARK Pages: 20 Notes: VN-02981 - Author(s): Maxon,Patrick Year: 2008 Title: Moorpark Vistas&North Hills Parkway Extension Archaeology Aftliliation: Chambers Group Resources. 56-000791,56-001574 Quads: MOORPARK,SIMI Pages: 17 Notes: Page 3 of 3 12/17/2013 1:52:06 PM APPENDIX NO. 10 SCCIC Bibliography: Moorpark, CA Quad Unmappables VN-01441 - Author(s): Leonard,Nelson N.III,Paul J.F.Schumacher,Charles F.Bohannon,Thomas F.King,and Joseph L. Chartkoff Year: 1970 Title: Ucas-255 Calleguas Creek Flood Control Survey,Ventura County Afffifiation: UCAS Resources.' 56-000011,56-000D24,56-000071,56-000084,56-000095,56-000096,56-000110,56-000121,56-000167. 56-000174.56-000182,56-000215.56-000225.56-000226,56-000228,56-000243.56-000339 Quads: CAMARILLO, MOORPARK,NEWBURY PARK,POINT MUGU,SANTA SUSANA,SIMI Pages: 38 Notes: Adequate map was not available(see unmappables notebook). UPDATE(2/2013):Mapped to Calleguas and Conejo Creek channels with buffer zone as Other Report VN-01630 Author(s): Unknown Year: 1995 Title: Draft Cultural Resources Report for the Santa Clara River Enhancement and Management Plan Afflifiation: CH2M Hill Resources: Quads: ACTON,AGUA DULCE,FILLMORE,MINT CANYON, MOORPARK,NEWHALL,OXNARD,PIRU,SANTA PAULA,SATICOY.VAL VERDE Pages: 49 Notes: Also LA-4103-removed from unmappable folder,mapped as Other Reports to general Santa Clara river area using aerial photos and USGS boundaries. VN-01886 Author(s). Iverson.Gary Year: 1996 Title: Reconstruct Route 118 Affliliation: California Department of Transportation,District 7 Resources: Quads' SANTA PAULA Pages: Notes: Page 1 of 1 12/17/2013 1:52:46 PM California Historical Resource Status Codes NO. 10 1 Properties listed in the National Register(NR)or the California Register(CR) 10 Contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 15 Individual property fisted in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 1CD Listed in the CR as a contributor to a district or multiple resource property by the SHRC 1CS Listed in the CR as individual property by the SHRC. 1CL Automatically listed in the California Register—Includes State Historical Landmarks 770 and above and Points of Historical Interest nominated after December 1997 and recommended for listing by the SHRC. 2 Properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register(NR)or the California Register(CR) 2B Determined eligible for NR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district in a federal regulatory process. Listed in the CR. 20 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 202 Contributor to a district determined eligible for MR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 2D3 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification.Listed in the CR. 204 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO.Listed in the CR. 25 Individual property determined eligible for NR by the Keeper.Listed in the CR. 252 Individual property determined eligible for NR by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 253 Individual property determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR. 254 Individual property determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO.Listed in the CR. 2C8 Determined eligible for CR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district by the SHRC. 2CD Contributor to a district determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 2C5 Individual property determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 3 Appears eligible for National Register(NR)or California Register(CR)through Survey Evaluation 36 Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 3D Appears eligible for NR as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 3S Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 3C8 Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation. 3CD Appears eligible for CR as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation. 3CS Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 4 Appears eligible for National Register(NR)or California Register(CR)through other evaluation 4CM Master List-State Owned Properties-PRC§5024. 5 Properties Recognized as Historically Significant by Local Government 501 Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally. 5D2 Contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation. 503 Appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. 551 Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 552 Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 553 Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. 58 Locally significant both individually(listed,eligible,or appears eligible)and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated,determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation. 6 Not Eligible for Listing or Designation as specified 6C Determined ineligible for or removed from California Register by SHRC. 6] Landmarks or Points of Interest found ineligible for designation by SHRC. 6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning. 6T Determined ineligible for NR through Part I Tax Certification process. 6U Determined ineligible for MR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. 6W Removed from NR by the Keeper. 6X Determined ineligible for the NR by SHRC or Keeper. 6Y Determined ineligible for MR by consensus through Section 106 process—Not evaluated for CR or Local Listing. 62 Found ineligible for NR,CR or Local designation through survey evaluation. 7 Not Evaluated for National Register(NR)or California Register(CR)or Needs Revaluation 7J Received by OHP for evaluation or action but not yet evaluated. 7K Resubmitted to OHP for action but not reevaluated. 7L State Historical Landmarks 1-769 and Points of Historical Interest designated prior to January 1998—Needs to be reevaluated using current standards. 7M Submitted to OHP but not evaluated-referred to NPS. 7N Needs to be reevaluated(Formerly NR Status Code 4) 7N1 Needs to be reevaluated(Formerly NR 504)—may become eligible for NR w/restoration or when meets other specific conditions. 7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated. 7W Submitted to OHP for action—withdrawn. 12/8/2003 APPENDIX NO. 10 CALIFORNIA OHP • ARCHEOLOGICAL DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY • VENTURA COUNTY R 10:10:08 04-05-12 PAGE 300 SITE-NUMBER. PRIMARY-HUM NRS EVL-DATE PROGRAM REF EVAL OTHER NAMES AND NUMBERS VEN-000031/H 7N1 CA-VEN-31 VEN-000032/H 7N1 CA-VEN-32 VEN-000073/H 7N1 METATE SITE iii VEN-000034/H 7N1 METATE SITE #2 VEN-000087/H 7L 01/01/76 629.0-76-HPF-56-01 MISSION LANDS 74 02/04/75 H0D750204A VEN-000110 1S 05/19/76 NPS-76000538-0000 KPNP CALLEGUAS CREEK SITE 15 05/19/76 76000536 KPNP 25 12/19/85 COE8301038 RJPR VEN-000247 25 02/21/78 USF5770804A KPNP HARDLUCK #4 VEN-000260 2S 02/21/78 U5F5770804A KPNP HARDLUCK #17 2S 02/21/78 65000547 KPNP VEN-000341 25 06/25/76 FHWA760523A KPNP VEN-2266 VEN-2266 VEN-000346/N 7K 01/24/91 HUD890607H TVPR VEN-000361H 6Y USF5940314A PR FS# 05-07-54-0101 VEN-000362 6Y 04/08/94 USFS940314A NDPR VEN-000367 2S 12/16/77 05F5770826A KPNP FSA 05-07-55-0051 23 12/16/77 65000548 ROMP VEN-000368H 25 12/16/77 USFS770826A KPNP FS# 05-07-55-0052 25 12/16/77 65007973 KPNP VEN-000372 7 03/20/80 U8F5800114A KPNP 35 01/11/80 USFS800114A HOPE VEN-000405 7L 01/01/76 629.0-76-HPF-56-02 VEN-000480H 15 07/20/78 78000826 KPNP MISSION SAN BUENAVENTURA - SAN MIGUEL CHAPEL 7L 01/01/76 629.0-76-HPF-56-02 VEN-000520 252 01/23/91 ADOE-56-91-001-000 TVPR FS# 05-07-57-0220 2S2 01/23/91 USFS90I218A TVPR VEN-000522 7.7 07/27/79 L'SF5790727A HBPR FS# 05-07-55-0057 VEN-000523 73 07/27/79 U5F5790727A HBPR FS# 05-07-55-0058 7E91-000524 25 01/28/80 USF$790727A KPNP FS# 05-07-55-0059 VEN-000525 26 01/28/80 U5F5790727A KPNP FSA 05-07-55-0060 VEN-000526 73 07/27/79 USF5790727A HBPR FS# 05-07-55-0061 V£N-0005271-f 73 07/27/79 USF5790727A HBPR FS# 06-07-55-0024 VEN-000615 6Y 10/14/97 ADOE-56-97-001-00 JWPR 6Y 10/14/97 COE970711A JNPR VEN-000616 6Y 10/14/97 COE970711A JWPR 6Y 10/14/97 ADOE-56-97-002-00 JWPR VEN-000633/H 6Y 12/18/95 ADOE-56-95-001-00 CCPR CA-VEN-663 6Y 12/18/95 USN931101A CCPR VEN-000662 292 04/22/09 EUR090416A WEPT YEN-000660 7 03/20/80 USFS800114A KPNP 39 01/11/80 USFS800114A HBPR VEN-000669 7 03/20/80 USFS800114A KPNP 3S 01/11/80 USFS800114A HBPR VEN-000670 7 03/20/80 USFS800114A KPNP 35 01/11/80 USF5800114A HBPR VEN-000765 6Y 01/15/02 ADOS-56-02-001-000 HKPR 6Y 01/15/02 FEMA000822A HKPR VEN-000791 6Y 10/16/08 COE080628A WEPR VEN-000638H 6Y 07/14/04 USF5040621C MMPR FS# 05-07-57-0252, LOS PADRES SEWERLINB VEN-001072/H 15 05/05/76 EPS-76000539-0000 KPNP BURRO FLATS PAINTED CAVE (AND COMMUNITY MILL) VEN-001074 252 06/02/92 FHWA920511A NEW CA-VEN-1074 252 08/06/92 ADOE-56-92-001-00 NOON 252 08/06/92 FHWA920623A NDPR VEN-001239 252 02/13/96 USN960105A NDOR MUGU FISH CAMP 6Y 10/16/00 ,J6,4r:".44.1.0 . SCATTER, TRACT #5130 VEN-Z00001 IS 09/12/79 KPNP FS# 05-07-55-0011 VEN-500002/H 15 05/12/79 79000257 KPNP ANACAPA ISLAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISTRICT VEN-2000048 25 09/12/88 87002111 KPNP S.S. 'WINFIELD SCOTT' SHIPWRECK SITE AND REMAINS VEN-200010 252 04/01/98 USN9609186 JWPR CA-SNI-169 VEN-200011 6Y 04/01/98 U5N9609108 JWPR CA-SNI-170 VEN-100012 612 08/09/10 USN100804A TPPR META-VOLCANIC FLAKES AND SANDSTONE MONO, 5NI-94 APPENDIX NO. 11 Rincon Consultants, Inc. r I II n c O n 180 North Ashwood Avenue I II Ventura, California 93003 805 644 4455 FAX 644 4240 info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com December 31, 2013 Project No. 13-01654 Matt Mansi, Project Manager Aldersgate Investments Email: matt@aldersaateLLC.com GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY Casey Road Senior Community Project Moorpark, California Dear Mr. Mansi: Rincon Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit the attached revised Greenhouse Gas Study for the proposed Casey Road Senior Community project in the City of Moorpark. The proposed project would generate approximately 2,181 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivelant(CO2e) emissions per year. Such emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's recommended threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of AB 32,which requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions (essentially a 25% reduction below 2005 emission levels). Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative GHG emissions and climate change would not be significant. If you have any questions regarding this study or if we can provide you with other environmental consulting services, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS,INC. 919211 14.7„...„44-6 - Matt Maddox Joe Power, AICP Senior Program Manager Principal Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers APPENDIX NO. 11 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project Greenhouse Gas Study rincon December 2013 Environmental c i e n t i s t Planners Engineers APPENDIX NO. 11 Casey Road Senior Community Project Greenhouse Gas Study Prepared for: Aldersgate Investments Matt Mansi, Project Manager Email: matt@aldersgateLLC.com Prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 December 2013 APPENDIX NO. 11 This report is printed on 50% recycled paper with 10% post-consumer content and chlorine free virgin pulp. Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO11 Greenhouse Gas Study Casey Road Senior Community Project Greenhouse Gas Study Table of Contents Page Cover Letter Project Description 1 Setting 1 Overview of Global Climate Change 1 Effects of Global Climate Change 5 Regulatory Setting 7 Climate Change Impact Analysis 10 References 22 List of Table Table 1 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 14 Table 2 Estimated Area Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions 14 Table 3 Estimated Annual Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions 15 Table 4 Estimated Annual Solid Waste Greenhouse Gas Emissions 15 Table 5 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Water Use 16 Table 6 Estimated Annual Mobile Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 16 Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 17 Table 8 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies 19 Table 9 Project Consistency with Applicable Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures 21 Appendices Appendix: Annual Ca1EEMod GHG Model Worksheets/N20 from Mobile Emissions GHG Calculation Worksheet Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study \(-1(i7 a This proposal was printed on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study CASEY ROAD SENIOR COMMUNITY PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY This report is an analysis of the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of the proposed Casey Road Senior Community project located in the city of Moorpark,Ventura County, California. The report has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. under contract to Aldersgate Investments for use by the City of Moorpark, in support of the environmental documentation being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this study is to analyze the proposed project's GHG emissions and the associated impact to global climate change. This study describes global climate change, GHGs, and the current regulatory framework,quantifies GHG emissions for the proposed project,compares forecast emissions to quantitative thresholds, and discusses the project's consistency with applicable mitigation strategies. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located in the City of Moorpark on Casey Road. The site is bounded by residential development and Walnut Canyon Road to the east, vacant land to the north and west, and Casey Road to the south. The site is approximately 48 acres of vacant property. The project would construct approximately 390 senior assisted living residential units. Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 24 months (two years). The project would include efficient features such as energy efficient lighting and appliances, double paned windows and low flow plumbing. Figure 1 on the following page shows the proposed site plan for the project. SETTING Overview of Global Climate Change Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate(such as wind patterns,precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. The term"climate change" is often used interchangeably with the term"global warming,"but"climate change" is preferred to"global warming"because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures.The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental,with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years.The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. Per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007),the understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has led to a high confidence (90% or greater chance) that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures, since the mid-20th century, is likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations (IPCC, 2007). 1 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan •, . ,1 . w-� 0 . Fes,: ! I ----p.m.. • -1 / I n 1 0:t : I';ye., OW,' 4;• ' by Q. 1 �♦�� :.. ,Ott - :''' --- � � A .,, ,,: : ,, c :- \--, i , ., ---z\ _- 1 'r- -' .- #..;: ,,--- ilk i ‘4,41,4 ./rit. r 4 • 8111kt i .. - ., ,.. , ., . ,,:,...,,,.. .• •,,,.• 7..1.;% •,..-- ,,44,.... 17;:. —.#_2 � •, / 1'fip l 111 ,� ' „► '! � ` .' --4 f..• , . r -- 6, — .. ,ps,,,. . --,7i 0 - , -mrz-,.4.,-..,,--: ,.-..: . i ...!. S;,.1 --- .-‘11,•*''''1 ''.--%'131/4 ,„,j , "! -',,--.,.*:*.; 1 t•,' .if): it. i. ,_._ 0. ti -- �.i ,% '� .1—' ` .�yI + y .ya, . . '` . , � k lk, A\4'.... Ail% . '.., tl- , , ",f--) -f.._.1 ... ----,.--- I ' it ..i . . - ' .n ., , . - • :. 'i`/ .rte. w. '. ;,'I/��: . . .. . ,‘,.... s', } ;% ss, 4,' .4# 4Ittt..7 fi;ir ...„.....] „.!,/ !I_ ,_ , L.40,44 ..,... lo t' I ."‘ ' r, -k7SIbe Source:South Coast Engineering Group, 2013. r2 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere.The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide(CO2), methane(CH4),nitrous oxides(N20),fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs) and perfluorocarbons(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride(SF6).Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes,such as oceanic evaporation. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases,CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by- products of fossil fuel combustion,whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs,many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2,include fluorinated gases and sulfur hexafluoride(SF6) (California Environmental Protection Agency [Ca1EPA],2006). Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs).The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas(CO2)is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions,referred to as"carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2E), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a GWP of one. By contrast,methane has a GWP of 21,meaning its global warming effect is 21 times greater than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis(IPCC,1997). The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature.Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHG, Earth's surface would be about 34° C cooler(Ca1EPA,2006). However,it is believed that emissions from human activities,particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation,have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. The following discusses the primary GHGs of concern. Carbon Dioxide The global carbon cycle is made up of large carbon flows and reservoirs. Billions of tons of carbon in the form of CO2 are absorbed by oceans and living biomass (i.e.,sinks) and are emitted to the atmosphere annually through natural processes(i.e., sources).When in equilibrium,carbon fluxes among these various reservoirs are roughly balanced(United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA],April 2012). CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration,with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th Century.Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen approximately 40% since the start of the industrial revolution. The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 parts per million(ppm)to 391 ppm in 2011 (IPCC,2007; Oceanic and Atmospheric Association [NOAA],2010).The average annual CO2 concentration growth rate was larger between 1995 and 2005 (average: 1.9 ppm per year) than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960-2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year), although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates(NOAA,2010). Currently,CO2 represents an estimated 82.8% of total GHG emissions(Department of Energy [DOE] Energy Information Administration [EIA],August 2010). The largest source of CO2,and of overall GHG 3 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study emissions,is fossil fuel combustion. Methane Methane(CH4) is an effective absorber of radiation,though its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is limited to 10 to 12 years. It has a global warming potential(GWP) approximately 21 times that of CO2. Over the last 250 years,the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere has increased by 148 percent(IPCC,2007), although emissions have declined from 1990 levels. Anthropogenic sources of CH4 include enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock,landfills,natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities,coal mining,wastewater treatment, stationary and mobile combustion, and certain industrial processes (U.S. EPA,April 2012). Nitrous Oxide Concentrations of nitrous oxide(N20)began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution and continue to increase at a relatively uniform growth rate(NOAA,2010). N20 is produced by microbial processes in soil and water,including those reactions that occur in fertilizers that contain nitrogen,fossil fuel combustion, and other chemical processes. Use of these fertilizers has increased over the last century. Agricultural soil management and mobile source fossil fuel combustion are the major sources of N20 emissions.The GWP of nitrous oxide is approximately 310 times that of CO2. Fluorinated Gases(HFCS,PFCS and SF6) Fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs),perfluorocarbons(PFCs),and sulfurhexafluoride(SF6),are powerful GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs),hydrochlorofluorocarbons(HCFCs),and halons,which have been regulated since the mid-1980s because of their ozone-destroying potential and are phased out under the Montreal Protocol(1987) and Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Electrical transmission and distribution systems account for most SF6 emissions,while PFC emissions result from semiconductor manufacturing and as a by-product of primary aluminum production. Fluorinated gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities than CO2,CH4,and N20,but these compounds have much higher GWPs. SF6 is the most potent GHG the IPCC has evaluated. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHGs were approximately 40,000 million metric tons (MMT) CO2E in 2004,including ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources,but excluding emissions from land use changes (i.e., deforestation,biomass decay) (IPCC,2007).CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use account for 56.6 percent of the total emissions of 49,000 MMT CO2E (includes land use changes) and CO2 emissions from all sources account for 76.7 percent of the total. Methane emissions account for 14.3 percent of GHGs and N20 emissions account for 7.9 percent(IPCC,2007). Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,821.8 MMT CO2E in 2009(U.S. EPA,April 2012). Total U.S. emissions have increased by 10.5 percent since 1990;emissions rose by 3.2 percent from 2009 to 2010(U.S. EPA,April 2012).This increase was primarily due to (1) an increase in economic output resulting in an increase in energy consumption across all sectors; and(2)warmer summer 4 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study conditions resulting in an increase in electricity demand for air conditioning. Since 1990,U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent. In 2010,the transportation and industrial end-use sectors accounted for 32 percent and 26 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion,respectively. Meanwhile,the residential and commercial end-use sectors accounted for 22 percent and 19 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion,respectively (U.S. EPA,April 2012). Based upon the California Air Resources Board(ARB)California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2009(ARB,October 2011),California produced 453 MMT CO2E in 2009.Transportation generates 38 percent of the state's total GHG emissions. Electricity consumption is the second largest source, generating 23 percent of the state's GHG emissions (ARB,October 2012).California emissions are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, per capita GHG emissions are actually lower than in many other states.One factor that reduces California's per capita fuel use and GHG emissions,as compared to other states,is its relatively mild climate. The ARB has projected that statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020 will be 507 MMT CO2E (ARB,April 2012). This projection represents the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions. Effects of Global Climate Change Globally,climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Scientists have projected that the average global surface temperature could rise by 1.0-4.5°F (0.6- 2.5°C) in the next 50 years, and the increase may be as high as 2.2-10°F(1.4-5.8°C) in the next century. In addition to these projections, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic (IPCC, 2007). According to the Ca1EPA's 2010 Climate Action Team Biennial Report,potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (Ca1EPA, April 2010). Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change. Sea Level Rise According to The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast, prepared by the California Climate Change Center (CCCC) (May 2009), climate change has the potential to induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century. The rising sea level increases the likelihood and risk of flooding. The study identifies a sea level rise on the California coast over the past century of approximately eight inches. Based on the results of various global climate change models, sea level rise is expected to continue. The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (December 2009) estimates a sea level rise of up to 55 inches by the end of this century. Air Quality Higher temperatures,which are conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone,but the 5 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions,the potential for large wildfires could increase,which, in turn,would further worsen air quality. However,if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thereby ameliorating the pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state (CEC March, 2009). Water Supply Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future water supplies in California. However, the average early spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada decreased by about 10 percent during the last century, a loss of 1.5 million acre-feet of snowpack storage. During the same period, sea level rose eight inches along California's coast. California's temperature has risen 1°F, mostly at night and during the winter,with higher elevations experiencing the highest increase. Many southern California cities have experienced their lowest recorded annual precipitation twice within the past decade. In a span of two years, Los Angeles experienced both its driest and wettest years on record (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2008; CCCC, May 2009). This uncertainty complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply by accumulating snow during wet winters and releasing it slowly when it is needed during dry springs and summers. Based upon historical data and modeling DWR projects that the Sierra snowpack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction from its historic average by 2050. Climate change is also anticipated to bring warmer storms that result in less snowfall at lower elevations, reducing the total snowpack(DWR, 2008). Hydrology As discussed above, climate change could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall, rainfall, and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. Sea level rise may be a product of climate change through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans warm and melting of ice over land. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could jeopardize California's water supply due to salt water intrusion. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events. Agriculture California has a$30 billion agricultural industry that produces half of the country's fruits and vegetables. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail,water demand could 6 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study increase; crop-yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply; and greater air pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes,bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (CCCC, 2006). Ecosystems and Wildlife Climate change and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists project that the average global surface temperature could rise by 1.0-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next 50 years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century,with substantial regional variation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic range; (3) species' composition within communities; and(4) ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan, 2004; Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith, 2004). Local Effects of Climate Change While the above discussion identifies the possible effects of climate change at a global and potentially statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict with a similar degree of accuracy what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. In general, regional and local predictions are made based on downscaling statewide models (Ca1EPA, April 2010). Regulatory Setting The following regulations address both climate change and GHG emissions. International Regulations The United States is, and has been, a participant in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since it was produced by the United Nations in 1992. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the objective of, "stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." This is generally understood to be achieved by stabilizing global GHG concentrations between 350 and 400 ppm, in order to limit the global average temperature increases between 2 and 2.4°C above pre-industrial levels (IPCC 2007). The UNFCC itself does not set limits on GHG emissions for individual countries or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the treaty provides for updates, called"protocols," that would identify mandatory emissions limits. Five years later, the UNFCC brought nations together again to draft the Kyoto Protocol (1997). The Kyoto Protocol established commitments for industrialized nations to reduce their collective emissions of six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N20,SF6, HFCs, and PFCs) to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol,but Congress has not ratified it and the United States has not bound itself to the Protocol's commitments (UNFCCC, 2007). The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ended in 2012. Governments, including 38 industrialized countries, agreed to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol beginning January 1, 2013 and ending either on December 31, 2017 or December 31, 7 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study 2020, to be decided by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its seventeenth session (UNFCCC, November 2011). In Durban (17th session of the Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa, December 2011), governments decided to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible,but not later than 2015. Work will begin on this immediately under a new group called the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. Progress was also made regarding the creation of a Green Climate Fund (GCF) for which a management framework was adopted (UNFCCC, December 2011; United Nations, September 2012). Federal Regulations The United States is currently using a voluntary and incentive-based approach toward emissions reductions in lieu of the Kyoto Protocol's mandatory framework. The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency research and development coordination effort (led by the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce) that is charged with carrying out the President's National Climate Change Technology Initiative (U.S. EPA, December 2007). However, the voluntary approach to address climate change and GHG emissions is changing. The United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120)held that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines, and requires annual reporting of emissions. The first annual reports for these sources were due in March 2011. On May 13, 2010,the U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule that took effect on January 2, 2011, setting a threshold of 75,000 million tons (MT) CO2E per year for GHG emissions. New and existing industrial facilities that meet or exceed that threshold will require a permit. On November 10, 2010, the U.S. EPA published the"PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases." The U.S. EPA's guidance document is directed at state agencies responsible for air pollution permits under the Federal Clean Air Act to help them understand how to implement GHG reduction requirements while mitigating costs for industry. It is expected that most states will use the U.S. EPA's new guidelines when processing new air pollution permits for power plants, oil refineries, cement manufacturing, and other large pollution point sources. On January 2, 2011, the U.S. EPA implemented the first phase of the Tailoring Rule for GHG emissions Title V Permitting. Under the first phase of the Tailoring Rule, all new sources of emissions are subject to GHG Title V permitting if they are otherwise subject to Title V for another air pollutant and they emit at least 75,000 MT CO2E per year. Under Phase 1,no sources were required to obtain a Title V permit solely due to GHG emissions. Phase 2 of the Tailoring Rule went into effect July 1, 2011. At that time new sources were subject to GHG Title V permitting if the source emits 100,000 MT CO2E per year, or they are otherwise subject to Title V permitting for another pollutant and emit at least 75,000 MT CO2E per year. 8 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study California Regulations Assembly Bill(AB) 1493 (2002), referred to as"Pavley," requires ARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve"the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles." On June 30, 2009, EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II,which is now referred to as"LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG" will cover 2017 to 2025. Fleet average emission standards would reach 22 percent reduction by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016. In 2005, former Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order(EO)S-3-05,establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. EO S-3-05 provides that by 2010,emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels;by 2020,emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050,emissions shall be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels (CaIEPA,2006). In response to EO S-3-05, CaIEPA created the Climate Action Team(CAT),which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the"2006 CAT Report") (CaIEPA, 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels,increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, etc. California's major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the"California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006," signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15% reduction below 2005 emission levels;the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires ARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. After completing a comprehensive review and update process,the ARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2E. The Scoping Plan was approved by ARB on December 11, 2008, and includes measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency,water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. The Scoping Plan includes a range of GHG reduction actions that may include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms. Executive Order S-01-07 was enacted on January 18,2007. The order mandates establishment of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard ("LCFS") for transportation fuels to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. Senate Bill(SB)97, signed in August 2007,acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in CEQA documents. In March 2010,the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of 9 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study GHGs and climate change impacts. ARB Resolution 07-54 establishes 25,000 metric tons of GHG emissions as the threshold for identifying the largest stationary emission sources in California for purposes of requiring the annual reporting of emissions. This threshold is just over 0.005 percent of California's total inventory of GHG emissions for 2004. SB 375, signed in August 2008,enhances the State's ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing ARB to develop regional GHG gas emission reduction targets to be achieved from vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state's 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a"sustainable communities strategy" (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23,2010, ARB adopted final regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. In April 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 2X requiring California to generate 33% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020. For more information on the Senate and Assembly bills, Executive Orders, and reports discussed above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites:www.climatechange.ca.gov and http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm. California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. As noted previously, the adopted State CEQA Guidelines provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents,while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.To date, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District(SLOAPCD), and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District(SJVAPCD)have adopted quantitative significance thresholds for GHGs. The SCAQMD threshold,which was adopted in December 2008, considers emissions of over 10,000 metric tons CO2e/year to be significant. However, the SCAQMD's threshold applies only to stationary sources and is expressly intended to apply only when the SCAQMD is the CEQA lead agency. Although not formally adopted, the SCAQMD recommends a quantitative threshold for all land use types of 3,000 metric tons CO2e/year (SCAQMD, "Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds-Option 1", September 2010). The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District(VCAPCD) has not adopted a GHG threshold. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ANALYSIS The CEQA Guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the proposed project. As described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, a lead agency shall have discretion to determine,in the context of a particular project,whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to 10 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use;and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. Further, a lead agency should consider the following factors, among others,when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) JNhether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project. (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions.If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to global climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project's contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan). However,because neither the VCAPCD nor the City of Moorpark ha not adopted GHG emissions thresholds that apply to land use projects, the proposed project is evaluated based on the SCAQMD's recommended/preferred option threshold for all land use types, including residential uses, of 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year (SCAQMD, "Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds -Option 1", September 2010). According to the report Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance Options for Land Use Development Projects in Ventura County dated September 2011,Ventura County will, "Unless directed otherwise, District staff will continue to evaluate and develop suitable interim GHG threshold options for Ventura County with preference for GHG threshold consistency with the South Coast AQMD and the SCAG region" (VCAPCD, 2011). In addition, in order to determine whether or not the proposed project's GHG emissions are"cumulatively considerable," this analysis evaluates the project's consistency with applicable greenhouse gas emissions reductions strategies under the second significance threshold discussed above. 11 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Methodology This analysis is based on the methodologies recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] (January 2008) CEQA and Climate Change white paper. The analysis focuses on CO2, N20,and CH4 as these are the GHG emissions that onsite development would generate in the largest quantities. Fluorinated gases,such as HFCs,PFCs, and SF6,were also considered for the analysis. However,the project is a residential development; therefore,the quantity of fluorinated gases would not be significant since fluorinated gases are primarily associated with industrial processes. Calculations were based on the methodologies discussed in the CAPCOA white paper(January 2008) and included the use of the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol(January 2009). This analysis calculates GHG emissions by quantifying the project's amenities and design features and also takes into account current state and federal measures that are intended to reduce GHG emissions. State and federal measures that are built into the emissions model calculation include Title 24 Energy Standards,Pavley(Clean Car Standards) and Low Carbon Fuel Standards. Construction Emissions Construction of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, primarily due to the operation of construction equipment and truck trips. Project construction was estimated to be completed within approximately 24 months. For this analysis, it was assumed that construction would commence in January 2014 and would be completed at the end of December in 2015. Emissions associated with the construction period were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model(CaIEEMod),based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that would be used onsite at one time. Complete CaIEEMod results and assumptions can be viewed in the Appendix. Although construction activity is addressed in this analysis,CAPCOA does not discuss whether any of the suggested threshold approaches (as discussed below in GHG Cumulative Significance) adequately address impacts from temporary construction activity. As stated in the CEQA and Climate Change white paper,"more study is needed to make this assessment or to develop separate thresholds for construction activity" (CAPCOA,2008). Nevertheless,the SCAQMD has recommended amortizing construction-related emissions over a 30-year period in conjunction with the proposed project's operational emissions. Indirect Emissions Emissions associated with area sources including consumer products, landscape maintenance, hearth, and architectural coating were calculated in CaIEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from ARB, USEPA, and district supplied emission factor values (CaIEEMod User Guide, 2011). Operational emissions from electricity and natural gas use associated with the proposed project were estimated using CaIEEMod(see Appendix for calculations). The default values on which CaIEEMod are based include the California Energy Commission(CEC) sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey(CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey(RASS) studies. CaIEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N20 and CH4. This methodology is considered reasonable and reliable for use,as it has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and private stakeholders,and in particular by the CEC. It is also recommended by CAPCOA(January 12 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study 2008). Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CaIEEMod and are based on the IPCC's methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste(CaIEEMod User Guide,2011).Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery(CalRecycle). Emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CaIEEMod were based on the default electricity intensity is from the CEC's 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for Northern and Southern California. Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Emissions of CO2 and CH4 from transportation sources were quantified using CaIEEMod. Because CaIEEMod does not calculate N20 emissions from mobile sources, N20 emissions were quantified using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol(January 2009) direct emissions factors for mobile combustion(see Appendix for calculations). Total daily trips for the residential project were based on ITE rates built into CaIEEMod for assisted living residential units and were extrapolated to derive total annual mileage in CaIEEMod. Emission rates for N20 emissions were based on the vehicle mix output generated by CaIEEMod and the emission factors found in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol. One of the limitations to a quantitative analysis is that emission models, such as CaIEEMod, evaluate aggregate emissions and do not demonstrate,with respect to a global impact,what proportion of these emissions are"new" emissions, specifically attributable to the project in question. For most projects,the main contribution of GHG emissions is from motor vehicles and the total vehicle miles traveled(VMT),but the quantity of these emissions appropriately characterized as"new" is uncertain. Traffic associated with a project may be relocated trips from other locales, and consequently,may result in either higher or lower net VMT. For the proposed project analyzed in this report,it is likely that some of the GHG emissions associated with traffic and energy demand would be truly"new" emissions. However,it is also likely that some of the emissions represent diversion of emissions from other locations. Thus, although GHG emissions are associated with onsite development,it is not possible to discern how much diversion is occurring or what fraction of those emissions represents global increases. In the absence of information regarding the different types of trips,the VMT estimate generated by CaIEEMod, which assumes that all trips are new,is used as a conservative,"worst-case" estimate. Estimate of GHG Emissions Construction Emissions Construction activity is assumed to occur over a period of approximately 24 months. Based on CaIEEMod results, construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 1184.02 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e) units (as shown in Table 1). Amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of the project), construction of the proposed project would generate about 39.47 metric tons of CO2e per year. 13 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Table 1 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Year Annual Unmitigated Emissions (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent(CO2e) 2014 715.88 metric tons 2015 468.14 metric tons Total 1184.02 metric tons Amortized over 30 years 39.47 metric tons per year See Appendix for CaIEEMod Results. Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions. Area Source Emissions The Ca1EEMod model was used to calculate direct sources of air emissions located at the project site. This includes hearths/fireplaces,consumer product use, and landscape maintenance equipment. The project would involve residential units,which do not typically have large rates of emissions associated with consumer products; therefore, emissions from the proposed project associated with consumer products would be negligible (0 metric tons per year). As shown in Table 2, area sources would generate about 5 metric tons CO2e per year. Table 2 Estimated Area Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Annual Unmitigated Emissions (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent(CO2e) Landscaping 4.83 metric tons Source: See Appendix for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions. Energy Use Operation of onsite development would consume both electricity and natural gas (see Appendix for calculations). The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels typically yields CO2, and to a smaller extent, N20 and CH4. As discussed above, annual electricity and natural gas emissions can be calculated using default values from the CEC sponsored CEUS and RASS studies which are built into Ca1EEMod. As shown in Table 3, electricity consumption associated with the project would generate approximately 390 metric tons of CO2e per year. Natural gas use would generate approximately 180 metric tons of CO2e per year. Thus, overall energy use at the project site would generate approximately 570 metric tons of CO2e per year. 14 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Table 3 Estimated Annual Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Annual Unmitigated Emissions (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent(CO2e) Electricity 1 389.78 metric tons Natural Gas1 180.36 metric tons Total 570.14 metric tons Source: See Appendix for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions. Solid Waste Emissions For solid waste generated onsite, it is anticipated that the project would generate approximately 356 metric tons of solid waste per year according to Ca1EEMod output. As shown in Table 4, based on this estimate, the project would generate approximately 162 metric tons of CO2e per year. Table 4 Estimated Annual Solid Waste Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Annual Unmitigated Emissions (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent(CO2e) Solid Waste 161.90 metric tons Source: See Appendix for calculations and GHG emission factor assumptions. Water Use Emissions It is anticipated that the project would use approximately 25.4 million gallons of water per year. Based on the amount of electricity generated in order to supply this amount of water, as shown in Table 5, the project would generate approximately 178 metric tons of CO2e per year. 15 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Table 5 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Water Use Emission Source Annual Unmitigated Emissions (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent(CO2e) Water Use 177.69 metric tons Source: See Appendix for calculations and GHG emission factor assumptions. Transportation Emissions Mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the average daily trips derived from the traffic analysis prepared by LLG Engineers and by the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimated in Ca1EEMod. Based on the Ca1EEMod estimate, onsite development would generate approximately 2,823,308 annul VMT. Table 6 shows the estimated mobile emissions of GHGs for the project based on the estimated annual VMT. As noted above, Ca1EEMod does not calculate N20 emissions related to mobile sources. As such, N20 emissions were calculated based on the project's VMT using calculation methods provided by the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (January 2009). As shown in Table 6 below, the project would generate approximately 1,227 metric tons of CO2e units associated with mobile emissions. Table 6 Estimated Annual Mobile Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Unmitigated Emissions (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent(CO2e) Mobile Emissions(CO2&CH4)1 1154.12 metric tons Mobile Emissions(N20)2 72.77 metric tons Total 1,226.89 metric tons Source: 'See Appendix for calculations in CaIEEMod Model output. 2 See Appendix for calculations according to California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1,January 2009,page 30-35. Combined Construction,Stationary and Mobile Source Emissions Table 7 combines the construction, operational and mobile GHG emissions associated with onsite development for the proposed project. Construction emissions associated with construction activity (approximately 1184 metric tons CO2e) are amortized over 30 years (the 16 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study anticipated life of the project). Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Unmitigated Emissions Construction 39.47 metric tons CO2e Operational Area 4.83 metric tons CO2e Energy 570.14 metric tons CO2e Solid Waste 161.90 metric tons CO2e Water 177.69 metric tons CO2e Mobile 1,226.89 metric tons CO2e Total 2,180.92 metric tons CO2e Sources: See Appendix for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions. For the proposed project,the combined annual emissions would total approximately 2,181 metric tons per year in CO2e units. The majority of the project's GHG emissions are associated with vehicular travel (56%). As noted above, mobile emissions are in part a redirection of existing travel to other locations, and so are already a part of the total California GHG emissions. GHG Cumulative Significance As noted above,neither the VCAPCD nor City of Moorpark have adopted formal GHG emissions thresholds that apply to land use projects and at this point. Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated based on the SCAQMD's recommended/preferred option threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year for all land use types (SCAQMD, "Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds -Option 1", September 2010). As discussed above, total GHG emissions would be approximately 2,181 metric tons CO2e per year. Although development facilitated by proposed project would generate additional GHG emissions beyond existing conditions, the total amount of GHG emissions would be lower than the 3,000 metric tons per year threshold; therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant. Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans and Policies Senate Bill 375, signed in August 2008, requires the inclusion of sustainable communities' strategies (SCS) in regional transportation plans (RTPs) for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. In April 2012,the South Coast Association of Government(SCAG) adopted the 2012- 2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy(RTP/SCS). SCAG's RTP/SCS includes a commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources by promoting compact and infill development in order to comply with SB 375. A goal of the SCS is to"promote the development of better places to live and work through measures that encourage more compact development, varied housing options,bike and pedestrian improvements, and efficient transportation infrastructure." The proposed project would provide senior housing within 0.5 17 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study miles of public transportation and commercial and recreation activities in the City of Moorpark, thereby reducing vehicle trips. Therefore,it would be consistent with this goal. Another goal of the SCS is to"create more compact neighborhoods and plac[e] everyday destinations closer to homes and closer to one another." The proposed project would provide residences in close proximity to various commercial and retail opportunities (providing both services and potential job opportunities within walking distance of the project), thereby meeting this SCS goal. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was issued by the Governor in June 2005. EO S-3-05 sets a GHG emission reduction target of 1990 levels by 2020. Assembly Bill 32, the"California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006," was signed into law in the fall of 2006. This bill also requires achievement of a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions by 2020 (essentially a 25% reduction below 2005 emission levels) and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. In response to EO S-3-05, Ca1EPA created the Climate Action Team(CAT),which in March 2006, published the Climate Action Team Report (CAT Report) (Ca1EPA, 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/ infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, etc. In addition,in 2008 the California Attorney General published"The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level" (Office of the California Attorney General, Global Warming Measures Updated May 21, 2008). This document provides information that may be helpful to local agencies in carrying out their duties under CEQA as they relate to global warming. Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts of a project. Tables 8 and 9 illustrate that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable GHG reduction strategies set forth by the 2006 CAT Report as well as the 2008 Attorney General's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. 18 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Table 8 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy I Project Consistency California Air Resources Board Vehicle Climate Change Standards Consistent AB 1493(Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt The vehicles that travel to and from the project site regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost- on public roadways would be in compliance with effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by ARB vehicle standards that are in effect at the time passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were of vehicle purchase. adopted by the ARB in September 2004. Diesel Anti-Idling Consistent The ARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled Current State law restricts diesel truck idling to five commercial motor vehicle idling in July 2004. minutes or less. Diesel trucks operating from and making deliveries to the project site are subject to this state-wide law. In addition,vehicles hauling imported material on-site would not idle at the site,those vehicles would drop-off the materials imported to the site and then leave the site. Hydro fluorocarbon Reduction Consistent 1)Ban retail sale of HFC in small cans. This strategy applies to consumer products. All 2)Require that only low GWP refrigerants be used in new applicable products would be required to comply vehicular systems. with the regulations that are in effect at the time of 3)Adopt specifications for new commercial refrigeration. manufacture. 4)Add refrigerant leak-tightness to the pass criteria for vehicular inspection and maintenance programs. 5)Enforce federal ban on releasing HFCs. Alternative Fuels:Biodiesel Blends Consistent ARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1 to Diesel vehicles such as delivery trucks that travel 4%biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. to and from the project site on public roadways could utilize this fuel once it is commercially available. Alternative Fuels:Ethanol Consistent Increased use of E-85 fuel. Residents and visitors at the project site could choose to purchase flex-fuel vehicles and utilize this fuel once it is commercially available regionally and locally. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures Consistent Increased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles Heavy-duty vehicles for the exported material and an education program for the heavy duty vehicle hauling activities that travel to and from the project sector. site on public roadways would be subject to all applicable ARB efficiency standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle manufacture. Achieve 50%Statewide Recycling Goal Consistent Achieving the State's 50%waste diversion mandate as The City of Moorpark Waste Management established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of Department is responsible for complying with AB 1989, (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989),will 939. It is anticipated that the proposed project reduce climate change emissions associated with energy would participate in the City's waste diversion intensive material extraction and production as well as programs and would similarly divert at least 50% methane emission from landfills. A diversion rate of 52% of its solid waste. The project would include a has been achieved on a statewide basis. waste plan that would implement recycling bins/ containers for residents. The project would also be subject to all applicable State and County requirements for solid waste reduction as they change in the future. 19 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Table 8 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy I Project Consistency Department of Water Resources Water Use Efficiency Consistent Approximately 19%of all electricity, 30%of all natural gas, The proposed project would include water saving and 88 million gallons of diesel are used to convey, treat, features such as providing a landscape palette distribute and use water and wastewater. Increasing the that includes drought tolerant/low water use efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would species and providing low flow plumbing fixtures. reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Commission (CEC) Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Consistent Progress The proposed project would involve physical Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the CEC to development that would need to comply with the adopt and periodically update its building energy efficiency standards of Title 24 that are in effect at the time standards (that apply to newly constructed buildings and of development. additions to and alterations to existing buildings). Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Consistent Progress Under State law, appliances that are purchased for Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy the project-both pre-and post-development— Commission to adopt and periodically update its appliance would be consistent with energy efficiency energy efficiency standards (that apply to devices and standards that are in effect at the time of equipment using energy that are sold or offered for sale in manufacture. California). Fuel-Efficient Replacement Tires &Inflation Programs Consistent State legislation established a statewide program to Residents at and visitors to the project site could encourage the production and use of more efficient tires. purchase tires for their vehicles that comply with state programs for increased fuel efficiency. Alternative Fuels:Non-Petroleum Fuels Consistent Increasing the use of non-petroleum fuels in California's Residents and visitors of the project site could transportation sector, as recommended as recommended purchase alternative fuel vehicles and utilize these in the CEC's 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy fuels once they are commercially available Reports. regionally and locally. Green Buildings Initiative Consistent Green Building Executive Order, S-20-04(CA 2004), sets The proposed project would involve physical a goal of reducing energy use in public and private development that would need to comply with the buildings by 20% by the year 2015, as compared with standards of Title 24 that are in effect at the time 2003 levels. The Executive Order and related action plan of development. spell out specific actions state agencies are to take with state-owned and -leased buildings. The order and plan also discuss various strategies and incentives to encourage private building owners and operators to achieve the 20%target. Business,Transportation and Housing Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Consistent Systems(ITS) The proposed project is close proximity(within 0.5 Smart land use strategies encourage jobs/housing miles)to a regional shopping center which could proximity, promote transit-oriented development, and provide both retail services and potential job encourage high-density residential/commercial opportunities for project residents. In addition,the development along transit corridors. project site is located near(0.5 miles)the Moorpark Metro Link Station. 20 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Table 9 Project Consistency with Applicable Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures Strategy I Project Consistency Transportation-Related Emissions Diesel Anti-Idling Consistent Set specific limits on idling time for Currently, the California Air Resources Board's (ARB) commercial vehicles, including delivery Airborne Toxic Control Measure(ATCM)to Limit Diesel- vehicles. Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling restricts diesel truck idling to five minutes or less. Diesel trucks making deliveries to the project site are subject to this state-wide law. In addition, vehicles hauling exported material off-site would not idle at the site; instead, those vehicles would pick-up the materials and leave the site. Solid Waste and Energy Emissions Solid Waste Reduction Strategy Consistent Project construction shall require reuse and The proposed project would be required to comply with the recycling of construction and demolition 50%waste diversion mandate, as required by the Integrated waste. Waste Management Act of 1989. In addition, as a multifamily housing development, the project would also be required to adopt recycling practices consistent with AB 341,which is designed to help meet California's recycling goal of 75% by the year 2020. This law requires California commercial enterprises and public entities that generate four or more cubic yards per week of waste, and multi-family housing complexes with five or more units, to adopt recycling practices. Recycling services would be provided onsite. Water Use Efficiency Consistent Require measures that reduce the amount of The proposed project would include water saving features water sent to the sewer system—see such as providing a landscape palette that includes drought examples in CAT standard above. (Reduction tolerant/low water use species and providing low flow in water volume sent to the sewer system plumbing fixtures. These features would reduce the amount of means less water has to be treated and water sent to the sewer system. pumped to the end user, thereby saving energy. Land Use Measures,Smart Growth Strategies and Carbon Offsets Smart Land Use and Intelligent Consistent Transportation Systems The proposed project is close proximity(within 0.5 miles)to a Require pedestrian-only streets and plazas regional shopping center which could provide both retail within the project site and destinations that services and potential job opportunities for project residents may be reached conveniently by public and can be reached by walking or bicycling. The Moorpark transportation, walking or bicycling. metrolink station is also within 0.5 miles of the project. Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions. However, as indicated above in Table 7, the increase of GHG emissions would be approximately 2,181 metric tons CO2e per year,which is below the suggested threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year. In addition, as indicated above, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable plans and policies related to reducing GHG emissions. Therefore,the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and would be consistent with the objectives of AB 32, EO S-3-05, SB 375, and SB 97. 21 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study REFERENCES Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. June 29, 2007. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August 2010. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions,Version 3.1,January 2009. California Climate Change Center. Climate Scenarios for California. 2006. California Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California's Water Resources. July 2006 California Energy Commission. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2004. Staff Final Report. CEC-600-2006-013-SF. December 2006 California Energy Commission. Inventory Draft 2009 Biennial Report to the Governor and Legislature. Staff Draft Report. March 2009. California Environmental Protection Agency, March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.PDF Cayan, D., A.L. Luers, M. Hanemann, G. Granco, and B. Croes. Scenarios of Climate Change in California:An Overview. California Climate Change Center, State of California. White Paper, CEC-500-2005-203-SF. March 2006 Cayan, D., E. Maurer, M. Dettinger, M. Tyree, K. Hayhoe, C. Bonfils, P. Duffy, and B. Santer. Climate Scenarios for California: Climate Action Team Reports to the Governor and Legislature. 2006. Demand Response Research Center.Water Supply Related Electricity Demand in California,2006. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. December 2008. http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group Ito the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Kiparsky, Michael and Peter H. Gleick, 2003. Climate Change and California Water Resources:A 22 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study Survey and Summary of the Literature. California Energy Commission Report 500-04-073 Linscott, Law &Greenspan (LLG) Engineers. Traffic Analysis for the Temescal Canyon Apartments Project. June 2013. Parmesan, C. 2004. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Parmesan C, Galbraith H. 2004. Observed Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in North America. Arlington,VA: Pew Cent. Glob. Clim. Change Moorpark Waste Management Department Homepage. http://www.wm.com/location/California/ventura-county/moorpark/index.jsp South Coast Air Quality Management District,California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide, prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation.2013. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Tables A9-11-A and A9-12-A, November 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting#15: "Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds - Option 1", September 2010. Udall, Brad. "Recent Research on the Effects of Climate Change on the Colorado River," in Intermountain West Climate Summary (May 2007) [Appendix 0, Exhibit 7] (citing N. Christensen and D.P. Lettenamair, "A Multimodel Ensemble Approach to Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the Hydrology and Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin," Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussion 3:1-44 (2006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). December 2007. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/cctp.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. April 15, 2008 Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases, 2010. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (www.unfccc.int), 2007. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District(VCAPCD). Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance Options for Land Use Development Projects in Ventura County. September 2011. Available online at: http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/GHGThresholdReportRevised.pdf 23 Aldersgate Investments Casey Road Senior Community Project APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Study This page intentionally left blank 24 Aldersgate Investments APPENDIX NO. 11 Appendix rincon CaleeMOd Results: Annual APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM Casey Assisted Living - Moorpark Ventura County,Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Congregate Care(Assisted Living) 390.00 Dwelling Unit 48.00 390,000.00 1193 • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.6 Precipitation Freq(Days) 31 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2016 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use- 48 total acres Construction Phase -24 month construction period Grading - 48 total acres disturbed - 16 during site prep, 32 during grading Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Off-road Equipment- Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation - Waste Mitigation - APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 i 300.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading T 187.50 + 32.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading T 0.00 + 16.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage T 24.38 + 48.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 2.0 Emissions Summary APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitiaated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2014 . 0.7795 1 6.8859 1 5.7403 1 7.8700e- 1 0.7284 1 0.3768 1 1.1052 1 0.3310 1 0.3503 1 0.6813 i 0.0000 712.8988 1 712.8988 1 0.1420 1 0.0000 1 715.8798 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 003 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 r * 1 -1 -1 -1 r 2015 • 2.4399 1 3.3758 • 3.2595 1 5.3800e- 1 0.1984 1 0.2049 1 0.4033 • 0.0531 1 0.1921 1 0.2451 i 0.0000 • 466.6276 • 466.6276 1 0.0718 1 0.0000 1 468.1351 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 003 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 Total 3.2194 I 10.2617 I 8.9998 I 0.0133 I 0.9269 I 0.5817 I 1.5085 I 0.3841 I 0.5424 I 0.9265 I 0.0000 1,1799.526 11,1799.526 I 0.2137 I 0.0000 11,184.014 Mitiaated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2014 0.7795 1 6.8859 . 5.7403 1 7.8700e- 1 0.7284 1 0.3768 1 1.1052 . 0.3310 1 0.3503 1 0.6813 i 0.0000 . 712.8982 . 712.8982 1 0.1420 1 0.0000 1 715.8793 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I i 1 1 1 1 n - , -I • -. - , 1 r * I -1 -1 -1 r 2015 2.4399 1 3.3758 • 3.2595 1 5.3800e- 1 0.1984 1 0.2049 1 0.4033 • 0.0531 1 0.1921 1 0.2451 i 0.0000 • 466.6273 • 466.6273 1 0.0718 1 0.0000 1 468.1348 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 003 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I i 1 1 I 1 Total 3.2194 I 10.2617 I 8.9998 I 0.0133 I 0.9269 I 0.5817 I 1.5085 I 0.3841 I 0.5424 I 0.9265 I 0.0000 11,179.525 11,179.525 I 0.2137 I 0.0000 11,181.014 11 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitiaated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Area . 1.8139 . 0.0344 . 2.9362 . 1.5000e- . � 0.0158 � 0.0158 � . 0.0158 . 0.0158 i 0.0000 4.7302 . 4.7302 . 4.8200e- . 0.0000 . 4.8315 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 , 004 , , , , , , i , , 003 , 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 T Energy . 0.0181 . 0.1548 . 0.0659 . 9.9000e- . . 0.0125 . 0.0125 . . 0.0125 . 0.0125 i 0.0000 ' 567.5257 ' 567.5257 ' 0.0213 . 6.9800e- . 570.1361 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 , 004 , , , , , , i , , , 003 , 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .▪1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 Mobile • 0.6436 . 1.6649 • 6.6976 . 0.0145 . 1.0644 . 0.0195 . 1.0839 • 0.2842 . 0.0179 . 0.3021 i 0.0000 • 1,153.106• 1,153.106. 0.0483 . 0.0000 . 1,154.119 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .▪1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T * 1 -1 -1 7 Waste . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 72.2404 • 0.0000 . 72.2404 . 4.2693 . 0.0000 . 161.8955 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 T Water . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 8.0614 ' 145.6132 ' 153.6746 ' 0.8347 . 0.0209 . 177.6929 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 Total 2.4756 I 1.8540 I 9.6996 I 0.0157 I 1.0644 I 0.0478 I 1.1123 I 0.2842 I 0.0463 I 0.3304 I 80.3019 11,870.975 11,9511.277 I 5.1783 I 0.0279 12,068.675 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Mitiaated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Area . 1.8139 . 0.0344 . 2.9362 . 1.5000e- . � 0.0158 � 0.0158 � . 0.0158 . 0.0158 i 0.0000 4.7302 . 4.7302 . 4.8200e- . 0.0000 . 4.8315 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 , 004 , , , , , , i , , 003 , 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 T Energy . 0.0181 . 0.1548 . 0.0659 . 9.9000e- . . 0.0125 . 0.0125 . . 0.0125 . 0.0125 i 0.0000 ' 546.8385 ' 546.8385 ' 0.0203 . 6.7800e- . 549.3680 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 , 004 , , , , , , i , , , 003 , 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .▪1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 Mobile • 0.6436 . 1.6648 • 6.6973 . 0.0145 . 1.0644 . 0.0195 . 1.0838 • 0.2841 . 0.0179 . 0.3020 i 0.0000 • 1,153.051 • 1,153.051 . 0.0483 . 0.0000 . 1,154.064 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i 5 1 5 1 1 1 8 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .▪1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T * 1 -1 -1 7 Waste . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 36.1202 • 0.0000 . 36.1202 ' 2.1346 . 0.0000 . 80.9477 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 T Water . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 6.4492 ' 123.5699 ' 130.0190 ' 0.6680 . 0.0168 . 149.2511 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 Total 2.4756 I 1.8539 I 9.6994 I 0.0157 I 1.0644 I 0.0478 I 1.1122 I 0.2841 I 0.0463 I 0.3304 I 42.5694 1,828.190 11,870.759 I 2.8760 I 0.0236 11,938.463 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 46.99 2.29 4.13 44.46 15.58 6.29 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 :Site Preparation 'Site Preparation 1/1/2014 :2/11/2014 1 5: 30: I t 2 :Grading 'Grading 12/12/2014 :5/27/2014 51 75' I t 3 :Building Construction •Building Construction 15/28/2014 :7/21/2015 51 300' I t 4 :Paving Paving 17/22/2015 :10/6/2015 : 51 55: T T I I. 5 :Architectural Coating 'Architectural Coating '10/7/2015 '12/22/2015 • 5' 55: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 16 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 32 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 789,750; Residential Outdoor: 263,250; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating— sqft) OffRoad Eauipment APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Site Preparation :Rubber Tired Dozers 31 8.00: 255: 0.40 F F Site Preparation :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 41 8.001 97: 0.37 Grading :Excavators F 2i 8.001 162: 0.38 Grading :Graders F 1 i 8.001 174: 0.41 Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers F 1 i 8.001 255: 0.40 Grading :Scrapers F 2i 8.001 361: 0.48 F i F Grading :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 21 8.001 97: 0.37 F i F Building Construction :Cranes 1 I 7.001 226: 0.29 F i F Building Construction :Forklifts 31 8.001 89: 0.20 F i F Building Construction :Generator Sets 1 I 8.001 84: 0.74 F i F Building Construction :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 31 7.001 97: 0.37 F i F Building Construction :Welders 1 I 8.001 46: 0.45 Paving :Pavers F 2i 8.001 125: 0.42 Paving :Paving Equipment F 2i 8.001 130: 0.36 Paving :Rollers F 2i 8.001 80: 0.38 T I. Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1' 6.00' 78: 0.48 Trios and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Site Preparation 71 18.00: 0.001 0.00: 10.801 7.30: 20.001 LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix :HHDT : F I 1 F j I I Grading 81 20.00 0.001 1 0.00, 10.801 7.30: 20.00:LD _Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT F I F j I I r Building Construction : 91 281.00, 42.001 0.00, 10.801 7.30: 20.00:LDMix : HDT_Mix :HHDT1 _ : F I F j I I Paving 61 15.00 0.00 0.00, 10.801 7.30: 20.00:LDMix _ :HDT_Mix :HHDT r 1T T T 1- 1T r 1T 11T 4 Architectural Coating : 1' 56.00' 0.00: 0.00' 10.80' 7.30' 20.00'LD_Mix •HDT_Mix •HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Site Preparation - 2014 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fugitive Dust • . 0.2795 . 0.0000 . 0.2795 . 0.1499 . 0.0000 . 0.1499 a 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 •1 • • • • • • • • i • • • I • • • • • • • • i • • • • •I , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Off-Road 0.0794 • 0.8643 • 0.6444 • 5.9000e- • • 0.0471 • 0.0471 • • 0.0433 • 0.0433 i 0.0000 • 56.5524 • 56.5524 • 0.0167 • 0.0000 • 56.9034 • • • 004 • • • • • • i Total II 0.0794 I 0.8643 I 0.6444 15.900040e- I 0.2795 I 0.0471 I 0.3266 I 0.1499 I 0.0433 I 0.1932 I 0.0000 56.5524 I 56.5524 I 0.0167 I 0.0000 I 56.9034 Unmitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . • • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 • • • • • • • • • i • • • Vendor • 0.0000 . 0.0000 - 0.0000 . 0.0000 - 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 - 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 - 0.0000 . 0.0000 - 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • • • • • • • • i • • • n -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 r i i -1 -1 -1 t Worker •• 1.1600e- • 1.4200e- • 0.0142 • 3.0000e- • 2.1800e- • 2.0000e- • 2.2000e- • 5.8000e- • 2.0000e- • 6.0000e- i 0.0000 • 2.0484 • 2.0484 • 1.2000e- • 0.0000 • 2.0508 003 ; 003 ; ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 + ; ; 004 ; Total II 1.1060030e- 11.4003 e- 0.0142 13.0005 e- 12.1003 e- 12.0005 e- 12.2003 e- 15.800040e- 12.0005 e- 6.000040e- 0.0000 2.0484 2.0484 11.200040e- 0.0000 2.0508 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.2 Site Preparation - 2014 Mitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fugitive Dust • . 0.2795 . 0.0000 . 0.2795 . 0.1499 . 0.0000 . 0.1499 i 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i i n 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T 4 1 7 7 7 T Off-Road • 0.0794 • 0.8643 • 0.6444 • 5.9000e- • • 0.0471 • 0.0471 • • 0.0433 • 0.0433 i 0.0000 • 56.5524 • 56.5524 • 0.0167 • 0.0000 • 56.9033 • • • 004 • • • • • • i • • Total II 0.0794 I 0.8643 I 0.6444 15.900040e- I 0.2795 I 0.0471 I 0.3266 I 0.1499 I 0.0433 I 0.1932 I 0.0000 56.5524 I 56.5524 I 0.0167 I 0.0000 I 56.9033 Mitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . • • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 •1 I Vendor • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 Worker •• 1.1600e- • 1.4200e- • 0.0142 • 3.0000e- • 2.1800e- • 2.0000e- • 2.2000e- • 5.8000e- • 2.0000e- • 6.0000e- i 0.0000 • 2.0484 • 2.0484 • 1.2000e- • 0.0000 • 2.0508 003 ; 003 ; ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 i ; ; 004 : Total II 1.1060030e- 11.4003 e- 0.0142 13.0005 e- 12.1003 e- 12.0005 e- 12.2003 e- 15.800040e- 12.0005 e- 6.000040e- 0.0000 2.0484 2.0484 11.200040e- 0.0000 2.0508 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.3 Grading - 2014 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fugitive Dust • . 0.2428 . 0.0000 . 0.2428 . 0.1260 . 0.0000 . 0.1260 i 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i i n 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T 4 1 7 7 7 T Off-Road • 0.2568 • 3.0270 • 1.9344 • 2.3200e- • • 0.1455 • 0.1455 • • 0.1338 • 0.1338 i 0.0000 • 222.9917 • 222.9917 • 0.0659 • 0.0000 • 224.3755 • • • 003 • • • • • • i • • Total II 0.2568 I 3.0270 I 1.9344 12.3003 e- I 0.2428 I 0.1455 I 0.3883 I 0.1260 I 0.1338 I 0.2598 I 0.0000 1222.9917 1222.9917 I 0.0659 I 0.0000 1224.3755 Unmitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . • • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 •1•1 I -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. T• i i -1 -1 -1 T Vendor • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 n -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. T• i i -1 -1 -1 T Worker •• 3.2300e- • 3.9500e- • 0.0393 • 7.0000e- • 6.0500e- • 5.0000e- • 6.1000e- • 1.6100e- • 5.0000e- • 1.6500e- i 0.0000 • 5.6899 • 5.6899 • 3.3000e- • 0.0000 • 5.6967 003 ; 003 ; ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 + ; ; 004 : Total II 3.2030030e- 1 3.9050030e- 003e- 0.0393 17.0005 e 6.0050030e- 5.0000050e- 6.1000030e- 1.6010030e- 15.0000050e- I 1.6050030e- 003e- 0.0000 5.6899 5.6899 13.30 40e- 0.0000 5.6967 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.3 Grading - 2014 Mitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fugitive Dust • . 0.2428 . 0.0000 . 0.2428 . 0.1260 . 0.0000 . 0.1260 i 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i i n 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T 4 1 7 7 7 T Off-Road • 0.2568 • 3.0270 • 1.9344 • 2.3200e- • • 0.1455 • 0.1455 • • 0.1338 • 0.1338 i 0.0000 • 222.9914 • 222.9914 • 0.0659 • 0.0000 • 224.3753 • • • 003 • • • • • • i • • Total II 0.2568 I 3.0270 I 1.9344 12.3003 e- I 0.2428 I 0.1455 I 0.3883 I 0.1260 I 0.1338 I 0.2598 I 0.0000 1222.9914 1222.9914 I 0.0659 I 0.0000 1224.3753 Mitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . • • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 •1•1 I -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. T• i i -1 -1 -1 T Vendor • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 n -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. T• i i -1 -1 -1 T Worker •• 3.2300e- • 3.9500e- • 0.0393 • 7.0000e- • 6.0500e- • 5.0000e- • 6.1000e- • 1.6100e- • 5.0000e- • 1.6500e- i 0.0000 • 5.6899 • 5.6899 • 3.3000e- • 0.0000 • 5.6967 003 ; 003 ; ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 + ; ; 004 : Total II 3.2030030e- 1 3.9050030e- 003e- 0.0393 17.0005 e 6.0050030e- 5.0000050e- 6.1000030e- 1.6010030e- 15.0000050e- I 1.6050030e- 003e- 0.0000 5.6899 5.6899 13.30 40e- 0.0000 5.6967 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.4 Building Construction - 2014 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . Off-Road . 0.3017 . 2.4378 . 1.4765 . 2.0900e- . .� 0.1738 .� 0.1738 .� . 0.1636 . 0.1636 i i 0.0000 . 191.7039 . 191.7039 . 0.0487 . 0.0000 . 192.7275 , 003 , , , , , , i Total II 0.3017 I 2.4378 I 1.4765 12.0003 e I I 0.1738 I 0.1738 I I 0.1636 I 0.1636 I 0.0000 1191.7039 1191.7039 I 0.0487 I 0.0000 1192.7275 Unmitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . Hauling ; 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . .0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 � 0.0000 •I•1 I , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Vendor • 0.0428 . 0.4360 . 0.4827 . 7.3000e- . 0.0212 18.8500e- . 0.0301 . 6.0400e- . 8.1400e- . 0.0142 i 0.0000 • 67.6322 . 67.6322 . 6.2000e- . 0.0000 • 67.6451 i , : ,, 004 , , 003 , , 003 , 003 , i , 004 •1 , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Worker • 0.0945 • 0.1153 • 1.1488 • 2.0500e- • 0.1767 • 1.5400e- • 0.1783 • 0.0469 • 1.4100e- • 0.0484 i 0.0000 • 166.2804 • 166.2804 • 9.5400e- • 0.0000 • 166.4808 i , , , 003 , , 003 , , , 003 , i , , 003 , Total 1▪ 0.1372 1 0.5514 1 1.6315 12.7003 e- 1 0.1979 1 0.0104 1 0.2083 1 0.0530 19.5003 e- 1 0.0625 I 0.0000 1233.9126 1233.9126 1 0.0102 1 0.0000 1234.1259 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.4 Building Construction - 2014 Mitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . Off-Road . 0.3017 . 2.4378 . 1.4765 . 2.0900e- . .� 0.1738 .� 0.1738 .� . 0.1636 . 0.1636 i i 0.0000 . 191.7037 . 191.7037 . 0.0487 . 0.0000 . 192.7273 , 003 , , , , , , i Total II 0.3017 I 2.4378 I 1.4765 12.0003 e I I 0.1738 I 0.1738 I I 0.1636 I 0.1636 I 0.0000 1191.7037 1191.7037 I 0.0487 I 0.0000 1192.7273 Mitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . Hauling ; 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . .0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 � 0.0000 •I•1 I , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Vendor • 0.0428 . 0.4360 . 0.4827 . 7.3000e- . 0.0212 18.8500e- . 0.0301 . 6.0400e- . 8.1400e- . 0.0142 i 0.0000 • 67.6322 . 67.6322 . 6.2000e- . 0.0000 • 67.6451 i , : ,, 004 , , 003 , , 003 , 003 , i , 004 •1 , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Worker • 0.0945 • 0.1153 • 1.1488 • 2.0500e- • 0.1767 • 1.5400e- • 0.1783 • 0.0469 • 1.4100e- • 0.0484 i 0.0000 • 166.2804 • 166.2804 • 9.5400e- • 0.0000 • 166.4808 i , , , 003 , , 003 , , , 003 , i , , 003 , Total 1▪ 0.1372 1 0.5514 1 1.6315 12.7003 e- 1 0.1979 1 0.0104 1 0.2083 1 0.0530 19.5003 e- 1 0.0625 I 0.0000 1233.9126 1233.9126 1 0.0102 1 0.0000 1234.1259 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.4 Building Construction - 2015 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . Off-Road . 0.2635 . 2.1622 . 1.3496 . 1.9300e- . .� 0.1524 .� 0.1524 .� . 0.1433 . 0.1433 i i 0.0000 . 175.6759 . 175.6759 . 0.0441 . 0.0000 . 176.6015 , , 003 , , , , , , i Total II 0.2635 I 2.1622 I 1.3496 11.9300e- I I 0.1524 I 0.1524 I I 0.1433 I 0.1433 I 0.0000 1175.6759 1175.6759 I 0.0441 I 0.0000 1176.6015 Unmitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . Hauling ; 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . .0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 � 0.0000 •I•1 I , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Vendor • 0.0322 . 0.3459 . 0.3981 . 6.7000e- . 0.0196 16.0100e- . 0.0256 . 5.5700e- . 5.5300e- . 0.0111 i 0.0000 • 61.7615 . 61.7615 . 4.8000e- . 0.0000 • 61.7715 i , : ,, 004 , , 003 , , 003 , 003 , i , 004 •1 , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Worker • 0.0789 • 0.0956 • 0.9554 • 1.9000e- • 0.1631 • 1.3500e- • 0.1645 • 0.0433 • 1.2400e- • 0.0446 i 0.0000 • 149.3781 • 149.3781 • 8.1100e- • 0.0000 • 149.5484 i , , , 003 , , 003 , , , 003 , i , , 003 , Total II▪ 0.1111 I 0.4415 I 1.3535 12.5003 e 0.1827 7.3600e- 0.1901 0.0489 16.7003 e- 0.0557 I 0.0000 1211.1396 1211.1396 18.5003 e- 0.0000 1211.3199 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.4 Building Construction - 2015 Mitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . Off-Road . 0.2635 . 2.1622 . 1.3496 . 1.9300e- . .� 0.1524 .� 0.1524 .� . 0.1433 . 0.1433 i i 0.0000 . 175.6757 . 175.6757 . 0.0441 . 0.0000 . 176.6013 , , 003 , , , , , , i Total II 0.2635 I 2.1622 I 1.3496 11.9300e- I I 0.1524 I 0.1524 I I 0.1433 I 0.1433 I 0.0000 1175.6757 1175.6757 I 0.0441 I 0.0000 1176.6013 Mitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . Hauling ; 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . .0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 � 0.0000 •I•1 I , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Vendor • 0.0322 . 0.3459 . 0.3981 . 6.7000e- . 0.0196 16.0100e- . 0.0256 . 5.5700e- . 5.5300e- . 0.0111 i 0.0000 • 61.7615 . 61.7615 . 4.8000e- . 0.0000 • 61.7715 i , : ,, 004 , , 003 , , 003 , 003 , i , 004 •1 , , , , , , , , r i i , , , t Worker • 0.0789 • 0.0956 • 0.9554 • 1.9000e- • 0.1631 • 1.3500e- • 0.1645 • 0.0433 • 1.2400e- • 0.0446 i 0.0000 • 149.3781 • 149.3781 • 8.1100e- • 0.0000 • 149.5484 i , , , 003 , , 003 , , , 003 , i , , 003 , Total II▪ 0.1111 I 0.4415 I 1.3535 12.5003 e 0.1827 7.3600e- 0.1901 0.0489 16.7003 e- 0.0557 I 0.0000 1211.1396 1211.1396 18.5003 e- 0.0000 1211.3199 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.5 Paving - 2015 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . •. •. . . . . . . . Off-Road • 0.0637 • 0.6923 • 0.4119 • 6.1000e- • • 0.0389 0.0389 • 0.0358 • 0.0358 i 0.0000 58.3748 • 58.3748 • 0.0174 • 0.0000 • 58.7408 i 004 i i .• 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T 4 1 7 7 7 T Paving • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 i i i Total II 0.0637 I 0.6923 I 0.4119 16.1004 e l I 0.0389 I 0.0389 I I 0.0358 I 0.0358 I 0.0000 58.3748 I 58.3748 I 0.0174 I 0.0000 I 58.7408 Unmitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . • • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 •1 I Vendor • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 A Worker •• 1.6100e- • 1.9500e- • 0.0195 • 4.0000e- • 3.3300e- • 3.0000e- • 3.3500e- • 8.8000e- • 3.0000e- • 9.1000e- i 0.0000 • 3.0456 • 3.0456 • 1.7000e- • 0.0000 • 3.0491 003 ; 003 ; ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 i ; ; 004 : Total II 1.6010030e- I 1.9050030e- 0.0195 4.0000050e- e 3.3030030e- 003a 3.0000050e- 3.3050030e- 003e- 18.800040e- 13.0005 e 9.1000040e- 0.0000 3.0456 3.0456 11.700040e- 0.0000 3.0491 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.5 Paving - 2015 Mitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . •. •. . . . . . . . Off-Road • 0.0637 • 0.6923 • 0.4119 • 6.1000e- • • 0.0389 0.0389 • 0.0358 • 0.0358 i 0.0000 58.3747 • 58.3747 • 0.0174 • 0.0000 • 58.7407 i 004 i i .• 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T 4 1 7 7 7 T Paving • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 i i i Total II 0.0637 I 0.6923 I 0.4119 16.1004 e l I 0.0389 I 0.0389 I I 0.0358 I 0.0358 I 0.0000 58.3747 I 58.3747 I 0.0174 I 0.0000 I 58.7407 Mitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . • • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 •1 I Vendor • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 A Worker •• 1.6100e- • 1.9500e- • 0.0195 • 4.0000e- • 3.3300e- • 3.0000e- • 3.3500e- • 8.8000e- • 3.0000e- • 9.1000e- i 0.0000 • 3.0456 • 3.0456 • 1.7000e- • 0.0000 • 3.0491 003 ; 003 ; ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 i ; ; 004 : Total II 1.6010030e- I 1.9050030e- 0.0195 4.0000050e- e 3.3030030e- 003e 3.0000050e- 3.3050030e- 003e- 18.800040e- 13.0005 e 9.1000040e- 0.0000 3.0456 3.0456 11.700040e- 0.0000 3.0491 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2015 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . .. . . . . . . . . . Archit.Coating •• 1.9828 ; . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i i n 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T 4 1 7 7 7 T Off-Road • 0.0112 • 0.0707 • 0.0523 • 8.0000e- • • 6.0700e- 6.0700e- • • 6.0700e- • 6.0700e- i 0.0000 • 7.0215 • 7.0215 • 9.1000e- • 0.0000 • 7.0407 005 , , 003 , 003 , , 003 , 003 i , , 004 , Total II 1.9940 I 0.0707 I 0.0523 18.0005 e I 6.0070030e- 6.0070030e- 6.0700e- 6.0700e- 0.0000 7.0215 7.0215 9.1004 e- 0.0000 7.0407 Unmitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . • • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 •1 I Vendor • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 Worker •• 6.0100e- • 7.2700e- • 0.0727 • 1.4000e- • 0.0124 • 1.0000e- • 0.0125 • 3.3000e- • 9.0000e- • 3.3900e- i 0.0000 • 11.3702 • 11.3702 • 6.2000e- • 0.0000 • 11.3832 003 ; 003 ; ; 004 ; ; 004 ; : 003 ; 005 ; 003 + ; ; 004 : Total II 6.0010030e- 7.2070030e- 003e- 0.0727 11.400 40e- 0.0124 11.000 40e- 0.0125 13.3003 e 9.0000050e- I 3.3090030e- 003e- 0.0000 11.3702 11.3702 16.200040e- 0.0000 11.3832 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2015 Mitiaated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . .. . . . . . . . . . Archit.Coating •• 1.9828 ; . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i i n 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T 4 1 7 7 7 T Off-Road • 0.0112 • 0.0707 • 0.0523 • 8.0000e- • • 6.0700e- 6.0700e- • • 6.0700e- • 6.0700e- i 0.0000 • 7.0214 • 7.0214 • 9.1000e- • 0.0000 • 7.0406 005 , , 003 , 003 , , 003 , 003 i , , 004 , Total II 1.9940 I 0.0707 I 0.0523 18.0005 e I 6.0070030e- 6.0070030e- 6.0700e- 6.0700e- 0.0000 7.0214 7.0214 9.1004 e- 0.0000 7.0406 Mitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . Hauling • 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 a 0.0000 . . . . •• 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 • • • • • • • • • I • • ••1 I 0.0000 Vendor • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 Worker •• 6.0100e- • 7.2700e- • 0.0727 • 1.4000e- • 0.0124 • 1.0000e- • 0.0125 • 3.3000e- • 9.0000e- • 3.3900e- i 0.0000 • 11.3702 • 11.3702 • 6.2000e- • 0.0000 • 11.3832 003 ; 003 ; ; 004 ; ; 004 ; : 003 ; 005 ; 003 + ; ; 004 : Total II 6.0010030e- 7.2070030e- 003e- 0.0727 1.400 40e- 0.0124 1.000 40e- 0.0125 3.3003 e 9.0000050e- I 3.3090030e- 003e- 0.0000 11.3702 11.3702 6.200040e- 0.0000 11.3832 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Density ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mitigated ; 0.6436 ; 1.6648 ; 6.6973 ; 0.0145 ; 1.0644 ; 0.0195 ; 1.0838 ; 0.2841 ; 0.0179 ; 0.3020 i 0.0000 ; 1,153.051 ; 1,153.051 ; 0.0483 ; 0.0000 ; 1,154.064 i i 5 : 5 : : : 8 i Cr Y Y Y T Y Y T Y -r * r Y Y T Y Unmitigated • 0.6436 • 1.6649 • 6.6976 • 0.0145 • 1.0644 • 0.0195 • 1.0839 • 0.2842 • 0.0179 • 0.3021 • 0.0000 • 1,153.106• 1,153.106• 0.0483 • 0.0000 • 1,154.119 1 1 5 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday (Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Congregate Care(Assisted Living) 1,068.60 858.00 i 951.60 • 2,823,308 2,823,170 Total I 1,068.60 I 858.00 I 951.60 I 2,823,308 I 2,823,170 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Congregate Care(Assisted 10.80 7.30 7.50 • 32.90 18.00 49.10 • 86 11 3 LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH 0.474028• 0.0632870.180321: 0.158861: 0.070757 0.0105430.013219: 0.016605: 0.000784: 0.000665: 0.005582: 0.000318: 0.005029 ILE plum petaiI APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Install High Efficiency Lighting ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 0.0000 367.5691 . 367.5691 . 0.0169 . 3.5000e- . 369.0076 Mitigated i : 003 i Electricity • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 0.0000 • 388.2562 . 388.2562 . 0.0179 . 3.6900e- • 389.7757 Unmitigated , , , , , , , , , i , , , 003 1 - 1 • i NaturalGas ▪. 0.0181 • 0.1548 • 0.0659 • 9.9000e- • • 0.0125 • 0.0125 • • 0.0125 • 0.0125 i 0.0000 179.2694 • 179.2694 • 3.4400e- • 3.2900e- • 180.3604 Mitigated 004 i : : 003 : 003 i C▪r Y Y Y T Y Y T Y T 4 r Y Y T Y NaturalGas . 0.0181 • 0.1548 • 0.0659 • 9.9000e- • • 0.0125 • 0.0125 • • 0.0125 • 0.0125 • 0.0000 179.2694 • 179.2694 • 3.4400e- • 3.2900e- • 180.3604 Unmitigated 004 003 003 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitiaated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Congregate Care • 3.35938e i. 0.0181 . 0.1548 . 0.0659 . 9.9000e- . ; 0.0125 ; 0.0125 ; . 0.0125 . 0.0125 i 0.0000 . 179.2694 . 179.2694 . 3.4400e- . 3.2900e- . 180.3604 (Assisted Living) : +006 is : 004 : j : 003 : 003 Total I II 0.0181 I 0.1548 I 0.0659 19.900040e- I I 0.0125 I 0.0125 I 0.0125 0.0125 0.0000 179.2694 179.2694 3.4003 a 1 3.2900e- 0e- 180.3604 Mitiaated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Congregate Care • 3.35938e i. 0.0181 . 0.1548 . 0.0659 . 9.9000e- . ; 0.0125 ; 0.0125 ; . 0.0125 . 0.0125 i 0.0000 . 179.2694 . 179.2694 . 3.4400e- . 3.2900e- . 180.3604 ii (Assisted Living) : +006 is. : 004 : 1 : 003 : 003 i. i I Total I 1 0.0181 I 0.1548 I 0.0659 19.900040e- I I 0.0125 I 0.0125 I 0.0125 0.0125 I 0.0000 1179.2694 1179.2694 3.4400e- e 3.2900e- 290e- 1180.3604 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitiaated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Congregate Care • 1.35675e a. 388.2562 0.0179 3.6900e- 389.7757 (Assisted Living) ; +006 +; ; ; 003 a. Total I II 388.2562 0.0179 3.6003 e- 389.7757 Mitiaated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Congregate Care • 1.28446e 367.5691 0.0169 3.5000e- 369.0076 (Assisted Living) ; +006 +; ; ; 003 a. . . . Total I II 367.5691 I 0.0169 13'5003 e- 369.0076 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 24 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . •. •. . . . . . . . Mitigated • 1.8139 • 0.0344 • 2.9362 • 1.5000e- • • 0.0158 0.0158 • 0.0158 • 0.0158 i 0.0000 • 4.7302 • 4.7302 • 4.8200e- • 0.0000 • 4.8315 i , 004 , , , , , , i , , 003 , i et- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y f r Y Y Y -.- Unmitigated Unmitigated • 1.8139 • 0.0344 • 2.9362 • 1.5000e- • • 0.0158 • 0.0158 • • 0.0158 • 0.0158 • 0.0000 • 4.7302 • 4.7302 • 4.8200e- • 0.0000 • 4.8315 004 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitiaated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . Architectural • 0.1983 . . . .. 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 Coating , , , , , , , , , iI I I I I I I I I n r * i , -1 -1 t Consumer • 1.5232 . • . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • . 0.0000 . 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 Products , , , , , , , , , i I I I I I I I I Ii I I I Hearth • 0.0000 - 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 � . 0.0000 - 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 - 0.0000 - 0.0000 • 0.0000 i i n , , , , , , , , r * i , -1 -1 t Landscaping • 0.0925 • 0.0344 • 2.9362 • 1.5000e- • • 0.0158 • 0.0158 • • 0.0158 • 0.0158 i 0.0000 4.7302 • 4.7302 • 4.8200e- • 0.0000 • 4.8315 i , 004 , , , , , , i , , 003 , Total 1 1.8139 1 0.0344 1 2.9362 11.500040e- 1 1 0.0158 1 0.0158 1 1 0.0158 1 0.0158 I 0.0000 I 4.7302 1 4.7302 14.8003 200e- 1 0.0000 1 4.8315 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 25 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitiaated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory I tons/yr MT/yr Consumer . 1.5232 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 Products , , , , , , , , , i 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .▪1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 T Hearth . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .▪1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 T Landscaping . 0.0925 . 0.0344 . 2.9362 . 1.5000e- . . 0.0158 . 0.0158 . . 0.0158 . 0.0158 i 0.0000 • 4.7302 . 4.7302 . 4.8200e- . 0.0000 . 4.8315 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 , 004 , , , , , , i , , 003 , I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 .▪1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T * 1 -1 -1 -1 T Architectural . 0.1983 . • . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • . 0.0000 . 0.0000 i 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 Coating , , , , , , , , , i 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I 1 1 Total 0 1.8139 I 0.0344 I 2.9362 11.500040e- I I 0.0158 I 0.0158 I I 0.0158 I 0.0158 I 0.0000 I 4.7302 I 4.7302 14.8003 200e- I 0.0000 I 4.8315 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 26 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •. 130.0190 : 0.6680 • 0.0168 : 149.2511 Unmitigated •153.6746• 0.8347 • 0.0209 Y 177.6929 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitiaated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Congregate Care •25.4101/ +. 153.6746 . 0.8347 . 0.0209 . 177.6929 (Assisted Living) ; 16.0194 +; : : Total I 11153.6746 I 0.8347 I 0.0209 1177.6929 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 27 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitiaated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Congregate Care •20.3281/ +• 130.0190 • 0.6680 • 0.0168 • 149.2511 (Assisted Living) : 15.0422 +: Total I 11130.0190 I 0.6680 I 0.0168 1149.2511 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Cateaorv/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated • 36.1202 • 2.1346 • 0.0000 • 80.9477 M T Y -.- Unmitigated Unmitigated •• 72.2404 • 4.2693 . 0.0000 • 161.8955 APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 28 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitiaated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Congregate Care • 355.88 +. 72.2404 . 4.2693 . 0.0000 . 161.8955 (Assisted Living) : +; Total I II 72.2404 I 4.2693 I 0.0000 1161.8955 Mitiaated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Congregate Care • 177.94 i. 36.1202 . 2.1346 . 0.0000 . 80.9477 (Assisted Living) ; +, , , Total I II 36.1202 I 2.1346 I 0.0000 I 80.9477 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Days/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type APPENDIX NO. 11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 29 of 29 Date: 12/26/2013 3:36 PM 10.0 Vegetation APPENDIX NO. 11 Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet N20 Mobile Emissions Casey Ass't Living-Moorpark From URBEMIS 2007 Vehicle Fleet Mix Output: Annual VMT: 2,823,308 N20 CH4 Emission N20 Percent CH4 Emission Emission Factor Emission Vehicle Type Type Factor(g/mile)* (g/mile)** (g/mile)* (g/mile)** Light Auto 47.4% 0.04 0.01896 0.04 0.01896 Light Truck<3750 lbs 6.3% 0.05 0.00316 0.06 0.003792 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 18.0% 0.05 0.009 0.06 0.0108 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 15.9% 0.12 0.019056 0.2 0.03176 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 7.1% 0.12 0.00852 0.2 0.0142 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 1.1% 0.09 0.00099 0.125 0.001375 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.3% 0.06 0.000792 0.05 0.00066 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 1.7% 0.06 0.000996 0.05 0.00083 Other Bus 0.1% 0.06 0.0000468 0.05 0.000039 Urban Bus 0.1% 0.06 0.0000399 0.05 3.33E-05 Motorcycle 0.6% 0.09 0.0005024 0.01 5.58E-05 School Bus 0.0% 0.06 0.000018 0.05 0.000015 Motor Home 0.5% 0.09 0.00045 0.125 0.000625 Total 100.0% 0.0625311 0.083145 Total Emissions(metric tons)= Emission Factor by Vehicle Mix(q/mi)x Annual VMT(mi)x 0.000001 metric tons/q Conversion to Carbon Dioxide Equivalency(CO2e)Units based on Global Warming Potential(GWP) CH4 21 GWP N20 310 GWP 1 ton(short,US)= 0.90718474 metric ton Annual Mobile Emissions: Total Emissions Total CO2e units N20 Emissions: 0.2347 metric tons N20 72.77 metric tons CO2e I Project Total: 72.77 metric tons CO2e References *from Table C.4:Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for Mobile Sources by Vehicle and Fuel Type(g/mile). in California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol,Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions,Version 3.1,January 2009. Assume Model year 2000-present,gasoline fueled. **Source: California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol,Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions,Version 3.1,January 2009. ***From URBEMIS 2007 results for mobile sources Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX NO. 12 Cut/Fill Report Generated: 201403-10 13:42:45 By user: curt cook X:\LCE GROUP\Civil\JOBS1680016804 ALDERSGATE Drawing: INVESTMENTSICIVILIDWGIXREFIX:ILCE GROUP\Civil\JOBS1680016804 ALDERSGATE INVESTMENTSICIVILIDWGIXREF16804 SITE PLAN.dwg Volume Summary Name Type Cut Fill 2d Area Cut Fill Net Factor Factor (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) 6804 PROPOSED fill! 1.000 L150 1839481.24 693959.53 693957.52* 2.01* VOLUME Totals 2d Area Cut Fill Net (Sq.Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) Total 1839481.24 693959.53 693957.52* 2.01* * Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0 file:///C:/Users/curt%20cook/AppDat&Local/Temp/CutFillReport., 1 3/10/2014 APPENDIX NO. 13 Unit: 5 HOURLY DATA Page: 1 Aldersgate Moorpark ( )ate Day Hour Leg Lmin Lmax L (1) L (10) L (25) L (50) L (90) L (99) 01-08-14 Wednesday 1 - - -- - - -- - - -- -- -- - - 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - 10 -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- 11 65 . 5 40 . 2 102 . 5 71 . 5 55 . 2 50 . 7 47 . 3 43 . 3 41 . 2 12 51 . 1 40 .4 72 . 0 62 . 9 51 . 3 47 . 5 45 . 1 42 . 5 41 . 2 13 62 . 4 41 . 3 88 . 7 73 . 3 58 . 3 53 . 0 49 . 1 44 . 2 42 . 8 14 57 .5 42 . 2 81 . 0 67 . 7 60 . 6 56 . 0 52 . 3 46 . 6 43 . 8 15 56 .4 44 . 0 79 . 8 65 . 1 57 . 5 54 . 6 51 . 6 47 . 8 45 . 6 16 57 .7 43 . 2 84 . 1 69 . 2 56 . 9 52 . 4 49 . 2 46 . 0 44 . 3 17 53 . 6 41 . 3 78 . 6 63 . 5 55 . 2 51 . 1 47 . 9 44 . 4 42 . 9 18 58 . 0 44 . 5 86 . 2 68 . 0 59 . 1 54 . 8 50 . 9 47 . 4 46 . 0 19 53 . 3 43 . 9 68 . 6 62 . 7 56 . 0 53 . 3 51 . 0 47 . 3 45 . 4 20 53 . 0 43 . 7 77 . 5 62 . 2 53 . 7 50 . 7 48 . 3 46 . 0 45 . 0 21 51 . 9 45 . 3 71 . 8 59 . 7 53 . 3 51 . 9 50 . 6 48 . 1 46 . 5 22 50 . 8 43 . 8 59 . 4 55 . 7 53 . 1 52 . 0 50 . 3 46 . 9 45 . 2 23 49 . 6 42 . 5 68 . 5 59 . 8 50 . 4 48 . 7 47 . 5 45 . 2 43 . 6 24 49 . 6 39 .3 69 . 6 60 . 9 51 . 0 46 . 9 45 . 2 42 . 6 40 . 8 01-09-14 Thursday 1 45 . 1 37 . 1 63 . 2 56 . 8 45 . 8 44 . 2 42 . 7 40 . 0 38 . 3 2 47 . 8 36 . 3 80 . 6 56 . 6 45 . 7 43 . 6 41 . 7 39 . 3 37 .4 3 44 . 9 36 . 6 59 . 2 53 . 4 48 .4 45 . 1 42 . 5 39 . 0 37 . 3 4 47 . 6 39 . 0 58 . 5 53 . 6 50 . 2 48 . 6 46 . 8 42 . 7 41 . 1 5 51 .4 40 . 8 66 . 9 57 .4 54 . 6 52 . 4 50 . 0 46 . 3 43 . 4 6 53 . 5 47 . 0 71 . 2 58 . 0 55 . 6 54 . 3 52 . 7 50 . 3 49 . 0 7 55 . 1 47 . 6 71 .4 62 . 1 56 . 9 55 . 7 54 .4 50 . 4 48 . 9 8 56 . 5 51 . 5 74 . 8 63 . 0 57 . 9 56 . 7 55 . 5 53 . 8 52 . 6 9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- 12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - 13 -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- 14 -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- 16 -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 18 - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- 21 -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- 22 -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- APPENDIX NO. 13 CNEL CALCULATIONS from HNL' s or Ldn CALCULATIONS from Leq' s ( 1 ) = 45 . 1 1 ) = 47 . 8 3 ) = 44 . 9 ( 4 ) = 47 . 6 ( 5 ) = 51 . 4 ( 6 ) = 53 . 5 ( 7 ) = 55 . 1 ( 8 ) = 56 . 5 ( 9 ) = 56 . 5 ( 10 ) = 56 . 5 ( 11 ) = 65 . 5 ( 12 ) = 51 . 1 ( 13 ) = 62 . 4 ( 14 ) = 57 . 5 ( 15 ) = 56 .4 ( 16 ) = 57 . 7 ( 17 ) = 53 . 6 ( 18 ) = 58 ( 19 ) = 53 . 3 ( 20 ) = 53 ( 21 ) = 51 . 9 ( 22 ) = 50 . 8 ( 23 ) = 49 . 6 ( 24 ) = 49 . 6 CNEL = 59 . 5 J'''ET = 59 . 3 3 APPENDIX NO. 14 1,1loorpark, LL(' Casey Road Senior Community File No.: IVE1..-020299 WOR VIAN ENGINEERING& CONSULTING P.D. Pox 391 Ojzl. CA 93024 80530.9381 maikivorkinimpegvi1ux.cnrn March 7,2014 File No.WE14-020299 Ernie Mansi 1 Moorpark,LLC 300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 1550 Oxnard,CA 93030 SUBJECT: Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report for Proposed 390 Unit Senior Continuing Care Retirement Community, Casey Road Senior Community, Formerly Tentative Tract 5424 and 5505, North of Casey Road and West Walnut Canyon Road, City of Moorpark, California. REF.: 1. GeoLabs-Westlake Village, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of Tentative Tract 5424,City of Moorpark,W.D. 8705,dated May 30,2003. 2. Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. (LGC), Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Proposed Providence Development,Tract 5505,City of Moorpark,California, Project No.0630012-01,dated May 30,2006. Dear Mr.Mansi: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this updated preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Casey Road Senior Community project at the subject property. We have reviewed the information and data presented in the referenced reports prepared for the property that were previously submitted to the City of Moorpark for Tentative Tracts 5424 and 5505 by GeoLabs and LGC, respectfully. The purpose of this work was to provide updated preliminary recommendations specific to the Casey Road Senior Community project. The finding and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information and data presented in the referenced reports and the conceptual plans and information provided to this office by the project civil engineer LC Engineering Group, Inc. and the developer 1 Moorpark, LLC. It should be noted that final grading and building plans were not available at this time, so that the findings and recommendations provided in this report may need to be revised once the final grading and building plans become available. The scope of our work included 1) review of the previous reports prepared for the property, 2) review of the preliminary plans for development, as now proposed, 3) perform a site visit to observe the current site conditions within the area of the subject project, and 4) preparation of this report to provide our findings and updated recommendations specific to the proposed Casey Road Senior Community. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site consists of a 49.52 acre irregular shaped parcel located on the north side of Casey Road and the west side of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The site is topographically situated mostly within a south trending canyon bound by south trending low lying ridges on the east and west. Maximum relief across the site is approximately 200 fcet. Based on our review of the conceptual plans prepared by LC Engineering Group, Inc., the proposed Casey Road Senior Community project will consist of a 390 unit senior continuing care retirement i I - Mr r CI 1)IA IVU. 11-1. +' �I o 4 ♦_ Approximate ''' m Site Location • cbca. rt �. �: V C3: 44 , ICS L. a EVERETT ST BOWIE ce r C.+k tyyspLf et .9 r ■ ,,_; L a VIEW -ST y F 0T� i Fs L . CHARLES . Sr 418 I .y•• n T�1v1 • • . . . . iqi j'0 H 2T____1, Av r. r r i..-.! _ r_:.r,__=. 1 r I I I r r r f i i Sl p I l r 11 I r I r 2E-ra , fAV Po1H6EXTER AV 11 .. - _X ! UP DIA8L0 STA km p '`?'`'4111 N10 a. -_ ODRDTHY AV 1--1 FITCH AVL •9ikJER? f d' a IST ST ST r r—: AV }. r }PALpShR 4 i- � a I �: RUTH SAY .Z =;tun a:G ¢ :-53LVDEXTER w _. �+' 'Ci7 x' ifissra } aV ;4.fip $ a 'SARAH AV av '' c ..t' SEH gi '' 7-'b ST ca Q ;t, ry c— � e� c� : SUSAN AV iI o ROBERTS AV a _. A. .~�-..-.4. + ti ce :ESTHi•R AV I. < EVEREST J CC A7 I.- a' 'E'SHERMAN AV AV s 3-,0 a - . — 1. 7RP 'F'' 'LAA UNIDCS P. x: 40.J La' fr4TE3GAY A E3 ¢._ -.. PARK CREST IliR. PLANA <^ CNITAS UR ae;MAJESTIC w x .- %� CT --- -� w w � � llFO LA oc; a \`NA o�p SO 4 W° Not to Scale J)ATE: 03/05/14 WORKMAN ENGINEERING& Site Location Map FILE NO.:WE14-020299 CONSULTING Casey Road Senior Community,Moorpark FIGURE 1 i APPENDIX NO. 14 I Moorpark, I,LC Casey Road Senior Commimiry File No.: U'E14-020299 community. The site development will include the construction of approximately 40 single-story and two story structures, a main paved access road extending from Casey Road, internal paved roadways and parking areas, and related new utilities and infrastructure,as shown on the Geotechnical Map, included as Plate l with this report. The remaining site will be landscaped or paved. Maximum loads are anticipated to be typical of wood framed residential construction. Final grading plans were not available at this time, however based on our review of the conceptual plans prepared by LC Engineering Group, Inc., site grading is expected to consist of excavation and backfill for the proposed structures and related new utilities, and a cut and fill operation to establish grade for the • building pads,access road, internal roadways, parking areas, and site drainage. Permanent cut depths are expected to be approximately 40 feet and permanent fill depths are expected to be approximately 45 feet. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The site is situated within the Ventura Basin area which is located within the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province. The Transverse Range Province is characterized by east-west trending mountains and valleys that are regionally folded and faulted to create a series of synclines, anticlines, and thrust faults. The site is situated on the southern limb of the south-southwest dipping Moorpark Anticline approximately two miles north of the Simi-Santa Rosa fault. FAULTING Southern California is a tectonically active region subject to hazards associated with earthquakes and faulting. Faults are classified as either active,potentially active,or inactive. Active faults are defined by the State of California as a fault that has exhibited surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. Potentially active faults are defined by the State of California as those with a history of movement between 11,000 and 1.6 million years. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are zones that have been established by the State of California as areas that contain active faults,and projects that are located within these zones require that a fault investigation be performed to determine if active faulting affects the site. The subject property is not • located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active or potentially active faults onsite. LGC investigated a fault located near the southeastern margin of the site,originally identified by GeoLabs, to determine if the fault could be classified as active. Based on the additional geologic information obtained by LGC, the fault was ultimately determined to be inactive (displacement occurred more than 11,000 years ago). This firm is in agreement with the geologic interpretation by LGC that the fault is inactive. EARTH MATERIALS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Earth ]Materials and Geoloeic Units The earth materials and geologic units identified previously by GeoLabs and LGC are as follows: Artificial Fill (Af),Younger Alluvium (Qal); Colluvium (Qcol); Landslide Debris (Qls); Older Alluvium (Qoal)and silty sandstone of the Saugus Formation(Qs). Earth materials considered to be unsuitable for the support of certified engineered fill and the proposed structural loads include the existing artificial fill, younger alluvium, colluvium, landslide debris (if any), the upper 30 feet and Iocally up to 45 feet of older alluvium, and the upper two to five feet of Saugus Formation Bedrock. This firm is in agreement with the interpreted and determined subsurface conditions and removal recommendations provided by GeoLabs and LGC. 2 APPENDIX NO. 14 I,Moorpark, LL[.' Casey Rood Senior Community File No.: WEI,I-020299 Based upon statements made by GeoLabs and LGC in the referenced reports, both firms had difficulty differentiating between the Older Alluvium and the Saugus Formation bedrock. Given the removal recommendations,accurate differentiation between unsuitable older alluvium and suitable bedrock wilt be critical. Geologic Cross-Sections prepared by LGC show the anticipated removal depths which are based upon the results of laboratory testing and interpretations derived from the previous subsurface site investigations by GeoLabs and LGC. For reference, 8.5" x 11" copies of the large scale Geologic Cross Sections and Geotechnical Maps are included with this report. It is noted that the removal depths are approximated and all removal excavation bottoms shalt be approved by the project geologist and soils engineer prior to placing engineered fill. Geologic Structure The site is located within the Ventura Basin which has developed as a result of north-south compressional forces that have resulted in east-west trending basins and range topography that is typical of the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province. The compressional forces continue to act on the Ventura Basin and the Transverse Range in general, as evidenced by the presence of several active faults that bound the basins. The closest significant active faults are the Simi-Santa Rosa fault(2.1 miles) and the Oak Ridge fault(5.7 mites). Based upon our review of the previous geologic and geotechnical investigations, active faults were not encountered within the property limits. The subject property is located south of the Moorpark anticline. LGC stated that the bedding data submitted by GeoLabs indicated bedrock strike and dip attitudes oriented in wide variations. LGC postulated that the variation of the GeoLabs strike and dip attitudes could be attributed to the inclusion of cross beds and channel attitudes. Supplemental geologic data obtained by LGC, focusing on the finer grained beds which are indicative of a low energy depositional environment, yielded bedding attitudes in general conformance with generally accepted previously published regional geology. This firm is in general agreement with the geologic interpretations presented by LGC. Several cross-sections were developed by LGC to show the interpreted geologic conditions beneath the site. For reference, 8.5"x 11"copies of the large scale Geologic Cross Sections and Geotechnical Maps are included with this report. This firm is in agreement with the findings and geologic interpretations presented in the referenced report and depicted on the cross sections by LGC. Once final grading plans are developed, this firm will prepare adequate gcologic cross sections to shown the interpreted geologic conditions in relation to the planned site grading and development as now proposed. Based on the information and data presented in the LGC report and provided to this office and our geologic evaluation, the subsurface geologic conditions are generally favorably oriented with respect to the proposed improvements, except in areas where potential low angle bedding may be daylighted within planned cut slopes. It is recommended that all cut slopes, retaining wall excavations (if any), and removal bottom excavations be observed and approved by the engineering geologist as they are made. If daylighted bedding is present within the cut slopcs, the cut slopes will need to be adequately buttressed. SEISMICITY Seismicity Study Based on the 2008 USGS Interactive Disaggregation (Beta) computer program, the computed site peak ground acceleration and magnitude for a 50-year exposure and 10% exceedance is 0.6280 g and 6.79, respectfully. The results of the analysis are presented herein. Seismic Design Criteria The California Building Code (CBC) is often followed in seismic structural design and is based on the maximum considered earthquake ground motion. The 2013 CBC procedure calls for the following seismic geoteehnical parameters: the soil needs to be classified and is dependent on soil parameters such 3 APPENDIX NO. 14 1 i 1 E E I PSH Deaggregation on NEHRP BC rock to Casey_Road 118.884°W, 34.291 N. "'' Peak Horiz_Ground Accel_>=0-5510 g Ann.Exceedance Rate.214E-02.Mean Return Time 475 years Q Mean(R,M,c ) 9.2 km,6.86, 0.34 ry- Modal(R,M,�)= 6.1 km,6.61, 0.09(from peak R,M bin) Modal(R,M,e')= 6.0 km,6.62,0 to I sigma (from peak R,M,e bin) ti Binning:DeltaR 10.krn,deltaM�.2,De1ta>r=1.0 i 3 . e t3o ':, :; til 4e" 'RS, Prob.SA,PGA Cmedfan(R,M) >median � 4o �.a ti� -2<co<-1 0.5<e0<1 ��� .o '�c. El -1 <€0<-0.5 . : 1 <€0<2 Q'`P. J04 ® -0.5<Co<0 • 2<co<3 20091D UPDATE c. OM 2014 ktar 7 2-17.i7:05-1 DisWcs(HI,maraud*(+11,opallon(E:O,E)daaQOroyallan Tara aIle on roar with average vs.760 n s top 30 in.USGS CCM PSHMOOl UPDATE Bins with It 0.05%candb.onlaid APPENDIX NO. 14 I Moorpark,LLC Casey Rood Senior Community Elk No.: JVE14-O2O299 as shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, soil undrained shear strength, and soil profile descriptions. The maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations are then adjusted for site class. The remaining seismic parameters used in structural analyses are computed from those shown below by the Structural Engineer. The following seismic design coefficients and parameters for the project site have been determined utilizing the"Java Ground Motion Parameter Calculator"(Version 5.1.0) developed by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS). The program incorporates seismic provisions set forth in the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) and 2009 International Building Code (IBC) procedures, including site classification per CBC Table 1613.5.2, mapped acceleration parameters per CBC Figures 1613.5 (1) through 1613.5 (14),and site coefficients per CBC Table 1613.5.3 (1)and 1613.5.3 (2). I Itl:� '�t• ;Si •(:;c; :i::!_ .�!• .'.t•. D 1.0 1.5 1.79 1.03 Conformance to the above criteria for seismic excitation does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a maximum level earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, • since such design may be economically prohibitive. EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS The intensity of ground shaking during an earthquake can result in a numerous phenomena including ground failure such as ground rupture due to faulting, landslides, liquefaction, lurching, and seismically induced settlement. Other seismic hazards include Seiches and tsunamis. Descriptions of each of these phenomenon and an assessment of each, as it affects the proposed site, are included in the following paragraphs. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990, which became effective in 1991, requires mitigation of seismic hazards to a level that does not cause collapse of the building intended for human occupancy, but it does not require mitigation to a level of no ground failure or structural damage. Shallow Ground Rupture Ground surface rupture occurs when movement along a fault is sufficient to cause a gap or rupture where the upper edge of the fault zone intersects the ground surface. Based on the information presented in the referenced reports, there are no known active faults passing through the site, so the potential of an-site ground rupture due to movement on an underlying fault in not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. Earthauake-Induced Landsliding Landslides are slope failures that occur where the horizontal seismic forces act to induce soil failure. Seismic Hazard Maps have been released by the California Geological Survey that delineate areas that have been subject to or are potentially subject to landsliding or permanent ground displacement as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking. The site is not located in an area designated by the Seismic Hazard Zones Map that is susceptible to hazards associated with earthquake-induced landslides. Ground Lurching Ground lurching is defined as earthquake motion at right angles to a cliff or bluff, or more commonly to a • stream bank or artificial embankment that results in yielding of material in the direction to which it is unsupported. The initial effect is to produce a series of more or less parallel cracks separating the ground into rough blocks. These cracks are generally parallel with the top of the slope or embankment. The topography 4 APPENDIX NO. 14 1 Moorpark, LLC Casey Road Senior Community File No.: WEI--020299 of the site in the vicinity of the proposed improvements does not lend itself to this type of lurching. Lurching is also sometimes used to describe undulating surface waves in the soil that have some similarities to the ground oscillation mentioned below in the Liquefaction section, but generally occurs in soft, saturated, fine-grained soils during seismic excitation. When this phenomenon occurs adjacent to bodies of water, lurching can continue for a short time after the seismic shaking stops_ The soil conditions at this site are not typical of those associated with lurching, and we do not consider this type of lurching to be a risk at this site. Seiches and Tsunamis Seiches are an oscillation of the surface of an inland body of water that varies in period from a few minutes to several hours. Seismic excitations can induce such oscillations. Tsunamis are large sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Since the site is not located close to an inland body of water and is at an elevation sufficiently above sea level to be outside the zone of a tsunami runup, the risk of these two hazards is not pertinent to this site. Liauefaciion The shear strength of soils is governed by effective stresses, which are equal to the total stresses minus the pore water pressures. In saturated, cohesionless soils, such as sands, pore water pressures tend to increase with cyclic loading, such as that caused by earthquakes. Liquefaction describes phenomena in which cyclic stresses produced by ground shaking induce excess pore water pressures in cohesionless soils that are about equal to the total stresses,resulting in near zero shear strength in the soil, causing the soil behaves as a viscous fluid. Liquefied soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility leading to damaging deformations. Liquefaction susceptibility under a given earthquake is related to the gradation and relative density characteristics of the soil, the in-situ stresses prior to ground motion,and the depth to the water table,as well as other factors. As a general rule,sites susceptible to liquefaction in seismically active areas(a)contain cohesionless soils [sand (SP) and (SW), silt (ML), silty sand (SM), and sandy silt(ML); fine-grained soils, however, with less than 15% of clay sized particles,with liquid limits less than 35%,and moisture contents greater than 90% of the liquid limit may be susceptible to severe strength loss], (b) have an anticipated high groundwater level, including perched conditions, within 50 feet of the surface, (c) contain soils with a relative density less than about 70%, and (d) contain younger deposits that are more susceptible to liquefaction than older deposits. Liquefaction related or liquefaction-induced phenomena include lateral spreading, ground oscillation, flow failure, reduction of bearing strength, ground fissuring, and sand boils. Lateral spreading is the lateral movement of stiff, surfcial blocks of sediments as a result of a subsurface layer liquefying. The lateral movements can cause ground fissures or extensional, open cracks at the surface as the blocks move toward a slope face, such as a stream bank or in the direction of a gentle slope_ When the shaking stops, these isolated blocks of sediments come to rest in a place different from their original location and may be tilted. Ground oscillation occurs when liquefaction occurs at depth but the slopes are too gentle to permit lateral displacement. In this case, individual blocks may separate and oscillate on a liquefied layer. Sand boils and fissures are often associated with this phenomenon. Flow failure is a more catastrophic mode of ground failure than either lateral spreading or ground oscillation. It involves large masses of liquefied sediment or blocks of intact material riding on a liquefied layer moving at high speeds over large distances. Generally, flow failures are associated with ground slopes steeper than those associated with either lateral spreading or ground oscillation. 5 APPENDIX NO. 14 1 Mompark LLC Casey Road Senior Conamunitp File No.: WW'EI-1-020299 • Bearing strength decreases with a decrease in effective stress. Loss of bearing strength occurs when the effective stresses are reduced due to the cyclic loading caused by an earthquake. Even if the soil does not liquefy, the bearing of the soil may be reduced below its value either prior to or after the earthquake. If the bearing strength is sufficiently reduced, structures supported on the sediments can settle, tilt, or even float upward in the case of lightly loaded structures such as gas pipelines. Ground fissuring and sand boils are surface manifestations associated with liquefaction and lateral spreading, ground oscillation and flow failure. As apparent from the above descriptions,the likelihood of ground fissures developing is high when lateral spreading, ground oscillations, and flow failure occur. Sand boils occur when the high pore water pressures arc relieved by drainage to the surface along weak spots that may have been created by fissuring. As the water flows to the surface it can carry sediments, and if the pore water pressures are high enough they can create a gusher(sand boil)at the point of exit. Liquefaction Potential Given the proposed removal and recompaction of all artificial fill and younger alluvium and the lack of high groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the site, the site is located in an area not considered to be susceptible to hazards associated with liquefaction. The results of the field exploration and Iaboratory testing programs presented in the referenced reports indicate that the subject site does not meet all the 1 above-mentioned conditions for being susceptible for liquefaction. Thus, the risk of liquefaction and associated hazards are considered to be very low at this site. Since the site is not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, further analyses were not performed to evaluate the potential and extent of liquefaction, lateral spreading, ground oscillation, flow failure, reduction of bearing strength,and surface manifestations of sand boils and ground fissuring. Settlement Due to Seismic Shaking Granular soils, in particular, are susceptible to settlement during seismic shaking, whether the soils liquefy or not. Site processing, involving removal and recompaction of all artificial fill,younger alluvium, and the upper 30 to 45 feet of older alluvium that are loose and subject to seismically induced settlement, should effectively limit the potential for seismically induced settlement in these materials. Based on our review of the referenced LGC report, the potential for earthquake-induced settlement, however, exists for deeper granular soils both above bedrock and below the removal and recompaction zone. LGC's analysis indicated that the anticipated earthquake-induced settlement was between '/4 of an inch up to 1.3 inches. The average differential settlement is estimated to be about 0.7-inch between adjacent supports spaced on the order of 30 feet in areas with left in-place older alluvium. Your Structural Engineer should evaluate • the consequences of such settlement to the proposed structures. SLOPE STABILITY Global and surficial slope stability analyses were performed by LGC on the previously proposed 1.5:1 cut slopes, 2:1 fill slopes, and potentially daylighted cut slopes. Based on our review of the referenced reports and the results of LGC's analyses,the slopes on the property as now proposed will have factors of safety exceeding 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 pseudo-static conditions. FOUNDATION AND SLAB MOVEMENTS In addition to the settlement due to seismic shaking, foundation and slab movement will result from (1) the anticipated live and dead loads of the structure, (2) the settlement of compacted fill and underlying soils due to the weight of the compacted fill, and (3) swell or hydroconsolidation if moisture changes occur within the supporting soils. 6 APPENDIX NO. 14 1 Moorpark,LLC Casey Road Senior Community File No.: 11 E14-020299 Settlement Due to Static Loads Settlement is expected to be about l-inch under the assumed loading conditions if designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Most of the settlement is expected soon after the application of the load. Additional foundation movements due to the weight of compacted fill are expected to be negligible if the recommendations in this report are followed. However,due to the proposed depth of fill (more than 30 feet in local areas)and per City of Moorpark guidelines, settlement monitoring is required. Once final grading plans are available and the actual depth of fill is determined, a settlement monitoring program will be developed. Settlement Due to Hvdroconsolidation Given our removal and recompaction recommendations, the surficial soils shall not be at risk of hydroconsolidation. LGC determined that a maximum of 0.6 inches of hydroconsolidation settlement may occur in areas where the older alluvium is left in-place. Differential Movement Based on our review of the referenced reports and our project analysis, the amount of differential movement, including seismically induced, between columns or adjacent footings due to the above causes and with mitigation measures included herein is expected to be about 1.5-inches. Such differential movement may possibly result in the development of cracks in the slab and in walls. Additional differential settlement may need to be incorporated into the structural design after completion of the fill settlement monitoring program. Slab Movement As slabs are to be lightly loaded, the anticipated settlement is expected to be less than 0.25 inches under the proposed loading conditions. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of our data review, review of the referenced reports, and engineering analysis, the proposed Casey Road Senior Community project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided the recommendations in this report and the referenced reports are incorporated into the building plans and implemented during grading and construction. The following paragraphs discuss conditions that should be anticipated and provides specific recommendations for the Casey Road Senior Comma!), project to be used during the design, grading, and construction phases of project. All other information and recommendations provided in the referenced report remain applicable. Faults/Seismicity Although no known active faults traverse through the subject site, like most of Southern California, the site lies within a seismically active area. Earthquake resistant structural design is recommended. Designing structures to be earthquake-proof is generally considered to be impractical, especially for private projects, due to cost limitations. Significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. Structural design based on the 2013 CRC (California Building Code) structural analysis procedures calls for the seismic parameters given previously in the Seismic Design Criteria section. These minimum code values are intended to protect life and may not provide an acceptable level of protection against significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. Significantly higher than code parameter would be necessary to further reduce potential economic loss during a major seismic event. Structural Engineers, however, often regard higher than code values or procedures as impractical for use in structural design. Hazardous Materials This firm has not been retained to provide any type of environmental assessment of the subject property, nor to provide recommendations with respect to any contamination that might be present. APPENDIX NO. 14 I Moorpork LI.0 Casev Race!Senior Community Fife'Va.: 11EE1J-020299 Landslides Based on our review of the referenced reports and our analysis of the proposed improvements with respect to the existing conditions of the subject site, it is our professional opinion that the risk of landsliding at the subject site is low. Cut Stones Cut slopes may be planned not exceed a 2:1 slope ratio or a height of five feet, based on the slope stability analysis performed by LGC. Where highly weathered materials or potentially daylighted bedding are encountered in cut slopes, it is recommended that these slopes will need to be stabilized with a stability fill. Fill Stones Fill slopes may be planned not to exceed a 2:1 slope ratio or a height of 60 feet, based on the slope stability analysis performed by LGC. Slone Setback When located next to a descending 3(H):I(V) slope or steeper, the base of footings for buildings should be a minimum of 5 feet or one-third ('/a) the slope height from the face of slope, whichever is greater, but need not exceed 40 feet from the face of slope. When located next to an ascending 3(H):1(V) slope or steeper,the building should be a minimum of 3 feet or 1/2 the slope height from the toe of slope,whichever is greater, but need not exceed 15 feet from the toe of slope. Foundation Tvne With proper site preparation, conventional shallow wall footings can be used for foundation support of walls, and spread footings can be used to support individual columns. Footings should be supported on compacted fill of relatively uniform thickness. Foundations for each structure should be totally founded in either undisturbed, competent bedrock material (embedded at least 12 inches into competent bedrock provided other minimum embedment depth requirements are satisfied) or structural fill with a uniform thickness and a minimum thickness of 3 feet below the footings. The differential thickness of structural fill beneath a structure should not exceed 50%. Retaining walls and garden walls can be supported on conventional wall footings. Shrinkaie I Bulkine Shrinkage results when the soil/bedrock being placed as fill is compacted to a dry density greater than the in-place source materials, and bulking(negative shrinkage) occurs when the soil/bedrock is compacted to a dry density less than the in-place source materials. Based on our review of the information and data presented in the LGC report and our experience, we estimate an average shrinkage factor of about 15% resulting from recompaction of on-site soils or fills. A bulking factor of 2% to 6 % is estimated for removal and recompaction of the bedrock. This estimate is based on an average relative compaction of 92% for recompacted materials and average densities of the undisturbed ring samples. The above shrinkage figures do not account for the effects of fill settlement losses due to clearing and grubbing and stripping operations, or uncertainty in the density of the in-place materials. If the actual average degree of compaction differs from that used to estimate shrinkage, the actual shrinkage may also differ. Variations in the estimated shrinkage/bulking factors shall be anticipated and provisions for such variations shall be included in the project specifications. Offsite Drainacee Future slopes should be provided with brow ditches to collect offsite drainage and prevent it from concentrating and flowing over future slopes. 8 APPENDIX NO. 14 1 Moorpark. 1.1.0 Casey Road Senior Conuuoriry Elle No.: WE1a-020299 Draino2e All surface runoff must be carefully controlled and must remain a crucial element of site maintenance. Proper drainage and irrigation are important to reduce the potential for damaging ground/foundation movements due to hydroconsolidation and soil expansion or shrinkage. Final grading shall provide a positive drainage away from footings in compliance with the local jurisdiction's grading requirements or a minimum gradient of 2%, whichever is greater, for a distance of at least 6 feet away from foundations for soil covered areas to reduce the risk of water ponding adjacent to foundations. For areas abutting foundations covered with concrete for a distance of at least 6 feet away from the foundations,a minimum gradient of 0.5% is acceptable. All pad drainage shall be collected and diverted away from proposed buildings and foundations in non-erosive devices. Gutters and roof drains should be provided, properly maintained, and discharge directly into glue joined, watertight subsurface piping. A drainage system consisting of area drains, catch basins, and connecting lines should be provided to capture landscape/hardscape sheet flow discharge water. All drainage piping should be watertight and discharge directly to paved parking areas serviced with area drains connecting to either the street or storm drain or discharge directly to the street or storm drain. In the case of basement walls (if any) or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water proofing system should be used on the wall and joints,and a Miradrain drainage panel,or similar, should be placed over the water proofing. A perforated subdrain pipe of schedule 40 or better should be installed at the base of the wall below the floor slab and drained to the storm drain or curb. Accordion type pipe is not acceptable. Basement floors or floors below exterior grade should be water proofed. Your project architect or Civil Engineer should provide detailed specifications for all waterproofing. If a raised floor is used, the ground surface below the floor should be sloped away from footings and in a manner to collect and transfer any water due to a water line break, for example, to the street in a nonerosive device. All underground plumbing fixtures should be absolutely leak-free. As part of the maintenance program, utility lines should be checked for leaks for early detection of water infiltrating the soils that could cause detrimental soil movements. Detected leaks should be promptly repaired. Proper drainage shall also be provided away from the building footings during construction. This is especially important when construction takes place during the rainy season. Seepage of surface irrigation water or the spread of extensive root systems into the subgrade of footings, slabs, or pavements can cause differential movements and consequent distress in these structural elements. Trees and large shrubbery should not be planted so that roots grow under foundations and flatwork when they reach maturity. Landscaping and watering schedules should be planned with consideration for these potential problems. Drainage systems should be well maintained, and care should be taken to not over or under irrigate the site. Landscape watering should be held to a minimum while maintaining a uniformly moist condition without allowing the soil to dry out. During extreme hot and dry periods, adequate watering may be necessary to keep soil from separating or pulling back from the foundations. Cracks in paved surfaces should be sealed to Iimit infiltration of surface waters. Corrosion Protection Corrosion of concrete due to sulfate attack is anticipated when the concentration of water-soluble sulfates is in excess of 1000 ppm in the near-surface soils. Concrete specifications should conform, as a minimum,to CBC requirements(Section 19,Table 19-A-4) for concrete exposed to sulfate. Based on the test results presented in the LGC report,the onsite soils have a minimum resistivity of 1,600 ohm-cm, a pH of 7.6, a chloride content of 80 ppm, and water-soluble sulfate concentrations were non-detectable. Based on the test results, the onsite soils are not corrosive and sulfate resistant concrete is not required according to the CBC requirements. 9 APPENDIX NO. 14 I Moorpark, LLC C'usey Road Senior Corn n n iry File No.: WEI-I-020299 A detailed study of soil corrosivity was beyond the scope of this study. A corrosion engineer can be consulted to provide a more detailed evaluation of corrosion potential, including the corrosion potential of soils to metal objects and to other potential sources,such as stray currents and groundwater. Plan Review At this time, this firm has not been provided with a final plan of the proposed grading. When these plans become available, they should be reviewed by this firm prior to submittal to regulatory agencies for approval_ A grading plan review report may be required by the city to be submitted with the approved grading plans. Additional analysis may be required at that time depending on specific details of the proposed grading and improvements, and any corrections deemed necessary will be made known to the Project Civil Engineer. Approval by this office will be indicated by manual signature and stamp once our recommendations have been incorporated into the design or shown as notes on the plan. Improvements Near Slopes Hillside developments involve risks that are not found in typical flatland developments. Construction of improvements near slopes often offer exceptional views, but such construction must be accepted with some risk, and these risks can never be eliminated. Downward and lateral movements (slope creep) are typical of fill slopes, cut slopes,and even natural slopes in an area near the edge of slopes. Slope creep is the very slow, gradual downslope movement of the outer portion of the slope surface due to gravity. The influence often extends 20 to 30 feet from the top of slope into the outer edge of the building pad. The higher and steeper the slope,the more pronounced the potential movements. Over time, slope creep can cause decorative walls, fences, and trees to lean in a downslope direction and can cause patios and other hardscape to move toward the slope, causing cracks to develop in these structures. Any construction within the creep zone, including but not limited to walls, swimming pools, tennis courts, and structures, may be distressed and require period maintenance. The cost to design foundation systems to resist such movements may be prohibitive and more costly than periodic repairs. More rapid movement, both downward and lateral, can occur near slopes during seismic events, but methods to predict such movements are not yet well established_ These deformations typically result from seismically induced compaction and shear deformation effects exacerbated by ground motion amplification in the slope. Experience during the Northridge earthquake, for example, showed that structures supported on wedge fill slopes can experience noticeable and distressing movements even though the slopes did not fail in a catastrophic sense. The recommendations presented in this report are intended to reduce the risks associated with construction near slopes. Although such risks cannot be eliminated, these risks can be reduced with proper construction practices and foundation design, drainage,maintenance of landscaping and plumbing, including that associated with pools and spas, water service, and waste lines. Property Owners must maintain their property if they are to reduce the risk of slope or foundation movements. Information regarding the care and maintenance of improvements located near slopes and the associated risks should be passed on to future owners of the property. Slopes and pads on this project should be designed to control the flow of water and reduce water-induced erosion and slope deterioration. A long-term maintenance program should be implemented. Slopes require maintenance to reduce the risk of erosion and degradation with time due to natural or man-made conditions. All slopes should be maintained with dense, deep rooting, lightweight, drought-resistant groundcover and possibly shrubs and trees. A reliable irrigation system should be installed on manufactured slopes, adjusted so over watering does not occur, and periodically checked for leakage. All leaks should be repaired immediately. Excessive watering of slopes, which can cause erosion and surficial failures, must be avoided. Overwatering can also increase the potential for soil softening and strength loss that could lead to slumping of the slope face. Any problems, such as erosion or slumps,should be repaired immediately to avoid more serious problems. 10 APPENDIX NO. 14 !Moorpark, LLC Casey Road Senior Comairuni y File No.: WV 4—O O299 Roof gutters and downspouts should be inspected periodically. If clogged, they should be cleaned. If damaged, they should be repaired. Any separation cracks between sections of flatwork should be sealed to prevent infiltration of water. Catch basins, grates, and subsurface drainage piping should be kept Free of silt and debris. Paved diverter terraces, interceptor terraces, downdrains, appurtenances such as inlets, and velocity reducer structures must be maintained in a clean condition and good repair. Side swales, which direct water around the building, should be maintained so they will not become ineffective. In short, drainage structures should be kept in good condition and clean over the entire length to the outlet in an approved drainage course. Standing water on the pad area above descending slopes is a major contributor toward slope failure. Standing water around foundations is a major contributor to foundation movements. Fine grading of the site should provide positive drainage away from natural slopes, and water should not be allowed to pond or gather in the natural slope area. Surface water should not be discharged onto any adjacent descending slope. Rodent activity should be controlled to prevent water penetration and loosening of the soil. Rodents, particularly ground squirrels, can damage slopes. Rodent control measures should be part of any slope maintenance program. Extensive landscaping or modifications to the property may seriously alter the surface drainage pattern or affect slope stability. When landscaping, homeowners should avoid disrupting flow patterns created when the property was originally graded or altering slopes. The normal property drainage in hillside areas, for example, is from the rear yard to the street. Some properties drain to natural watercourses. Earth berms are used to prevent water from flowing over the slope, and these berms must be maintained. Large trees or vegetation with large root systems should be planted at sufficient distance from the structure or slab-on-grade areas to avoid roots from extending under footings and slabs, in which case they could lift the footings or slabs or alter the moisture conditions and cause movements. Additional Recommendations The following additional geotechnical recommendations should be incorporated into final design and construction practice. If the anticipated differential settlements are found by your Structural Engineer to be unacceptable some of the following recommendations may need to be modified. All such work and design should be in conformance with local governmental regulations or the recommendations contained herein, whichever are more restrictive. The following recommendations have not been reviewed or approved by the city at this time. These recommendations may change based on obtaining approval from the city. Design of the proposed project should be made following approval from the City/County. Site Preparation Based on available information,we understand that the site grade will be raised about 40 feet and lowered approximately 45 feet. Building pads should be prepared so that each structure is totally founded in structural filI with a relatively uniform thickness. General guidelines are presented below to provide a basis for quality control during site grading. We recommend that all structural fills be placed and compacted with engineering control under continuous observation and testing by the Geotechnical Engineer and or his field representative,and in accordance with the following requirements. Removals a. When demolishing the existing facilities,the contractor should locate all existing foundations, floor slabs, debris pits, uncontrolled fill, and subsurface trash. These soils and structures should be completely removed. The resulting excavations should be cleaned of all loose or organic material, the exposed native soils should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches and compacted, and the excavation backfilled. In areas to receive fill or to support structures, deeper removals may be required,as discussed below. b. Remove all brush, vegetation and loose soil prior to fill placement. The general depth of stripping should be sufficiently deep to remove the root systems and organic topsoil. A careful search shall be made for subsurface trash, abandoned masonry, abandoned tanks and septic systems, and other debris(including uncertified fill)during grading. All such materials,which 11 APPENDIX NO. 14 l Moorpark, LLC Casey Road Senior Co m i u iiu File No.: J EIJ-020299 are not acceptable fill material,shall be removed prior to fill placement. The removal of trees and Iarge shrubs should include complete removal of their root structures. c. To reduce the risk of differential foundation movements, we recommend that all foundations be supported on structural fill,and that the thickness of structural fill beneath the footings and slab area each be relatively uniform. The differential thickness of structural fill beneath foundation system of any structure should not exceed 50%. d. In building areas, areas to receive fill or to support slab-on-grade construction, all existing artificial fill, younger alluvium, and the upper 30 feet and locally up to 45 feet of older alluvium, and the upper 2 feet to 5 feet of weathered bedrock, or a minimum of 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed footing or a minimum of 2 feet below the slab, whichever is deeper, should be removed and recompacted as structural fill in the proposed construction areas. The maximum depth of recompaction below footings for garden walls or pedmeter sound walls, however, can be limited to one foot. During construction where footings are in close proximity,over-excavating the entire structural area may be desirable and less costly_ 1 e. In parking, driveways, and flatwork (patios, walkways), a minimum of 2412 inches below either existing grade or the structural section,whichever is deeper, shall be over-excavated and recompacted. f The removals can be limited to the proposed building, pavement, and fill areas but should extend a distance not less than 5 feet outside the slab-on-grade areas or fill limits, and 2 feet outside pavement areas, except in situations where a physical constraint, such as a property line or adjacent structure,would prevent such removals from being made. Removal limits for footings of buildings or accessory structures(e.g.,garden walls) need only extend beyond the hardscape footprint a distance equal to the removal depth below the footing. A careful search shall be made for deeper loose soil spots during grading operations. If encountered, these loose spots should be properly removed to the firm underlying soil and properly backfilled and compacted as directed by a field representative of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. If the excavation to remove existing suhsurface structures, pipelines, and loose fill soils extends below the minimum recommended depth of over-excavation, we recommend that all subsurface structures, utility lines, and uncontrolled fill extending helow the over-excavation depth be removed to expose undisturbed, native soils across the entire building pad. g. The exposed bottom of removal areas should be scarified,mixed,and moisture conditioned to a minimum depth of 8 inches. This thickness of scarification is included in the thickness of removal and recompaction mentioned above, unless the bottom is unstable and requires stabilization. The scarified soil shall be moisture condition to at least optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Additional lifts should not be placed until the present lift has been tested and shown to meet the compaction requirements. Suitable Fill Material a. The excavated site soils, cleaned of deleterious material, can be re-used for fill. Rock larger than 12 inches should no!be buried or placed in compacted fill. Rock fragments less than 12 inches may be used provided the fragments are not placed in concentrated pockets or within 3 feet of final grade, and a sufficient percentage of finer grained material surrounds and infiltrates the rock voids. Furthermore, the placement of any rock must be under the continuous observation of the Geotechnical Engineer,and or his field representative. 12 APPENDIX NO. 14 1 ,ifoorpark,LLC Casey Road Senior Community File No.: WEN-020299 b. Rock fragments greater than 3 inches may not be used within 6 inches of final grade. c. Imported material should preferably have an expansion index of less than 20. Placement of Compacted Fill a. All fill materials should be placed in controlled, horizontal layers not exceeding 6 to 8 inches thick and moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture but no more than 5% above optimum. Fill materials should be compacted to a minimum 90%of the laboratory maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM ❑1557. If either the moisture content or relative compaction does not meet these criteria, the Contractor should rework the fill until it does meet the criteria. If the fill materials pump(flex) under the weight of construction equipment, difficulties in obtaining the required minimum compaction may be experienced. Therefore, if soil pumping occurs, it may be necessary to control the moisture content to a closer tolerance (e.g., 2 to 3% above optimum) or use construction equipment that is not as prone to cause pumping. b. Each layer of fill under the building area within the upper 48 inches of the finished pad shall be of similar composition to provide a relatively uniform expansion index beneath the building. Selective grading shall be performed to either place more expansive soils in the deeper portion of the fill or to mix the more expansive soils with less expansive soils. • c. Subgrade for the support of pavement sections shall be moisture conditioned, as required, to • obtain a moisture content of at least optimum but no more than 4% above optimum, and be recompacted to at least 95%of the maximum dry density to a depth of at least 12 inches. Fill Slopes a. Proposed fill slopes must be founded on a keyway of bedrock or natural soil approved by the • Gcotechnical Engineer or Geologist, and or their field representative. The keyway shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width, dipped into the hill, must extend at least to the proposed toe of slope,and extend at least 3 feet into competent material at the outer edge of the keyway. The fill slope should be benched into the existing slope. b. Fill slopes shall be constructed by placing fill soil a sufficient distance beyond the proposed finished slope to allow compaction equipment to operate at the outer surface limits of the final slope surface. The excess fill shall be cut back to finished grade. Subdrains a Subdrains should be placed along the back of the first bench above the fill slope keyway that can be daylighted. The subdrain should consist of a 4 inch diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe surrounded by a minimum of 3 cubic feet of clean gravel wrapped in a layer of geotextile filter fabric. b. As recommended by LGC in the referenced report, a ring drain should be constructed at the contact along the removal bottom between the older alluvium to be left in place and the engineered fill. The subdrain should be located at the limits of the older alluvium where it will be in contact with the bedrock along both sides and should begin at the north end of the site and extend south along the sides of the removal excavation to the south end of the site. The approximate location of the subdrain is shown on the Plot PIan, included as Plate 1 with this report. The location of the subdrain is also shown on the 8.5"xl 1"copies of the geologic cross sections and geotechnical maps prepared by LGC,also included with this report. • 13 APPENDIX NO. 14 1 Moorpark, LLC Casey!Road Senior Cantu nny File No.: WEI-I-020299 Testing of Compacted Fill 3 a. At least one compaction test shall be performed for every 1000 yd of the fill material. In addition,at least one test shall be performed for every 2 feet of fill thickness. Inclement Weather and Construction Delays a. If construction delays or the weather result in the surface of the fill drying, the surface should be scarified and moisture conditioned before the next layer of fill is added. Each new layer of fill should be placed on a rough surface so planes of weakness are not created in the fill. b. During periods of wet weather and before stopping work, all loose material shall be spread and compacted, surfaces shall be sloped to drain to areas where water can be removed, and erosion protection or drainage provisions shall be made in accordance with the plans provided by the Civil Engineer. After the rainy period, the Geotechnical Engineer and or his field representative shall review the site for authorization to resume grading and to provide any specific recommendations that may be required. As a minimum, however, surface materials previously compacted before the wet weather shall be scarified, brought to the proper moisture content,and recompacted prior to placing additional fill. c. During foundation construction, including any concrete flatwork, construction sequences should be scheduled to reduce the time interval between subgrade preparation and concrete placement to avoid drying and cracking of the subgrade or the surface should be covered or periodically wetted to prevent drying and cracking. Responsibilities a. Representative samples of material to be used as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the physical properties of the materials. If any materials other than that previously tested are encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer as soon as practicable. Any imported soil from off-site sources shall be approved prior to placement. b. All grading work shall be observed and tested by the Project Geotechnical Engineer or their • field representative to confirm proper site preparation, excavation, scarification, compaction of on-site soil, selection of satisfactory fill materials, and placement and compaction of fill. All removal areas and footing excavations shall be observed by the field representative of the Project Geotechnical Engineer before any fill or steel is placed. c. The lateral limits and the depths of the removals should be shown by the Civil Engineer on the grading plans. d. The grading contractor has the ultimate responsibility to achieve uniform compaction in accordance with the gcotechnical report and grading specifications. Utility Trench Backfill The on-site soils are suitable for backfill of utility trenches from l-foot above the top of the pipe to the surface, provided the material is free of organic matter and deleterious substances. The natural soils should provide a firm foundation for site utilities, but any soft or unstable material encountered at pipe invert should be removed and replaced with an adequate bedding material. The site Civil Engineer in accordance with manufacturer's requirements should specify the type of bedding materials. If the on-site soils are not compatible with the pipe manufacturer's requirements, 14 APPENDIX NO. 14 1.1laor park, LLC Casey Road Senior Commwiiry File No.: 11E14-020299 suitable nonexpansive,granular soils may need to be imported for bedding or shading of utilities. Jetting of bedding materials should not be permitted unless appropriate drainage is provided and the bedding has a sand equivalent greater than 50. Trench backfill should be placed in 8-inch lifts, moisture conditioned to at least but no more than 5% above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557, with the exception of the one foot below subgrade in areas to be paved, which should be compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density. If the contractor can demonstrate minimum compaction requirements can be achieved with thicker lifts,the acceptable lift thickness may be increased. Jetting of trench backfill is not acceptable to compact the backfill. Major underground utilities shall not cross beneath buildings unless specifically approved by the Project Civil Engineer and respective utility company. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations of 5 feet or less in height in on-site soils may not require any special shoring. Vertical excavations more than 5 feet deep, if necessary, will, however, require conventional shoring per CAL/OSHA Regulations, or the excavation may be Iaid back with a 1(H)_1(V) gradient. Excavations should not be allowed to become soaked with water or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the excavation from the top of the excavation, unless the excavation is properly shored. Excavations that might extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of an existing foundation should be properly shored to maintain foundation support of the existing structure. FOUNDATION SYSTEMS Conventional spread footings founded into certified compacted fill can be used to support the proposed project. The following foundation recommendations may be used in the design of conventional shallow footings. Foundation Desien Where appropriate, foundation elements for building support should be deepened per the California Building Code slope setbacks. Actual foundation depths will depend on the structural design. The geotechnical recommendations for foundations are provided in the following sections. Shallow Foundations Conventional spread footings founded into certified compacted fill can be used to support the proposed structures. The following foundation recommendations may be used in the design of conventional shallow footings. pis^lii;s�Y_-,: I!IIllrlYl��—_ - �IlrYlil�41'I'Y • _ __—,lill�lll,•111 �:Yllliiilrtlr'. :•Ir:i::'iil r;c.il- �;li k:-i:-•i::;I- — ;•I�ir;• :I. Single Story 12 12 8 24 Two Story 18 18 8 24 These embedment depths are below the lowest adjacent, final grade. Where located adjacent to utility trenches, footings shall extend below a one-to-one plane projected upward from the inside bottom of the trench. Due to the potential for differential settlement, all isolated or spread footings should be tied together with grade beams. 15 APPENDIX NO. 14 l Moorpark, LLC Casey Road Senior Community File No.: It FI-l-0200299 Allowable Bearing Pressure and Lateral Resistance Allowable net vertical soil bearing pressure, including dead and live loads, are given below for footings founded on compacted fill at the minimum required embedment depths,provided the footing width equals or exceeds the recommended minimum. This allowable bearing value includes a safety factor of 3 or more and can be increased by '/3 when considering short duration wind of seismic loads_ - ,.Iii , •,1 (�j; ": 1'f: ,,�1�:�,.r:lt{:'. :1��''i','r�li;:'�. __ i��ll • COMPACTED FILL 2000 0.3 300 2000 This bearing value may be increased by 150 psf for each additional foot of footing width and 150 psf for each additional foot of embedment above the minimum to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2500 psf. The bearing capacity can be increased by '/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction along the base of the foundation and by passive earth pressures on the side of the footing. The allowable friction coefficient may be used with the vertical dead loads, and the allowable lateral passive pressure can be utilized for the sides of footings poured against the supporting material to resist lateral loads. These allowable values can be increased by a factor of 1.5 to convert from allowable to ultimate values. Where the soil on the resistance side of the passive wedge in not covered by a hard surface(e.g.,concrete or pavement), however,the upper 1-foot of soil shall be neglected when computing resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. Steel Reinforcement All foundations should be reinforced with a minimum of four 114 steel bars. Two of these should be placed near the top of the foundation, and two should be placed near the bottom. Structural details of the footings, such as footing thickness,concrete strength,and amount of reinforcement,should be established by your Structural Engineer. The supporting soils have an expansion index category of low. If the soil type encountered during grading differs from the specimen tested during this study, expansion index tests should be performed at the time of grading to confirm that more expansive soils are not present, and if they are present the designs may need to be revised_ Due to the potential movements during seismic events and to the expansive nature of the soils, any spread footings should be structurally tied to wall footings with grade beams. Required Observations Prior to placing concrete in the footing excavations, an observation should be made by the field representative of the Project Geotechnical Engineer to confirm that the footing excavations are free of loose and disturbed soils and are embedded in the recommended earth materials. Slab-On-Grade If earthwork operations are conducted such that the construction sequence is not continuous or if • construction operations disturb the surface soils, we recommend that the exposed subgrade to support concrete slabs be tested within a day of the concrete pour to verify adequate compaction and moisture conditions. If adequate compaction and moisture conditions are not demonstrated, the disturbed subgrade should be over-excavated, scarified, and recompacted in accordance with the guidelines in Site Preparation section prior to the slab being poured. Structural Design We recommend that concrete slabs be reinforced. The structural details, such as (1) slab thickness, (2) concrete strength, (3) type, amount, and placement of reinforcing, and (4) joint spacing, should be established by your Structural Engineer. The soils have an expansion category of very low. 16 APPENDIX NO. 14 I Moorpark, LLC Casey Road Senior Canauurrily File;1'v.: IV 14-020299 Cracking of concrete flatwork can occur and is relatively common. Steel reinforcement and crack control joints are intended to reduce the risk of concrete slab cracking, as are the use of fiber reinforced concrete and proper concrete curing. If cracks develop in concrete slabs during construction (for example due to shrinkage), your Structural Engineer shall evaluate the integrity of the slab and determine if the design has been compromised. Also, concrete slabs are generally not perfectly level, but they should be within tolerances included in the project specifications. Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the underlying concrete slab. Therefore, if tile flooring is used, the slab designer should consider additional steel reinforcement, above minimum requirements, in the design of concrete slab-on-grade where tile will be installed. Furthermore, the tile installer should consider installation methods, such as using a vinyl crack isolation membrane between the tile and concrete slab,to reduce the potential for tile cracking. Post-Tension Foundations The Post-Tensioned Institute (PTI) Method of analysis, which relies upon increased stiffening of post- tension slabs to resist significant soil stresses due to variations caused by climatic conditions, and the information and data presented in the LGC report was used to determine the geotechnical design criteria presented herein. Post-Tensioned Institute Method The potential for differential uplift in this method can be evaluated using the design specifications of the Post-Tension Institute.The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used. -20 in/yr I : .i::;. ri =,:3- 7 feet 1 Based on the above parameters, the following values were determined. If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values ofYmand Em can be considered. El 21 to 50 [ 11. - 5.5 feet r: - -• L: 3.0 feet 2.0 in 0.75 in These edge lift values are based on the effects of climatic variations only, as specified in the CBC. In an attempt to account for the potential effects of irrigation, we recommend that horizontal moisture barriers in the form of deepened perimeter beams be used to retard non-uniform surface moisture migration beneath the slab.The bottom of thc deepened perimeter beams should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the Structural Engineer. Pre-swelling of the soils must also be used to minimize uplift after construction. The design criteria are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent worst-case conditions such as adverse drainage and/or improper landscaping and maintenance. Additional protection may be provided by adjusting the edge lift parameters for a greater Thornthwaite Moisture Index value (to simulate irrigation or wetter conditions than the presumptive climatic conditions). This is discretionary. Additional parameters for this modification can be provided upon request. General Post-Tension Discussion The allowable bearing capacity may be taken as 1000 PSF at pad grade and 1500 PSF at 12 inches embedment and with a minimum width of 12 inches. This may be increased by one-third (%) for short 17 APPENDIX NO. 14 I Moorpark,LLC Casey Road Senior Communio, File No.: 11 E]4-020?99 duration loading, such as by wind or seismic forces. Care should be exercised to see that all spoils from the slab subgrade are removed or properly compacted. Pre-saturation of the foundation soils should be initiated well before concrete is scheduled to be placed. Care should be taken to see that the water has { properly penetrated the soil. Last minute flooding is not a good practice. Excess water remaining in the target pre-saturation zone at the time of concrete placement will penetrate further into the soil, possibly causing additional expansion and uplift of the curing concrete.A minimum of one inch of sand should be placed beneath the slab. A vapor barrier (i.e., ten mil visqueen) should be installed where moisture penetration of the slab is undesirable. Other aspects of the design, including but not limited to minimum reinforcement, footing embedment and the need for interior footings, are to be determined by the project Structural Engineer. Vapor Barrier We recommend that a ten-mil (or thicker)plastic vapor barrier and a 4-inch thick sand layer be used under floor slabs in moisture sensitive areas. The vapor barrier should be layered with sand,2 inches above and 2 inches below. The placement of the vapor barrier should be selected by either your Civil Engineer or Structural Engineer giving consideration to the factors discussed in ASTM EI643. Seams of the vapor barrier should be overlapped and sealed. Where pipes extend through the vapor barrier,the barrier should be sealed to the pipes. Tears or punctures in the moisture barrier should be completely repaired prior to placement of concrete. In those areas where a moisture barrier is not used,a 4-inch thick sand layer shall be placed beneath the slab. The sand should be classified as a clean sand (with less than 5% fines in accordance with ASTM D2488). RETAINGING WALL DESIGN Foundations Foundations for retaining walls can be designed in accordance with the Site Preparation and Shallow Foundations sections. Lateral Earth Pressures The earth pressure behind any buried wall depends on the allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, any hydrostatic pressures, and compaction effort. The following equivalent fluid pressures are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure, no surcharge,no seismic effects,and a backfill slope with a gradient less(flatter) than 5(II):1(V). :1 ill r; 11411; �'�:�:�'1• -:._t1;'��•';''.suer,l.!.f el':,.C_i� T7, ._moi:'- �:�i1'•;c��:- ::illi 30 40 45 45 60 70 _--1 In areas where the backslopes are steeper than 5(H):1(V), the equivalent unit weights in the above table should be increased by 13 pea for gradients of 2(H):l(V) and 30 pcf for gradients of 1.5(H):1(V). The above values are applicable for backfill placed between the wall stem and an imaginary plane rising at a 45-degree angle from below the edge (heel) of the wall footing. If the on-site soil is used as backfill within this zone,the equivalent fluid unit weight associated with a soil classification of SM-SP should be used. The surcharging effect of anticipated adjacent loads on the wall backfill due to traffic, footings, or other loads, should be included in the wall design. The magnitude of lateral load due to surcharging depends on the magnitude of the surcharge, the size of the surcharge-loaded area, the distance of the surcharge from the wall,and the restraint of the wall. We can provide assistance in evaluating the effects of surcharge loading and seismic loading, if desired, once details are known and provided. 18 APPENDIX NO. 14 1.Moorpark,LLC Casey Rood Senior Community File No.: !{'E1-1-020299 Backfill and Drainage Except for the upper 2 feet, the soil immediately adjacent to backfilled retaining walls should be free- draining filter material(such as Caltrans Class 2 permeable material)with a minimum horizontal distance of 2 feet. Wcep holes and/or drainpipes, as appropriate,should be installed at the base of these walls. In lieu of filter material, crushed stone protected from clogging with the use of synthetic fabric between the natural soil and the gravel or a manufactured drainage structure(e.g., Miradrain) may be used. Subdrain pipe material should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe meeting ASTM D2729 or better. Accordion or similar type pipe is not acceptable for subdrain pipe_ The top 2 feet should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to reduce infiltration_ A concrete-lined V-shaped drainage swale should be constructed behind retaining walls with ascending backslopes to intercept runoff and debris. Waterproofing exterior retaining walls should be considered to mitigate the potential for efflorescence on the face of the walls. During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any wall, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within 5 feet laterally of the wall or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height,whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures. Within this zone, only hand-operated equipment should be used to compact the backfill soils. The retaining wall backfill should be benched into the backcut where the backcut is sloped less than(flatter than)0.75(II):1.0(V). Decking Decking that caps a retaining wall should be provided with a flexible joint to allow for the normal 1 to 2% deflection of the retaining wall. Decking that does not cap a retaining wall,should no!be tied to the wall. The spacing between the wall and deck will require periodic caulking to prevent water intrusion into the retaining wall backfill_ PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN Grading All areas to be paved should be graded in accordance with the general recommendation for site grading as described in the Site Preparation section. Prior to placing base or subbase materials, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned as required to obtain a moisture content of at least 2%but no more than 4%above optimum,and recompacted to at least 95%of the maximum dry density, if test results show that these moisture and compaction requirements do not exist just prior to placing base or subbase materials. The subgrade should be proof-rolled to check for soft spots. Base materials are not required beneath curbs and gutters. However, if base materials are not utilized beneath the curbs and gutters, it is recommended at the subgrade soils be scarified 12 inches and recompacted to at least 95%relative compaction. Compaction tests will be required for the recommended asphalt concrete and aggregate base. A minimum relative compaction of 95% is required for the asphalt concrete, aggregate base, and upper 12 inches of subgrade soils. The aggregate base should have a minimum R-value of 78 and meet Caltrans Class II specifications. Base materials should be placed and compacted in lifts not exceeding 6 inches. Asphalt should not be placed if the base is pumping. Confirmation of R-Value Testing to determine the R-value of the subgrade soils should be performed during the grading of the site in order to determine a pavement structural section. It should be noted that the pavement structural section design recommendations presented in this report may change once the R-value of the subgrade soils is determined at the conclusion of the site grading. Maintenance Pavement section design assumes that proper maintenance practices, such as sealing and repair of localized areas of distress,are employed throughout the design life of the pavement. 19 APPENDIX NO. 14 i,Moorpark. LLC Casey Road Senior Community hie No.: JVEI-1-0201299 Asnhalt Concrete Pavements Structural section calculations were performed for asphalt concrete pavement design for a range of traffic indexes. Selection of the appropriate traffic index to use should he made by your Civil Engineer based on their knowledge of traffic flow and loadings. The structural sections for asphalt concrete pavement were computed in general accordance with the Caltrans method (California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual). Based on our review of the referenced report, an assumed R-value of 25 was determined to he representative of subgrade soils at the site. The results of the analyses,using an R-value of 25,are summarized in the following table: 1-'i if.• lo;fid::` _ ? .-. ; :i. - 5 3.0 7 6 3.5 9 7 4 11 Concrete Pavements Considering the higher pavement stresses in trash enclosure loading zones or other areas subject to f extensive wheel turning, we recommend that a concrete pavement section be used in these areas. The pavement section in this case should consist of a 4-inch thick Caltrans Class 2 base layer, a 6-inch thick, reinforced concrete layer with the concrete having a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3000 psi. The minimum amount of reinforcement should consist of#4 bars at 18-inch spacing each way and suspended in the middle of the slab with chairs or other approved devices. OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING r Please advise this office a minimum 24 hours prior to any required site visit. All approved plans, permits, and geotechnical reports must be at the job site and be made available during inspections. a. Review grading, foundation, and drainage plans to verb that the recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted and are incorporated into the project specifications. If we are not accorded the opportunity to review these documents, we can take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our conclusions and recommendations. b. Observe and advise during all grading activities, including site preparation, foundation and retaining wall excavation, and placement of fill, to confirm that suitable fill soils are placed upon competent material and to allow design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. c. Observe the installation of all drainage devices. d. Test all fill placed for engineering purposes to confirm that suitable fill materials are used and properly compacted. 20 APPENDIX NO. 14 1 Moorpark, LLC Casey Road Senior Canwumiry File No.: WE1 l-020299 LIMB'S AND LIABILITY All building sites are subject to elements of risk that cannot be wholly identified and/or entirely eliminated. Building sites are subject to many detrimental geotechnical ha7Ards, including but not limited to the effects of water infiltration, erosion, concentrated drainage,total settlement, differential settlement, expansive soil movement, seismic shaking, fault rupture, landsliding, and slope creep. The risks from these hazards can be reduced by employing subsurface exploration, laboratorytestin$, analyses, and experienced geotechnical judgment. Many geotechnical hazards, however, are highly dependent on the property owner properly maintaining the site, drainage facilities, and slope and by correcting any deficiencies found during occupancy of the property in a timely manner. Even with a thorough subsurface exploration and testing program, significant variability between test locations and between sample intervals may exist. Ultimately, geotechnical recommendations are based on the experience and judgment of the geotechnical professionals in evaluating the available data from site observations, subsurface exploration,and laboratory tests. Latent defects can be concealed by earth materials, deposition, geologic history, and existing improvements. If such defects are present, they are beyond the evaluation of the geotechnical professionals. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended in connection with this report, by furnishing of this report, or by any other oral or written statement. Owners and developers are responsible for retaining appropriate design professionals and qualified contractors in developing their property and for properly maintaining the property. Retaining the services of a geotechnical consultant should not be construed to relieve the Owner, Developer, or Contractors of their responsibilities or liabilities. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part on the information and data presented in the referenced reports. Although this report may comment or discuss construction techniques or procedures for the design '' engineer's guidance, this report should not be interpreted to prescribe or dictate construction procedures or to relieve the contractor in any way of their responsibility for the construction. The Geotechnical Engineer's actual scope of work during construction is very limited and does not assume the day-to-day physical direction of the work, minute examination of the elements, or responsibility for the safety of the contractor's workers. Our scope of services during construction consists of taking soil tests and making visual observations, sometimes on only an intermittent basis, relating to earthwork or foundation excavations for the project. We do not guarantee the contractor's performance, but rather look for general conformance to the intent of the plans and geotechnical report. Any discrepancy noted by us regarding earthwork or foundations will be referred to the Owner, project Engineer, Architect, or Contractor for action. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the Owner, or of their representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architect and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plan and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractor carry out such recommendations in the field. Workman Engineering & Consulting has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Client and authorized agents, and this report should not be considered transferable. We do recommend, however, that the report be given to future property Owners for the sole purpose of disclosing the report findings. Findings of this report are valid as of the date of issuance. 21 APPENDIX NO. 14 I,Moorpark, LI.0 Casey Road Senior Community File,Vo.: WI-:14-020299 Changes in conditions of a property may occur with the passage of time whether attributable to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent properties. Furthermore, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur due, for example, to legislation and broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to our review and remains valid for a maximum period of one year, unless we issue a written opinion of its continued applicability thereafter. In the event that any changes in the nature and design (including structural loadings different from those anticipated), or other improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. This report may be subject to review by controlling agencies, and any modifications they deem necessary should be made a part thereof, subject to our technical acceptance of such modifications. All submissions of this report should be in its entirety. Under no circumstances should this report be summarized and synthesized to be quoted out of context for any purpose. Test findings and statements of professional opinion do not constitute a guarantee or warranty, and no warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement. We have strived, however, to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this community at the time of this report. { r 22 APPENDIX NO. 14 REMARKS Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Please call this office at(805) 302-9381, if you have any questions regarding this project. Very Respectfully, WORKMAN ENGINEERING& CONSULTING • R. Mark W. 'man.Jr., RCE 68557 hn C.Rubenacker,CEG 2200 op CIVir .201 44-ire _2 No.68551 ?' EXP.08130/15 �cjOAL GFS ke* OF Cpa . CCF J •-•i � ENCSLu^,t.48 �. GEOWG:S7 F:-7.04-30-74 q- APPENDIX NO. 14 I Moorpark. LLC Casey Road Senior Communiy File No.: JV I d-020299 APPENDIX I fl LOC Geotechnical Maps and Cross Sections r 24 APPENDIX NO. 14 ••,..„..,„. -1 p_..., .,1,4• 110--*-4,- '',--...,-,000,0r‘d°1 '.'1:?A-917n7-'-'‘ ' p .iic: ::..:-,_ .,i• -("'..- .,...... •e-tiF-Z71-7,51/----7'"....,' ---, .. • ...,,.5 . . • . .. . . . ,-:t''.:; ..1. -...kic ,.•:._-- - ••. LOT • =05 - - -":.••-• - '.••- .,:-: -.1•••• -;4--'r:-• F..1" 00111\114; '4°rT1:4 un PT S trA IF-'C../ cr'' :.TfIr• . - r'-•;•--• .4• WOW :bv/ n • •- k_41.7.,-,!. • -..i, ,2.1t,., 4.2.4 re -:sr ; , .... 11 . .... -..- , ...L.,.••••• . • . - -".. ' ';.4.-. --, 17?-17"--,m. V.-r.:.777.- it-170--""‘-'' : •'-•:'77--:, 1r -I- . ..'... • - 17-''7F R 1 1 ' 4 1... 4.-'-'.. - „....-)7:7-•:-)t _ -1,.t..ill, ;1 q?.. ..r• :..- ?..,:-.._- 17'52.i•-•.--;- • -;„ .-'7..'...,..W. L.--.-,,r,e----•-• -• d , T • .7 -" f it,:4 i,:i: .7.037 7-• -.',-. :•:...? --. ,.. ;Le.1,.....:I 1g fr 1.41 '1 1,7k•- ..--- • -' • • ,. ,1'..!--•_, 4 , ,..i.•-,,,- ..• iroj:......,. -• :: , i, ,To'poi i itll ' 1'4'Sr.. .rti-------.,..;. . ,... AI ••---1.--.- . u.r TE:_i_ - ' . ...---,-. 1.3512W --91 i• 40"73 - -:__ • -1-- • . • "- 41".• .- 1: / .1f "•regf• .. ' - LOT ).Di 2 .1k-••• LW 23 "4" 1-‘1T 3""3' .\--, 77 • . .5 ..T.- 45z3,. ,c,„,, ,...L..„, ...v.; Pt.4,11 .Pe 00 :U../ •7.1-.;.7t 7.,...t...-;. •,,- 5 5.007. - .-1. 1 I I' FIT,6 -:.-- - '' 895-f. 1''''. ' ' : 4, 5 OTO11 cro21.4 • ' \ "• • Do fok wo..- -.3.ur 03.3,3z. oort-Lor-oo LOT 107 I,;',,f,46, • -. ,.,-. I., pool ,7 -,---.7-.•(,,,•-ri-tii;T.-- • - '------ - -- • -'•I.-1 Tr l''lt.-,,T •-j- -'.p,'"' -..,6 . akiiim -----.,-c,,,,,v-f-.,,.,p:--- - ."' -,, . 4,.:. ‘ __:-.„„,,--.. _-, ,!tJ• - -: -'4 ' 7. i : •..'-.:::'N-.; mf-7;--;2-Or,. --..`• -=' / . ' . r-ui. ,,, . -,1,i- , ,-: . - .,s, , -.. ,..-40tv.-..,,,,,..,..--• ..,/,' i r - .. .• ,i) tor 21 *rip. • . • L.,,,io „Aqui:7,...,1G ) ,/ 0010 ....._'•51---' ••" r •r..n.p. l'fr ••'7' ••• • :171 00 chi d•”ios • -- .. r- ,_ - :,!.J.-.1_,)_'• .. t.•.c. . •-: ,..: pi-- w.,...7%up m f r '''.c a Z,:r..-. ("01,"iii .0/- " ' i .-1..• : :'.-! --La''';'Irs..:':;'..1,. , :,-:ivir,-, _ ' , s'''111 ;1:.' ::,.,. ,,-. .-v ' ffil rj.).-4011 .11‘,. : f .' -. I' -1• --.. .. - L to i'Lae 1 ifili •erd .•;lair . ). ..' , LI - •'',,L. Tar Lia .52. +5.4 --,.... ,-.,f. ..,r, . ..... .. . it.:..4.b --- . . -. f '4±:s2•. -''''.7-..- •.:STREET • q--\A ''':;',, AY-- 0-1 . I • ./ ,L- • ', -, .1 =--, ___, .1/ - .._.- ) 1e, . ',I, , •0; ..,I:-. v.-I i . , littiou r- . 1,-,7%i II._,-- -,,..,..., „._...__ 2- - .. . . '. .; trk ..,-,., ' \ -- 'IDEri r--- -- -.40;17*-1. .- ..„. ... foual--.-.----z'------ ; 1. r - - . ; -•' Al -'''1''..1 "x g Cf ' '"" .Lk. ':. '7 'iar7,517 ....• •:i..--: llfg.. - N tesitliall MOW hr ""-' !_li. --4- % _ •- .34.,,-. •,-.-.:-- 3 ' -,i. -.4.. :joij!...L r' I ' -(, .--•-t. •\\ 1.- -'LIN*•.,.."• .;-!":67M1 • •-. - -• •• 11.43 -.. ' • dig, 7-.111111./ 4;1412 °w i• .•7.-- '' - '7-----,,s.",71 1 I ,.2.,,‘'.! •RiA 41- I 'tioitijiWit'.,..'' .111"/ - ,• . •,% t•el sz ,\ .121302 ‘4‘. 1 V-..,__ ,___Lizgalleirol'. ..... .., ! i ;• ..' - - '-diNgsippr - .- F-1 . i , i LoT 121 1 I 1 ....,.•••..:„.,46/14e3. ,,A-- - -.••".•-‹i _ 49 ._-. ,. 1 Cji 102 di a or --•,..._•.: ._. 4 ., .v 1 . ; jeWlitaSiF '• : 0:..... T ...49/0... ii.. , . 1 ,725 ..] ,... i . tor.72 tit,. , firwril,: tiviii-Tre?Pi i p,. . i ' '1/3.rp • 4 Otirsaajta '.- 1• - '46'. ;se a• - i ' •-------------- 1 LOT 123 - .... '..17;:- . ' ...• I k-III°V1 ' • III t'-,.,.1 I -.. 1...." - LOT 174 • .- .1.• „, _‘ '' .": i ifilt Ili* , .. • ,5-/ i ..--' . .01. 1it,,, 4, "•"' / ., - • A :of .....-%444-.....zej.... li.....f, . z I es• A 6 sir a) . r,..• .! -/ Fr- .,,,,;;;,,-;."4.14, A / k 1 /. ' Ak : ••' ," ''.t.'":"1-',.-94.,. /ir -i- .1 . ):(,)' • . oar -IP tsar ,]..‘ / - / - .,I. • • ''e NNW,, /• - -•'i '. ° - '-'- • - -•\... 4P', ' - 1. Cg 13.5: A flay iv ,- ., e. , . ,.....,... • . ., ...• ,,0-.. / -3,...! :r., . jil -- eg lb.. 1,,, e.1.7 „ I, .-- • I ---- - ' P "Ot'l ---TOT T1 i ) .‘. • k".,,. ..--,.,,,4,:• „___________- ...„.",...\, ,.,....,...„ 1.5 . .5 Demi 0.4501 ...1 i __ vOttli. ST CR/Ct -I I, OM - .1' ' 1.extoos a • , • do. • 1 122.137_/......_ I 0 24-5' NI., . ... N • ..4.•. ' 1 ___J .. „ ,. . , . ... .,. • , . • ... „... ... ._.,... ,,,.,,,, . _ ,_, : r _ . . / , 1,...................=\._.-1 / rJz. .1 1 11 0,1 .-- I 'I" -- . . ______ r-L . .?'•'' 9 .9.1 , . -_ - CASEY-, ROAD] ijq4 '''i CASEY , ROAD._1 .,‘.T. .__. ;-1iw .„k,.. .___.. . • --------------.... .\ 1 3i 11' • 1 -'...-,' inGc,,a ............. ., V.,' "-="Z"-tl. -- -..- - t.•3 -.=--=• - .. , ....-=-_=-.._ - H pA• T=t 5 ...._.-.- LI:: .- ic .............-- 1--1. .-----__ .....-....,-... . ,.• .. .. Qs -....- ...,--. (E) ---.....• Fl-.4,- -,,,___ ...... . , ........__. -; =.::":2 ....,..... a r 1 • J013 No.0633122-01 1,-.......-- 1 GEOTECHN1CAL MAP 000toctuocat consuming,Inc. I ' : 'W.......• I ....c......,,......,i CENTU HOMES:WALNUT CANYON-TRAM-5 r 505 pasFkrbionsaa la s.i.ve.f.C49XLS pi,..ylw AMICZSLAIIMKT, - -1 1 RATE 1.1 '''.''.. MOORPARK CAUFORNIA ru_gOSSIS4434 FAX pill AS-.V..15 limim••nsmu......o.3.1.4.5.5.7, _ -- c.........-..,...,..3. . • • APPENDIX NO 14gM. { • Nllec See PLdv1.1Ferl.rard _ --- - 18 a1/ If `. • -_ _ - ' L-` ti•-�—' ........... ...vS]u Y yaRS--.t + _ S P T — • {Air ?. _ f. l ,_ I1Qy ` • .. - - : iiiii . 'y (ofthWal .: ..: .. _ / .. . .... :::::2., . -,.: '' -Alf:::i1:::- 1 ''-'1: i::::::;;\...i-;::::;-7;'...i....!',1 . VAO.R. ... = c,:: 400... .:.--1.; -.- ._, :..:-.:...:-4i,,,zr,-;(..r.. ..#.". ,.• •,t,- - ..,..•-,--.-. . . 0, T-- IL,-, eN_ ""lis47. .".17::::. \---:'-. •- J,. ..":1`•;:- .--:� -:11'.- r M \':". ‘!'; \; I LOS 71,•• ���-- �oSe'r ,....-,e-i 0 , �I►� •. Si,. lLUA arLTr -...4\10,. � }1,t77 F i. , ..:-: .:,-.0.0i,i......4.....0.111.0. wmvru �r�.c al _ � ~ ,� +'. •sari Lalw 'CCoT�aIfliW '' 111014111111\ a' 1 _ 01..›.00.116.... Aro • sr' rt � -'• I - _ n ‘7j ai i �I , `. . - �..0:• 4.....„---...gets, : . c. - t .RT ' jfi• , i. .•... ,A idAii\114,)' : r 2,- !. 1i' ' fit y 7." le".- " { .-- ' fi[ �O'` 10 .r ion 0'¢ . ii#1000, . 1611\4*,,*,,,Ak. ...1l.,lAr-116 4. .. `.' - ._ .. .- rCRA-RFL,�Jlrls. . y � � . ��-�-�•� 00 i. ,....,.. ., . I / ..._ _.. Lar ti -or a; 6r37 T cUi s7? `io: ..IT-.--• pr.s 1.44 +-v ell-7..ril. --n E.LC • ..r.,•:-, . .,: :::•.,, .nruida .iiefilitP.1, ..." % „.....;:.•--• r:••. - •- - .4"flill 101151.0.0,79>I10".' la 7, ,... .. •R. ! — iC Lar sw fTit `�. r,cn - iG23. Ar .537_.. r :� '_i� �---:.-. I 1 1 '-:. -.-..— Lor ton. .•v_ 'I.,', E.',- ./.-.00- .f-W . ' ' /`. • --,- 1L.• f' tgoa - •1 •'•.3.61: for.. Lot 17 laI. • et um [ Arorn�om�e:ucwr.: 1 • rrx , rq c7[r1yr x- [�r .ii � `v rm z 11ry a SSS y IU5111O g. 13 --;�f._. fSICT. ..,-.---- -LT Lli3F- :A• �---T 3 • y. /- ra.wc m rr ,.mr, T.•: } i , i_-_-777 :: �I . fS. , 1 ' _..yr xw.6sr1 _ I :_. , V _07,09, for 1w, mfiz.i. / J X e Fro. i`- ter `+iii • • • !027 "--%--- , fG_ ' of ro, [ _ f y�#weir; [ ■°y .'}j. 1111211-97-4111iR' *[�Rra rc uah Lal.sa r'�" lu r I • �.• - ~'�-. -moi !'LIM 4 t�,13.41 41• • at 27 n�f '• o:MD•x• rare: 4 Gil , . y I Lt .y -• •f" 7RfEC a!s a� ` • f :,' 's ;' for-= ++ fYt bus �; 1 - , .*% •ter I !�J or[ za.=.,e Lar r[r'- �� _ >f ,spa • . ,,, L)_2. i ,• ' ---' - .-''.-.Q i'..7 1 .. 7 l• 4 igitiliilipe4,:fier / .... Jab Na.06.3002-01 j...,......, j GEOTECHNICAL MAP a,..�..�.e� j — 1�G..�[..,� 1 Cara HOMES:WALHUTCANYON-TRACT5565 204 Die usLGC `` 1 PLATE 1.2 1 MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA se[r,■[r,uslms f i�� ..rwe�*.� 1 }r r.r TEL P:19 51/.504 FAN 1709}Fi�]S M.•-n�n_w..+dr.S•wcel 4 .._—- --�« MA�■Ftsr .��1 APPNDIxNQ:"._1 leg 74 C12/-� 1 or' ,[/ I077s - 4 f 1 I011s l AO7 N,� ISA Y lass 93 4D 22•S' iP ja .� ' 4 Bv x� As+s I"�R �Alr msr .;.. 111/233- y- - i ; .� kRnv ® @ov 7-`r f m.� 1 ▪ 1 -•` 1--.—________----'----------` . -. - Y//'1 vim-ti . 1. 1101, '',.-1/11 •_-- .'1. A' . ' rkl.)-;-L1. - KILLS pA i _�.{ � o . ' - . .:-- - • .-7 , ' I/ „) '''. • •I#V. ,' ..:4. ••0 -' --11 ''---:' n I, t n 1 ON •y.1 T• SOT-- •- •64! -P-5i V.7.7:7' 4f9�! r }•� ivw n '' •_,,: '1 .. • „� r n Los n c7 '„ �a["� � • .i.�- --- :rte▪ •_ `-".-:.••`''~-. 4 � � 'J -. - --V. ':7:.4''' • ,�o 4A fly tra - 7L11_ V' li% ' ti Ir, _ .n( TSmay,r :4-'• 1'�r 5�'. . � r:-' - -�+.c24 s • ; f •I . -"31, 111klie ir 1 .55 .10 L A•T V.N.r, ""VLS:e/5:1-Iiik LII:*;:dicL.P.:Z1.4'4,-.5 . 4000FP'' •. • ' i t .10 . ',„ '1,011V` • .st,,,... .0 05. ,,..0.4,...-* • ...;:. • .9 4 5 5 /-• - , 4ga .S?.- V ‘'‘._:--•• -7 •_--'...' . .\;.a Wiellit.:e4 "...1.1.V.,,e-".1?-1"..To. .c.,1.-' ...,I:A L. .4%'-'.7.---:'".••-.......Z.L;.• • • 'crl 7-4.t<All *44704 ....iir - ,:".-ii ------- ., :.r •"5- \\:"...‘` �.'j -112 -®S 1G�1'F:. - W" fox Ito is• S g ftCO"r 1 10- - I • i • - VO I ---� ' 17 • _ LT k'7:-..:7t or 33 1 g 28' _ j I- -37 LUT 3r �L61 V. ' L_ - n s xVu•. I 9 K:E 1 r,c WSi _____ ,r 1 •7M n77•,3u..- ._cl c a.nr �- -." i. . 1 - - 0776 • /Z/ ). . .,:,- S -` TS.Si' 1- 1 / Lo ?_a wr los 31 Lot s: ' �r7 °II �' x caul� a]a� �•--�-� i Y] x1 2 . 3 .- - r 111 -, In I r - . a.1/dJ'/-C�fl.-.t. i 1 ' l -� j QQ-Q f 6Z1S •J tor ig ; B1 1•Lt �s7s VI 574 ' i Ly. h---r. ^Ti" Air 7 , oi, # 7:I,,/,'! , - kri • t. . 1 1,,,./,/ x,1,q4A.w•?,Ili .4,1 6./.,/ 4;-1� . } 1.,.A'far I1_-. _ _ ft 727r •47 --rid TQ•77 ! ` ailL, lir -- - -- PA -1 i1�1.1 Fa Lamb -1 111`444111} j--, 1 frr�F• , , t Job No.063002.01 o... ., Lamson dr Associates ,...�., _ ��," -� GEOTECHNICAL MAP N...F 74. Gootachnlcat Consulting,Inc - - • CEHTEX HOMES:WALNUT CANYON-TRACT 5505 vs Fly ra a 115 -- NATE 7.3 "., MOORPARK CALIFORM srivrw,cams ,;.:,r.: ...-,./_+ iEi{S615f0.7ei FAX 005]5143135 1...•- ...'.w•.} rr.r�...1 .1.Irr i APPENDIX NO. 14 A A. ` •A'Suva 1 Lal ltf•CeienYm aaUn Inanaeaon 4omremon -680 660 - Crpea Sana,a-r GoaSoda'KA' Approdmaa DA n Prado R I Approve as E ►n 1 App oAnvta Lawns r of as u I ti•LC C) TrAxgrophry 620 - 1 I -620 580 --- - -- - _ .' -580 540 - --- - ; ^� - 54D -----" Apprudmata Laswn m 1f DPaeut end xrr..y 500 - 1 r - 500 ArKlepalcd Pkat Rerrnnl ro i 5' A pyres INF 7-1 a•baud on data ban 600mt ea*io MO DUE WEST Project Nemo Comex/Walnut Canyon LGC , PLATE 2.1: Prosct No. 063002-01 GeoteChnEcal Crone Section A-A' Eng.IGeol. BIHIMCH Centex Homes:Walnut Canyon Scale 1"0 40' Moorpark California Date 5130106 APPENDIX NO. 14 B I B, •-- 1 11111 -A' .... -I I-Lot 2 I Lol.a I La 4 Nppwkruk Ellin ... TRnM Trod _ &proximom Coto 4 nou dory 660 — rSLpfanmllo ,�plrorms:o Lac1Umnr CAM Seell nJJ Prono I I -660 4 trs!4cn o.fla w] n�4w LGc%! I I Lr;c;•t ` ` 1. 1 R li `, 1_ j 1 7; 620 620 ��,,.-'�� . 1 _J &- - Q C 580 _ -r-r i .-1- ' summand s mFIL c ., Ti-, - RN Dila 0 -` • _` ;-. apprL� m,aoL MO' - 540 540— Mi appro 7a.L 660' � Cloy God asdoomed n „1-. f•— Gooroto(20a7) no S11a(341' lo nor-0111 hog pogo • ta•n1 a • - 500 500- Nrrktol4d Remo6301 Rcmaml Prot! TC-465' DUE WEST Project Name Centex/Walnut Canyon 1 PLATE 2.2: Loject No. Ofi3fl0Z Ol Geotechnical Croce Section B B' GeaContex Homes:Walnut Canyon Bag/(3coL f3I Moorpark CaliforniaCalifornia =40ia Soak 1"=40' Dec Sf30l06 fi_.. -- __ ...__.-__ - -- - - APPENDIX NO. 14 C C' f OPS SR V 'r soak Log 117 oWn sC�a I 'A•6evos I L019 ! �Me I Lm7 I Luta�Ld6 700 - V for ,oNita E +mnabiromaU,>ng - T00 Praire Topoprophy I . . A(ipa> ilc loostQl of t♦rxhn B-IGC-3 880 - 1 -560 App arat•loo like o1 LOC FAA Tlvndl 7.1 t � . 620 - -620 1 s— L/ __t 580 - ` .. ,�I - 580 In.... i— r Rim 540 - J `_ '__--- --------- ------ aMa�er ...... - 540 fra rte+p P0+10 1c:at r apcxwtrDalo N.5e5' Mfdpatod Ramodlal Rpl a m1 PmA1a 000rmnaalt>npnm .. - 500 500 - • , . ., N 80°W Proloct Name CanlexfWalnut Canyon PLATE 2.31 Prolcct No. 063002.01 L Geotechnical Cross Section C-C' Centex Homes:Walnut Canyon Eng.1 Geol. HIHIMCH Moorpark,California Scale 1'=40' Dale 5/39106 APPENDIX NO. 14 D 0' 1.1G1 L•111.1-11r i�e.naArw� Tawe Yr emr I u -—�n--I I-- — ,�.w,..no„ 1f— ,�.r... I— I ,,..�. ... . ... �.��, 1 ..,.cn,„ 860 i i -880 620- `1-1: 6N Qo en ` --------------------loaf_-- ` r: a -- ... r 580- Obi `Day.nYlbs 1i Opfb�wYMa A -- 0 0.1 +.-- T MMw.M.NNi...... -------? -----r 7—_— TAl1J ------ 540 'l540 14.err.. - 540 500 - 500 Ora*rognI ml b marl Gam.Y1Y.W n1.J. ww.rrld 1r Ms b Gr k• .....1........•••14.0441•1*l1,11 LXWIDrp I r1 wWMn1 N 60'W • L G C KATE 2.A. GoolochnIcol S. CdOn O-O miJnc rdlte C+ b E5Oeol1►.4 Gnygn 024 1:31131/Mai ki3cnier. Cdikeri. Sate 3'•40' -- — APPENDIX NO. 14 Ep v.r 1. . A...rw lo.ue.0 E' Aber M447 l.w*Iow 17 I-80..1 1 ---I---I--6"-t----wN I I Lel 05 .A.Wpm I Lei rrww-� - OPF~s(Arm N a+•wra.w. ' I I III T *. ..w — — — 820- -�_�` Goal s2o Goal Qat .-_... Qs 560 QS .----11- s �----------- 580 1.r9.`• - '{__ter... r r po.r+K.r! �m..is y_l Inv R.`R G.MCC.WI Ana-trail U54a- .. , ,_ M 540 +Iw...0.0r.r..r I +w..rart a.r>as... Qs 500-1 -500 0,6..1.4 .. WW10.IF..ISM W I.Pt.r• Gn4K.4�la.I.6r Ma r.ry0n ..11..M Pad} o P I.Orea Pad}Mom Pu N 66'E i PLATE • 2.B: li rN GNWK'+ht Gerin L G C GeobxMlcak Corsa Section Ems' ° 07AI CeM Liaarp.c'MewI:MaCanyon It/CmL 6nVHCF[ Yacr{Ia.k Cdb+� I'•iO UNr Sae= Il __ .. ... . . . APPENDIX NO. 14 F F' Nora+Has Pukrtry 760 - -760 AFProureld DONGr 720 - roahlato ailing P IfM Taf,�,a -720 i i I 680 - 660 640 - _; - 840 - `-f -� � ..... t r� Boa - — boa f].' Ols to 600 ldf `� tam An poled Ramada! Rarnmrd Prof", ~ - 560 560 - oD'+a, + aookdo hmryorari al basad on +W data from wash Berra 6+S N 19°W r Prort Name Centex/Watnut Canyon i PLATE 2M: Pre act No. 063002-Q1 G•C I Geotechnical Cross Section F-F' Eng./Cool. BIH/MCH L . Contex Hames:Walnut Canyon Scale I"x 10' Moorpark,Califamla Data 5/30/06 --- . - APPENDIX NO. 14 G G' North N I4 Porkwair Trod 800 — 4 " — 800 nae N to Mtn I �w000v"cMEdrWq Proms } I 760 — I I — — 760 1 Q, • ..s.a. _ 720 720 680. r J — 680 Warm'Dip:1.3' 640 — — 640 600 — — 600 N 7°E / ProJoct Name Ccntex/Wnlnut Canyon PLATE Y.7: Project No. 0630.02.01 GaotochnIcal Cross Soction G•G' 6n�IGeel. 91HIlviCH LGc Centex Homes:Walnut Canyon r Sae l"=40 Moorpark,California Dote 5130/06 j APPENDIX NO. 14 H H' LD SO Lot 67- 760 - .. - 760 App vxlmala Dadr n P aao . 720 - - 720 M . c i!!6l d to' I &Atom Ihogs F I ; I I 680 - _. -..T,, - 680 Tr°a T°p°GraOhl' ... „ . . . U.1h i — — 640 640 - sera I — Approni alp:14'VIVA 600 - - 600 560 560 N 27°W / 1 PLATE 2.5: Pro'ect Hams Centex/Walnut Canyon technical Cross Section H-li' Pralect No. 0fi31102 0! Geo tech Centex Homes:Walnut Canyon EnFS Geol. BIH/MCH Moorpark California Scale 1"A 40' Date 3/30/06 APPENDIX NO. 14 I I1 Trac Prelim*a:hdq r ro@ b�, Po lib/to 0.1103 pl esunaWecent tract 6441 bJ 1.514m Lpu , . p 800 - rt APp Pore I - 800 —Lal EO I Nulh Ha Pm1+mr I M1Pp Wit° s� H I 760 ---- I - 760 I ApprPdmefe Ocalpn ••�?. --. ..... ... .. .. ... Prado ';:? r:71,4'• •- 720 - i r- I ---. ; — 720 680 - ,.• --- 650 Append tIO 1•3'away 640 - A,e .rod - 640 Rertrsd Prado • 600 - -- 600 560 • 560 DUE NORTH / EIT13 PtAIt 2.9: CantcxlWnlnut Convert GeotechnIcel Cross Section I-II Pro Centex 0630ox ei Centex Homes:Walnut Canyon Procct Eng./Gcal, B[HIMCH Moorpark,California Scale 1'=40 Date 5/30/06 i APPENDIX NO. 14 J .1t Lot 111-Monica Onto I LER2 rapvompty Wooden wncre aea� 620 — Cogs c Seellon tr —• 620 I i 580 — — — 580 --- 540 — 01-1,-,. '%,.. — " " ,...~ .' -- 540 a • Rmnda rumour prods 500 — --- 500 460 — — 460 420 420 N 15°E / PLATE 2.10: Proiact Nun a Centex/Walnut Canyon • technical Cross 5ootion J-J' ProiactNa. 06300243 Geo L G.c , Centex Homes:Walnut Canyon ling 10eo1. BIH/MCH Scab c 40' Moorpark Californiaalifo5/ Data 5130106 APPENDIX NO. 14 K K' W wp 1Ree0, keorsadtm EdilYq&mu.f{ Trod 660 — Oodpn i I Cron Seam FA r 4 °vindo"' — 660 Road —IA 1II.OolonIEn OA MI Doti I I I 1 {1 II µ� ! I I I �� f ASI PnRp I I — 620 620 hpP7� OV 580 - I •..' .. --- 560 1"'.- �_ '`� Clay god aneroid ln I oaab6o poosl oorl+p 1 540 810atir — 5:77A0 Rxaiwendad Bed,CW �1 ``44 __—_— and 1yfyr+Y `Th- Appoint Ola 0.tat hated on peaoylc day Iran&Wan 00.65)hukq B 10, Ma eared uNla 500 — — 500 460 ' 460 N 46°E / ME3 Pried Name Centcx!Wnlnut Canyon PLATE 2.11: Project No. 063002-01 Gootechnlcsl Cross Section IOC Eng. Geol. 3311-1/MCH Centex Homes:Walnut Canyon Moorpark.Cablamin Scale 1" MY sr30/0s _ .. .. _i _ - -- APPENDIX NO. 14 L' 10122 Taawap 4 Apprwtrr Daalp, Topog4-9 reply (Ow* ti a6rol P+'° 66fl — Lal 10d Tso-aa— — 660 Ealiana —1n �+ryrynn 6LL • _ 580 -- — 580 apued Ramodar Removal PIINa 540 — — 540 Apparent Ca22.D•2'1a,hr rvat 500 — — 500 radaalc In tervra a,ian mead wpm data from Gadabr Ra032 norIndat1 460 460 \DUE WEST PLATE 2.12: Praicct Nome Centex/Walnut Canyon 3002-01 LGc Geotechnical Cress Section L.L' Ptngeet No. MACH Eng./Geol. BIACH Centex Homes:Walnut Canyon Moorpark,California Scale 1"=40 Date 550/06 —. APPENDIX NO. 14 M fa. .. I, :,_... ....,......,..... 4,4°. 1 Yom._,_ -------------� E--------------- -- .$ - .:.._...__. .- __- . .________ ... ti � CM -650 �..�= .1 . r ..-------- ...........•...-. k T4W ME RATE C 3.11: ��- I -- i�� o ww.�ea..s.a.,ItS TI APPENDIX NO. 14 PLATE 1 PLOT PLAN Casey Road, Moorpark, CA 1" =60' JOB ID: DATE: 02-14 WE 14-020299 W ORKMAN E NGINEERING Sc C ONSULTING P.O. Box 391 Ojai, CA 93024 805.302.9381 23 @6' @32' /5 $ @6' \.-,9 @27' E 6,294,600 @ 27.5' y @ 12.5' ti @ 41 13 @ 8.4' @ ::4! 28. '30' @ 15.5' ® @ 649 �o^O \\ v /t// / 58' 00 oh051-11 1 /@ 27 -mow @ 54.5 /3 @ 32 X : 18.2 co 10 @36' ' ,%5\ @ 58' x655.24 � co 0 .653.5P ' sin \ - 1 / / �o �o / @ 29.5' 9> TD=90' @ 37' °° @ 19' ® © 60' ----"1---- - � _ '� % 13_ _1347.40 TD=55' MI - - - - • r- ` tititiiii / /6 157 8�9�E i I ` ‘ / @ 21' 0 TD=75' ,..A. _4 (brt- A `� / B8 B9 syr af / @ 20' \ 4,31 @22.5' - I - P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - @ 34' �' Q 1 S `� �'` / 1 ^ M 8 l• ` ' \ Of in @37 / �� 16 ^ 0 ��= Qs ' Begin 4"Perf ' •• @ 40' approximate E 1 ' / ' U If ` TP15 2 •. x` x a, t of V N / ° Is ? �, Q 680go 9114... _ )/ Agt A, ;.'1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111N : III......."...imiiii 0 p ..... !iiLmi, v 11 � • • 1 i LW/WNW / i / x62 ii to S 43 632.26 AIM x- Begin 4"Peri / bSl .91 A proximate EI 600' Ij cope * QC+ , ,__J \ \ 1 660 * 1� �� , 1 :1111111111MIIIMIN-4111111111111Araall x I ilk • , * _ x ®� x i'J W` 1 9 - - - 200.00 - _ 1��� 589'48'16"W ` 1 6 - 340.63 „, ���- � � [� �'y .� `� •�� I I / . TIV � ► N89'48'16"E �� �.' ` • o1 B6 x61 1 N89'48' `• 11, k 0 -71.1".- . illil Oo I1 41119 Alk NI EIC ' It ``�I %. `�� --gin 4" Pert. / I III I / ' � Approximate el.650' �Al /)) ) I I / OP ] 6';��:f 1 0 Ift I ' ; N 0 ,_ ,..m,Cei i 1' irwitii:„ . - ,,'' , \ I P1 /// / x618.27 t coSII , (cc- _ . • 1 Ii. a. i. \\560. , ,,,,i. _x , x . ...17.... \ 1 zeigi* .11 ;_ii!..A 1, 24 �ic/ / 4; 6 _e,, 0 ; ° ° , \II i'l * �1 ' I , W� (" iii / // //)6 . , - 1_, 7,./ z....„„,,,,,,,,...... 616: #•;) , # w* AI ' il 111 \.•••, - - /77-/ � # 6460001.6\ti `ialt, 'I ,� :// / /// //////// / / � xL____,:/.61..5.... ..,.......z............,,,,. /6./ /........x.61..4A ` Isailr� +IL ////� //l / ..../ 612.06 \ \ .� �► 1' / B1 //� / ' .611 .23 `� \� .‘ /' gF' / •ski l� ��/"� / .: •���• .�• 11100* B- -6 % 644 _ ° � 4 r /./ //./ l'S �` ,� 12': pprox •71 ► i�. \l' ' , itcn t. 6° Perf. z/ ///✓//1.4 /` "' �i� x610.98 / TD '.5 TD=61.5' ' � S /// \• , 4o GW@60 \ • jP4 // // / / r � rij 01111111,11 x63 , i "G' i 2 / ,� -II // /./ / / �� x x / ..../::.:.:::.::.........,...,i6.1..?/: :: / go il e l •Z t r , ../j^/ /./ 63� . ;,610 / _CQS � @ 7/ 606.86 ê%64o / / _•'i'� sso //'-// // / 6= x i E` �" ,,;110........„6:63... • 0. %63; / / z \ / k @ 10' / .. ....• .. r %46!_(1 6.r..... ..::::. .// °M •NO 2.. 1 /1 / 4 *7 ••• .:::' ...... *\1i, ft . ./. 4:.:1/ -1 e , .. • 0 0 /// f�/ / // // It2t K- .kfi06: .627.11 A.. oxi or o , a tk / II / .` , ,' ' 40 , � �� 61 � x-x- x- - x603.04 : �•••. :� •• :.111 • 11 \ .x0. ,� �,� . .604. m 6 r° ':__I=.1.1. :4 440111/10, 60(4 1111 IIINV I , 11;110M • 117 / 1 _I I t. ..,::::.7. '. / ;:>rE r _�`�� : l � _ • 14 0 \� � �F Alri x619. 60<�.9�' I . C. 17ta ; ./ 0 © 37.5 1 1 TD-56.5' •apl lif )li.i ' 61 /11 N. „ TP6/ 0 I 4,0 @ 15 ; 632 KO • , are . Ix•• �':: x622.39 4 o ' A 49.5 ..� 601.:1 1 of k / � ` :moo@ -x cinw1 • ' / Approximate/ , • 'Ci '�� ••.eC19' I 1 • �/i .. / r EI. 584' QC �• \� s7 TD=57' 7/xJ98.40 6�p::' .:/ N'-'49'55"E _� /�9• 3.00 ‘ \ /x598:69�.! 1 t. ., 41/1 / w filor 535.44'13"W oga oo . 20' 1� 0 1 lei ti ti B .> / x619.40 1 t / I h ' �`�� - - - - Cha •' : o O al ` ® t • �� �y -47.46 O o @ 20.5' 13 I I iftjfilif y III ` - - 234.41 -• (O /25. 589'49'55"W ` - ' `r` / x 5.17 617.21 O 1 �� N35'44'13"E / x @ 26 /< to 2 0 ik. 1 / s i ch . . _ �� - /1 IL 61 /. / `�� \ .595. @ 33' Pli %1 64/6 ilt 1 0 \ _Attegio 0 lel i 1 1 4 ° a TP7 7 i .� 11 1 /I 10111* ° a , Qc �i9. iy .591.7‘.........s0 2. © 38' to ---171- ifet !! , .. .: .. .. / , •,, _ _.:,... ____,./.. / ./..../. .,_ _ @40.5' ---7:-1 ��� ' � / @ 13' • .9' Aptat' 64 11 ��/ Iii /44c'! \i' ::'.' :`.✓ TD=50' / EI.SIo' ® ♦ /11 \ / :12 ;II i 1 15' @ 27.9' oV qi ,. / % \ 441_ 4 132.: // e .al I % C.:_sii.:;:4 L._ ��1,/ ! . . ! ii3 ' dti 15 @33' -r 4I � Approx mate !ft i et, 4•146 sio ' ,11 i 1,11/4 I 15'4' / / 1 co? 4> I wits " P-rf. -_PrOlip""ar SW mbirkijf /..1 � NOV. "'�/ of 22.9 ;"1 r 6' I _ 3 "' / @ $ :X5$5..1 �� ••wwwiri leag. 415 14'414••-'111111-1111111Mal IS% fill / re P 1.: .0 A� , �, T-241r , / / % 1-/�- ,`�'�.; ' NI .• p x578. •� 83.2 ir / T-1 � � • �, •• Approximate ,,� LEGEND • • / / // EI.565' bj ' 5 � i It �o � 'oma ` o / x604.0: , , r� '� � � ; � of Artificial Fill / � tat._ •, �* @ 18 > @ 34.5 cn f�� 58597 23"W ID Yawe 'Immo ri�I6 �' „ � A.e Alluvium Iledoloo 'lb o4 i Qal � ' \ ,, ti �� _ , 3 / r/ 11 .8 @ 36.5 06I/ P , ` QC Colluvium % ' I _ ;7-j& 2 / - ,of 6oA 1 4 • • • @ 17.5 @ 44 3 Qls Existing Landslide FT-3 k /60„,Sitc5ti . Oal Older Alluvium ,"'� / @ 19.9' a, @ 48' Q too" / ofS Sau us Formation o / - � / Q g FT-2 @ B-LGC-3 51 -I 159q ,I / /af / 1 @ 27.5 ti 62 4 Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Boring � � • ; I Vl�i� I TD®s (LGC, 2006) / �� ►��I / / / @ 30' F TD=79 ' • / � 6 NO GW Pp?L/ '1 ' - 1 B= / Ii T-2 I- I Approximate Location of Fault Trench, LGC f ^�94m • 'Approximat BI �� = t -2 p _ _ 40.0 � ro I. 560' 1' TD 96. ,�� lall I. 5.. / B49 G �9, ► / 1�/‘5 / ,_, , , : it Approximate Location of Bucket Auger Boring, 4400• '89' z' 4"W 1:i \ `\` / x56:.- + Geolabs 2005 ` \ x•11 tiv.!� • . x 63 Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Boring, ` W‘ 7\ ` ``�` .ch . 600 , ® Geolabs 2005 L. - @ 3' @ 28.7'• \\58 '6 \ �,•�, ` / TPI6 Approximate Location of Geotechnical Test Pit, ;i1') /i1' witch , 6'6'0 /1‘1*-k ' Geolabs 2005 A.% So Pipe 8� �$ ` �� @. ` � , 5' A @ 31 .2' 01 -5•. L `-9 EI. 5' .4 (:, 5AS. , CPT2 Approximate Location of CPT Sounding, I 1 0 •, let . L '�� Geolabs 2005 o \opk @ 9.5' A @ 36' 1 I TD=71. � W3 x L ��> _ Approximate Location of Fault Trench, 1 N51 t:7' 13.5' 41' FT 2 �� Geolabs 2005 ,! • o '�o @ -1A @ o I � ' f a f Approximate Location of Proposed Settlement Monitor 7� © 15 @ 42 • Qal _ \5-14. /• I 30 Remedial Removal Depths in Feet ave ‘ \ 572 0 / I , } © 17.5' (5:\ @ 48.5' i.!?.. / x559' -•-•- Approximate Location of Proposed Subdrains ` • ` � � \ i �Q RA 20, 9__ /0. 52, !.... ‘ 1111 of/ - - Approximate Location of Qoal to be Left in Place ' ( Lo @ 24.5' I @ 58' \\ I Approximate Location of Geologic Contact • ` �� 558. [ TD=70 � ; 1 \ • / I I - - Anticline f ell/ -- - c%:? ' -- , 3 Approximate Fault Location, LGC 4- *5' li h x3 Strike and Dip of Bedding \ \ i g • ft)!7 _ 0' 60' 120' X52 Strike and Dip of Fracture I Joint - - 263.90 -'\ir y I I I N89•51'16"w I I 1 inch = 60 feet Horizontal Bedding x--- - x559:46". � \ � .01 X- - ' :555.6.53 : / ::,[1 ,-; Strike and Dip of Fault TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ____ SCALE: SHEET DATE . IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK 1 " - 60' 1 0F 1 APPENDIX NO. 15 ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY \�Rojyc c�o� • • Casey Road High Street :NNNHHttt fQHHlMHHHNNtklftttltlklfHflffFR- \n Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue - 7st5treet w F � Los Angeles Avenue March 26, 2014 ATE Project #14001 • Prepared for: Aldersgate Investments 300 Esplanade, Suite 430 Oxnard, CA 93036 r ii7� ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 1„c) 100 N. Hope Avenue,Suite 4,Santa Barbara,CA 93110-1686 ® (805)687-4418 s FAX(805) 682-8509 APPENDIX NO. 15 = ==== ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS = Il 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805) 687-4418 • FAX(805) 682-8509 Since 1 978 Richard L. Pool, P.E. Scott A. Schell,AICP, PTP March 26, 2014 14001R01.wp Mr. Matt Mansi Aldersgate Investments 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 430 Oxnard, CA 93036 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY FOR THE ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT, CITY OF MOORPARK Associated Transportation Engineers has prepared the following traffic and circulation study for the Aldersgate Senior Living Project, proposed in the City of Moorpark. The study evaluates the potential transportation impacts associated with the project. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Associated Transportation Engineers A V4-- 2- Scott A. Schell, AICP, PTP. Vice President Engineering • Planning 0 Parking • Signal Systems • Impact Reports • Bikeways • Transit APPENDIX NO. 15 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Street Network 1 Intersection Operations 4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 7 PROJECT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS 8 Project Trip Generation 8 Project Trip Distribution 8 Intersection Operations 10 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS 12 Traffic Forecasts 12 Intersection Operations 15 MITIGATION MEASURES 18 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED 21 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 22 APPENDIX NO. 15 TABLES Table 1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service 7 Table 2 Project Trip Generation 8 Table 3 Project Trip Distribution 10 Table 4 Existing and Existing + Project A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 10 Table 5 Existing and Existing + Project P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 12 Table 6 Cumulative Development Projects Trip Generation 13 Table 7 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 15 Table 8 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 15 Table 9 Cumulative - Project Percent Contributions 18 Table 10 Mitigated Intersection Geometry 19 Table 11 Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 19 Table 12 Mitigated Intersection Geometry 19 Table 13 Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 20 Table 14 Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 20 FIGURES Figure 1 Existing Street Network and Project Site Location 2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan 3 Figure 3 Study-Area Intersections and Existing Lane Geometries 5 Figure 4 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6 Figure 5 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 9 Figure 6 Existing + Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 11 Figure 7 Cumulative-Added Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 14 Figure 8 Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 16 Figure 9 Cumulative + Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 17 APPENDIX NO. 15 INTRODUCTION The following study contains an analysis of the potential traffic impacts associated with the Aldersgate Senior Living Project. The study provides information regarding existing and future traffic conditions within the project study-area and recommends improvements where necessary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is proposing to construct of a senior housing development with 258 independent living residences and a 212-bed assisted living facility. The project site is located on the north side of Casey Road west of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site within the City. Regional access to the project site will be provided by State Route 118 via the State Route 118-23/Los Angeles Avenue interchange. Direct access to the project site would be provided by a driveway connection to Casey Road. Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan. EXISTING CONDITIONS Street Network The project site is served by a system of highways, arterial roads and collector streets as illustrated in Figure 1.The following text provides a brief description of the major components of the study-area street network. State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue), located south of the project site, is a 2- to 6-lane highway that extends from the State Route 126 (Santa Paula Freeway) in the City of Ventura to State Route 210 (Foothill Freeway) east of the City of San Fernando. State Route 118 is signalized at Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road. State Route 23 (Walnut Canyon Road - Moorpark Avenue), located east of the project site, is a 2 to 3-lane roadway with a center left-turn lane in the study-area. State Route 23 serves as the primary north-south route between the Cities of Moorpark and Fillmore. Spring Road, located east of the project site, is a 2 to 4-lane divided arterial roadway that extends south from Walnut Canyon Road to Tierra Rejada Road within the City of Moorpark. Spring Road is signalized at High Street and Los Angeles Avenue. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 1 - March 26, 2014 ArrEraDD)( r.io. 15 A N NOT TO SCALE �a ' oc PROJECT Lac SITE N�� • da lCasey Road 0 High Street 1111111111111111111111%111111111\111111: II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IIIII111111111111111111111111111k'11111\1111\111111%//l/////1111%/.IIli Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue 1st Street o o to o v a' o era X D o Q 0 m 1"'1 Los Angeles Avenue - ii II Ai ASSOCIATED FIGURE ( lc,' - L TRANSPORTATION EXISTING STREET NETWORK AND PROJECT LOCATION �� \_ -I 1 ENGINEERS MMF-#14001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 2 March 26,2014 APPENDI)( NO. 15 N - "� NOT TO SCALE WAtTI G EppµT�A t.. _ / � � ...... =__.„.„.4)1, 1 ' • t •—.—,--- • $0111• • :TIM., VIr*.r...,--- .' 1 It.. Ent 100‘ „4.1,4//,Al•. . •.',:,. ... . : . ;•.•• \.•' 1,..c .elitTr.,t-'''('--,, lir \\ t•' I 4.41", '- :f--',..1-,...- •,,:•" "•• s•' • „ic _ "44 \ 81 . • i 1 ,. e�i� p♦ei .s .jfrzs1 v/t � 1ziCe • — ./I „n+ '' ' %Wi •,ca/ r_ er +RKMOP •• ,r ei Atiltil 1'7..• 4;" ..t a ••••• -,..., • •••• • .!?•• • ;••••• H / • r� r ,I c> iiii:.-- iltilamillak_ --- -- kwe.,__qr__I__50/0j � - �1 •�, d � 'I - _C ' (1 k'''s 4/141/tibilittirtiglii4tf"/ .// i,1 '''kbs‘ \ ‘ 7111‘141111111111rj,jr$0 */ ,/ ---1--- .—..1//\A\ gel i -9- • . I ill*W",-'-4 .4; '1'iii 7,41 yt1iiI 10 ter' rb: ,J .=J • ) il.ik?"1;-\..------.,_ __ --ii..:7----47 I : ) '1(, .. \ ,1\ 44;4\ \\ ,, -...1,1\111\tt VS • `' �`) Ali "1-1--- I " a ` 7C,— i4f�i� � a~ t..r. ,„J w_,J \_r� `..._�.._—�_._ • j •yr•a ao'&ob 0:�ea�ca 4`oc5saV •,.rem WAITING ON d RVEY FOR CASEY ROAD GRADES r :1-",-,--lr_ +A /7"4_,I-' fit 7:,‘ a.1 w COV ncuin g�w v 1:41831/P.a f it + I ,tion"--46b7-- I TAECITTYRACTMARPK 1 SC:A•LE (DAAZ0E:iszsa SHEE: 9 SII III♦= " ASSOCIATED I^ TRANSPORTATION FIGURE ‘.....1.----.-T-- _ PROJECT SITE PLAN (2...,..cam/ E NGINEERS Aldersgate Senior Living Project MMF-#14001 J Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 3 March 26,2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 High Street, located south of the project site, is a 2-lane arterial roadway that extends west from Walnut Canyon Road becoming Princeton Avenue east of Spring Road. High Street serves primarily commercial land uses. High Street is signalized at Moorpark Avenue. Poindexter Avenue, located south of the project site, is a 2-lane roadway that extends west from Moorpark Avenue to Gabbert Road. Poindexter Avenue forms an off-set 4-legged intersection with First Street at Moorpark Avenue. Poindexter Avenue serves primarily residential land uses. Poindexter Avenue is signalized at Moorpark Avenue. First Street, located south of the project site, is a 2-lane roadway that extends east from Moorpark Avenue to Bard Street. First Street forms an off-set 4-legged intersection with Poindexter Avenue at Moorpark Avenue. First Street serves primarily residential land uses. First Street is signalized at Moorpark Avenue. Casey Road, located south of the project site is a 2-lane roadway that extends west from Moorpark Avenue. Casey Road will provide access to the project site via Walnut Canyon Road. Casey Road primarily serves residential land uses in addition to the Boys and Girls Club of Moorpark and Walnut Canyon Elementary School. Casey Road is signalized at Walnut Canyon Road. Intersection Operations Because traffic flow on urban arterial roadways is most constrained at intersections, detailed traffic flow analyses focus on the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods. In rating intersection operations, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating free flow operations and LOS F indicating congested operations (more complete definitions of levels of service are included in the Technical Appendix).The City of Moorpark considers LOS C to be the minimum acceptable operating standard for intersections. Figure 3 illustrates the existing traffic controls and geometries at the 6 study-area intersections. Existing peak hour volumes for the study-area intersections were collected by ATE in February 2014 for this study (traffic count data is contained in the Technical Appendix for reference). The existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the study-area intersections are illustrated on Figure 4. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -4- March 26, 2014 7 APPENDIX NO. 15 N\ I �\\\\\\ �c��° 1 'SITE 4. NOT TO SCALE s 1 igh Casey Road 1 4111 el r---1 3 LZJ High Street I 1 Innnnln111111nII111111 nlnllnnYl.11nIInInIIInI1nullnllnlnlnlln7Xnnnl111111 Ht�iH+H1lnulnlnnnlllnnrnnllnl Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue 17411 1st Street O iso so Po oa a0 a 0 0 ab o Los Angeles Avenue IJ , I 21 31 "44 -' 4 '1-1 4L T-7. I High Street I I Princeton Ave. Casey Road In High Street I _? k k-1 t + -4-T ---ii. ,VItt-- F O O N --4 g3 41 51 61 • Poindexter Ave.! ., 1st Street ILosAngelesAve. M lbs Angeles Ave. LEGENDJ ® -Signalized Intersection d --11- � 2-•411I 0 x o -Lane Geometry / FIGURE -II II. ASSOCIATED C3.....)- TRANSPORTATION INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL `_ ii ../ E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 5 March 26,2014 l APPENDIX NO. 15 soca \`\\\\` �6�oc a 'SITE ` N �a° NOT TO SCALE isi / 1 Casey Road 0 • I-2-1 r31 I_--I High Street 1111111111111111}i111111111111I II 11111111111 111111111111%///.4}}11111111%111111111111 II 11111111111 I11111II I III'll I II llH1111111111111111111111111 \Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue E 1st Street o a -a :-1. 09 w m 0. 0 0 m ati 1-6-15 ,6, Los Angeles Avenue JW JN V -,v1 O.p w.prn if,4coN co W., 4—W v v !- 121)96 o %-(155)313g rn w J J 1 L -(14)45 —(253)253 I ( }(213)229 J ` L r-((100)115 7(25)-j --I ' 13(1)) -1 I 38(15)-, - 60(259) 50(15)— 327(201)-- w o 70(12) rn j 104(96)-1 N m v _ O._.O W O V N 01 W .P LI?N J N N J NJ J N CO NCO -� N01 4A LO Out CO U1 t0 Cn'-' -,N,A a o.A (-(10)11 0th. L(147)159 u)Vo rn ,-(263)548 J L —(45)28 (886)984 —(867)978 (-(5)11 J , f-(86)243 J , L x(65)108 278(199)J --I (- 124(133)) -) f r- 169(157)) -I f �- 31(14)— 966(861) 888(910) LEGEND 86(93)--) v 3. 39(35)-- v,p 232(158) N 'C rn i-,,-‘ o 4 0 0, NJ L(XX)XX -(A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume , o . �' w 01 7 IIS ASSOCIATED FIGURE E . TRANSPORTATION EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES i 11 E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 6 March 26,2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 Levels of service were calculated for intersections using the "Intersection Capacity Utilization" (ICU) methodology adopted by the City of Moorpark. Table 1 lists the existing levels of service for the study-area intersections (calculation worksheets are contained in the Technical Appendix). Table 1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road 0.63 LOS B 0.32 LOS A Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 0.64 LOS B 0.72 LOS C Spring Road/High Street I 0.72 LOS C I 0.66 LOS B Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.68 LOS B 0.67 LOS B Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.63 I LOS B 0.65 I LOS B Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue I 0.70 I LOS B I 0.69 I LOS B The data presented in Table 1 show that the study-area intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Per Policy 2.1 of the City of Moorpark Circulation Element, Level of Service (LOS) C shall be the system performance objective. For facilities already operating at less than LOS C, the system performance objective shall be to maintain or improve the current level of service. The City of Moorpark, "Guidelines for Preparing Traffic and Circulation Studies" states that if a level of service degradation of one level of service or greater is attributable to a project it will be considered significant enough to require mitigation measures. The City's criteria also states that a level of service degradation of less than one level of service may also be considered significant, depending on circumstances. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -7- March 26, 2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 PROJECT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Casey Road Assisted Living Project based on the rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trio Generation, 9th Edition for Senior Adult Housing-Attached (Land-Use Code#252) and Assisted Living(Land- Use Code #254).' Table 2 summarizes the average daily, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation estimates for the project. Table 2 Project Trip Generation IADT A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips(In/Out) Rate Trips(In/Out) Senior Adult Housing-Attached 258 units 3.44 888 0.20 52 (18/34) 0.25 64 (34/30) Assisted Living Residential 212 beds 12.74 580 0.18 38 (26/12) 10.29 61 (31/30) Total Trip Generation: 1,468 90 (44/46) I 125 (65/60) The data presented in Table 2 show that the Casey Road Assisted Living Project would generate 1,468 average daily trips (ADT's), 90 A.M. peak hour trips, and 125 P.M. peak hour trips. Project Trip Distribution The project-generated traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the adjacent street network based on percentages illustrated in Table 3 and presented on Figure 5. The trip distribution percentages are based on recent traffic studies, existing traffic patterns observed in the study-area and consideration of the most logical travel routes for drivers accessing the proposed development. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9`h Edition, 2012. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -8- March 26, 2014 ArrEwoI)( NO. 1 51 100 as Q° \\\\\\\ c�c�oc NOT O N SCALE PROJECT \SITE N,c -.e m lCasey Road 1 15% u3 1 High Street • IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111II11111IIIIIIIIIliiiI IIIIIIIIIllIII%/I 11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111IIIIIIII11111111II IIIIIIIIIIiiiiii1IIIIIIIIIliilliil Union Pacific Railroad (--7 . Poindexter Avenue 141 1st Street LOCAL • o TRAFFIC 5°/0 0=G, O° a o. a a 20% • 25% F, 18 5 Los Angeles Avenue • 10% 0 15% • 1] . 21 w, J V N.1 J f L L-(16)22 —(7)9 6(5) —I I 9(7)---- 54(41)� N 12(9) o CJl W co co 6s W 5I, N IV �N cr, as v v i—(4)6 LEGEND I _1 f L 1_(9)13 f (— -(9)13 L(XX)XX -(A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume f 13(9)--i f 9(5)-- f 3(2)—t 0 -Distribution Percentage w a, ' FIGURE SI IIS ASSOCIATED C5../ — — TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT IIIA ENGINEERS MMF-1614001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 9 March 26,2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 3 Project Trip Distribution IRoute Origin/Destination ( Percent I Walnut Canyon Road North of Casey Road I North I 10% Moorpark Avenue South of Los Angeles Avenue I South 10% Spring Road South of Los Angeles Avenue I South 15% Los Angeles Avenue West of Moorpark Avenue I West I 20% Los Angeles Avenue East of Spring Road I East I 25% I High Street East of Spring Road I East I 15% ILocal Area Below High Street I Local Internal I 5% I Total I 100% Intersection Operations Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Existing + Project traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 6. Tables 4 and 5 compare the Existing and Existing + Project levels of service and identify potential project-specific impacts based on City thresholds. Table 4 Existing and Existing + Project A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service Existing Existing + Project LOS Change? Intersection I ICU LOS ICU LOS Change Impact Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road I 0.63 B 0.68 B NO NO Walnut Canyon Road/High Street I 0.64 B I 0.67 B I NO NO Spring Road/High Street I 0.72 I C 0.73 I C NO I NO IMoorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue I 0.68 I B 0.69 I B NO I NO ILos Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue I 0.63 I B 0.64 I B I NO I NO I Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road I 0.70 I B 0.71 I C I NO I NO Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 10- March 26, 2014 ArrcrNDix No. 13 Q°aa \PROJEa 0 'SITE cJ`N �,� NOT TO SCALE Ott Casey Road 0 I� S 2 High Street 3 III%///.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII%111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII%IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"iII111111111111111111111111111,+FF \Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue 14 1st Street o o CO g 11 'O OAC 7.1 0 m E.. 0 c a ati 1 5 1 Los Angeles Avenue b J J N J N J1 W 1V71 W.,a, 0,� ��� t (137)118 -w rn 1--(155)313 g �� —(14)45 rn CO W J J —(260)262 (213)229 J j L .--(100)115 13(30)-1 -I 13(1)---) --I I I- 38(15)-1 -i f r 114(300)-i I 50(15)-- 336(208)-- OD 0 70(12)--r rn uN, 116(105)-i w ao v LO O,O N O V -+N NW Ln Ln "-.1 .P W j .1'4.' V CO CO-+ W Jco NN J N--+N wV .AN NOW t0--+(.n o WA (-(10)11 x(156)172 co v (--(267)554 . w o -(45)28 --(886)984 (876)991 J 1 L r-(5)11 _I I L `--(86)243 J I L x(65)108 278(199)-1 -1 (- 137(142)-1 -I r- 169(157)-1 1 I x- 31(14)---- 966(861)- 897(915)---� LEGEND 86(93) rn? 39(35)--) w- 235(160)-1 N so tri 1. Ui W p In L(xx)xx -(A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume ,N V o -.rp W .p N ASSOCIATED u I�� FIGURE (.6..., — — TRANSPORTATION EXISTING+PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES `— IIIi E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 11 March 26,2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 5 Existing and Existing + Project P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service Existing Existing + Project LOS C range? Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Change Impact Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road 0.32 A 0.40 A NO NO Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 0.72 C 0.76 C NO NO Spring Road/High Street 0.66 B 0.66 B NO NO Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.67 B 0.69 B NO NO Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.65 B 0.66 B NO NO Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.69 B 0.69 B NO NO The data presented in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that with the addition of project-generated traffic the LOS of study-area intersections does not degrade by one level of service or greater. Therefore the project would not generate project-specific impacts at the study-area intersections based on City of Moorpark thresholds. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS Traffic Forecasts Cumulative traffic volumes were forecast for the study-area roadways and intersections assuming the development of 18 approved and pending projects located in the City of Moorpark that would add traffic to the study-area roadways and intersections. The list of developments was provided by City staff. Trip generation estimates were developed for the cumulative projects using the rates published in the ITE, Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Table 6 summarizes the average daily, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation for the cumulative projects. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 12- March 26, 2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 6 Cumulative Development Projects Trip Generation I Project Land Use Size ADT A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Toll Brothers Single Family Res. 49 Units 466 37 49 Single Family Res. 157 Units 1,495 118 157 Pacific Communities Condominiums 300 Units 1,743 132 156 Single-Family Res. 235 Units 2,237 176 235 Hitch Ranch Partners Multi-Family Res. 520 Units 3,427 239 302 Pardee Homes I Single Family Res. I 133 Units I 1,266 100 133 Richmond American Homes ( Single Family Res. I 43 Units I 409 I 32 I 43 Toll Brothers I Single Family Res. I 132 Units + 1,257 I 99 I 132 City Ventures I Single Family Res. I 110 Units 11,047 82 110 John C. Chiu, FLP-N I Condominiums 60 Units I 349 26 31 Resmark EQ. Partners, LLC I Single Family Res. 248 Units 2,361 I 186 248 Resmark EQ. Partners, LLC I Single Family Res. I 17 Units I 162 I 13 17 Jane Blasingham I Condominiums 99 Units I 575 44 51 Essex Moorpark, L.P. I Multi-Family Res. 200 Units I 1,318 92 57 Grand Moorpark I Medical Office 176,000 SF 2,746 I 182 271 Kim Clement Center(a) Church 121,644 SF 66 I 0 9 Patriot Commerce Center Industrial 350,000 SF 12,440 322 340 A-B Properties I Industrial 36 acres I 1,865 224 261 National Ready Mix Batch Plant 10 acres I 600 I 20 20 I Triliad Development Movie Studio I 37 acres I 100 10 10 I Total Trips: 25,929 2,134 I 2,632 Note: (a)Trip generation based on a project traffic study prepared by ATE. The data presented in Table 6 indicate that the cumulative development projects would generate a total of 25,929 average daily trips, 2,134 A.M. peak hour trips and 2,632 P.M. peak hour trips. The cumulative projects' peak hour traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the study-area intersections based on the location of each project, recent traffic studies, existing traffic patterns observed in the study area as well as a general knowledge of the population, employment and commercial centers in Moorpark, Ventura, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley. The resulting cumulative-added traffic forecasts are illustrated on Figure 7. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 13- March 26, 2014 AP-PENDIX PCO7 . Qoaa Poc A PROJECT C�c N 'SITE ,i, NOT TO SCALE 1 al Casey Road Q • r-I L2J High Street 13 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111I%e III1111111111111111111111111111III11I;;1 11111111111111111111111111111R+11- Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue F4-1 1st Street ON o "O "0 sq A > 0 < N- C C CD al 5-1 Los Angeles Avenue • J J 4N J co W V N a,-` 1,13 )- .1> rn -(12)47 . 1-(6)19 N w o —(7)21 —(18)6 4 I J ` r((9)5 J j L r(}16)34 97(173) ' 2(7)--j I r36(62)—.-- 10(3) -� I I` 12(23) 36(62)---- 0 0 47(110)--, o .As' 2(4) 1 .p o w o,o o (II w Ut V 4, ^�'' 0 kf G' • to J N LO W 4 4 V A Lo Co .0 w (156470 w (—(34)92 tN N -(5)51)193 J I L r(3 1)28 I J I L 150(62)) --I' If- 79(51)-1 -1 ' r 263(89) 259(325) LEGEND v 15(7) 117(223)--i o to N to " Ul IV 01 V L(XX)XX -(A.M.)P.M.Peak Hour Volume 0 (_.7:Th -ll II .• ASSOCIATED FIGURE = T — RANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE-ADDED TRAFFIC VOLUMES `— ate/ E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 14 March 26,2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 Intersection Operations Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project traffic volumes illustrated on Figures 8 and 9. Cumulative and Cumulative + Project levels of service for the study-area intersections are compared in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service Cumulative Cumulative + Project LOS Change? Intersection ICU LOS V/C LOS Change Impact Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road 0.93 E 0.99 E NO NO Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 1.09 F 1.12 F NO NO Spring Road/High Street 0.81 D 0.81 D NO NO Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.99 E 1.00 E NO NO Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.83 D 0.84 D NO NO Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.70 B 0.71 C YES NO Table 8 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service Cumulative Cumulative + Project LOS Change? Intersection ICU LOS V/C LOS Change Impact Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road 0.62 B 0.69 B NO NO Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 1.20 F 1.25 F NO NO Spring Road/High Street 0.76 C 0.76 C NO NO Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.86 D 0.88 D NO NO Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.88 D 0.90 D NO NO Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.93 E 0.94 E NO NO The data presented in Tables 7 and 8 indicate that the majority of study-area intersections are forecast to operate in the LOS D-F range during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods under Cumulative and Cumulative+Project conditions. The data indicates that the LOS of the Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road intersection degrades by one level of service with the addition of project traffic, but the intersection would continue to operate at the City's LOS C performance objective. The LOS would not degrade at the remaining intersections. Therefore the project would not generate cumulative impacts at the study-area intersections based on City of Moorpark thresholds. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 15 - March 26, 2014 i APFENDIX 140. 15 I oc \\\\\\\ECT ��� 1a PR\SITE ba°� ( NOT TO SCALE 1 m Casey Road 1 1 ZJ High Street 13 I i 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111I%(/ III 11111111111111111111tIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111ll I//IIIIII111111111111111III111111 ---- Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue 141, 1st Street o o v ao -a Cc', m a C c m dilt -1 r-1 5 Los Angeles Avenue I I J w J ., li w taco ow "'Co OV Co""4;', NVQ x,1711 °' N CO N '(133)143 tn a,rn (—(161)332 J J L —(21)66 —(271)317 -(222)234 J I L -(116)149 7(25)-1 —1 I 15(18)_17-( —1 1- 48(18)-1 --1 �- 154(432)-1 62(38)— 363(263) j ko1,3-. 11 k 106(100)-1 N N w-+ LO CO w .Prno w J ON w aN ui N m T tO N ON JN U1 1.1 N .A N 4, 4PV AtOUi t°'o-4v a o o L (10)11 o si ,—(303)629 0 4.- (—(297)640 J L —(45)28 --(1047)1177 ---(983)1357 -(5)11 J I L -(91)248 J I L -(96)136 278(199)--1 —1 I I— 274(195)—! —1 1 r 248(208)-1 1 1 r 31(14)- 1229(950)--- 1147(1235) i LEGEND 86(93) ?' 54(42)—r �°p {, 349(381)—t ib o rn au c" Cr,w m to CS L(XX)XX (A.M.)P.M.Peak Hour Volume rn m _v_,o -7 ii III. ` ASSOCIATED FIGURE 0_3. 1TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Irk j E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 16 March 26,2014 7 ArrEraoix ria. s,-9A p% s,...§s? , 5SITE „c� a NOT TO SCALE � 1 ith ® Casey Road 1 1 ® L2J High Street 1_1 I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111\111111111111111111;1111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111:111111 Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue 4' 1st Street o . o -a o o0 7] 0 co a c c c CD tit III r6—I Los Angeles Avenue U J W two O — Q 0 iv co --=0-4 W O V cr,CO trt v N w co 1 8 x(149)165 w rn 1 (161)332 278)326 J J I L x(222)234 J j L x66 (116)149 13(30)—/ —1 15(8)—/ -1 �— 48(18)-/ i I r 208(473) 62(38)- 372(270) W 117(122)-� v 118(109) �,N co LO w w s o W j 00'01 O\N 01rnoov, :Prnrn O W --'0.1 N Nat 41— N 6, 51 I_.A J --t N.P 4,o O1O 4 t.0,4 W 1 N (312)642 o —(10)11 rn o ,-- .t u '—(301)646o Na J j L j—(5)11—(45)28 J ` L `—(91)24877 J l L x(96)136 0 278(199)--1 —1 I— 287(204)-/ —I i I— 248(208)--i i I r 331(14)— I 1229(950)- 1156(1240)-- LEGEND 86(93)--1 w ' 54(42)-1 ,°'A .a, 352(383)--r 6' v �cnrn v CO co.p.is criN tom L(XX)XX -(A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume coOvCI V ASSOCIATED FIGURE -- ll II . (9._ . — TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE+PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 'll ./ E NGINEERS • MMF-#74001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 1 7 March 26,2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 MITIGATION MEASURES The traffic analysis did not identify any project-specific impacts for the Existing + Project scenario or cumulative impacts for the Cumulative + Project scenario. However under cumulative conditions, several of the study-area intersections are forecast to operate below the City of Moorpark's LOS C performance objective. In addition to paying the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee, there is an Area of Contribution (AOC) established for the Los Angeles Avenue, Gabbert Road/Casey Road and Spring Road/Tierra Rejada Road corridors. The project will be required to pay the AOC fee based upon the level of traffic added within these corridors. The percent contribution at the study- area intersections is shown in Table 9. Table 9 Cumulative - Project Percent Contributions Study Intersection Project Percent Contribution (%) IWalnut Canyon Road/Casey Road 14% Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 10% Spring Road/High Street 9% Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue I 8% Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue I 4% Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road I 3% As part of the AOC,the City has identified and programmed improvements for the Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road intersections that would mitigate cumulative impacts. These improvements are reviewed below. Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue: The intersection is forecast to operate at LOSE during the A.M. peak hour period under Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions. The programmed improvement consists of adding an additional through lane on the westbound approach. The mitigated geometrics and peak hour levels of service are shown in Tables 10 and 11. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 18- March 26, 2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 10 Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue Mitigated Intersection Geometry Scenario I Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Existing Geometry L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TT R Mitigated Geometry I L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TTT R Table 11 Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Cumulative + Project Intersection Peak Period Existing Geometry With Improvements Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue I A.M. V/C = 0.84/LOS D V/C = 0.73/LOS C Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue I P.M. V/C = 0.90/LOS D I V/C = 0.77/LOS C Implementing the intersection improvements planned by the City of Moorpark would result in LOS C during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods under Cumulative + Project conditions. Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road: The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D/E during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods under Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions. The programmed improvement consists of adding an additional through lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The mitigated geometrics and peak hour levels of service are shown in Tables 12 and 13. Table 12 Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road Mitigated Intersection Geometry Scenario Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Existing Geometry L L T TR LLTR L L TT R L TT R Mitigated Geometry L L T TR LLTR L L TTT R L TTT R Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 19- March 26, 2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 13 Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Cumulative + Project Intersection Peak Period Existing Geometry With Improvements Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road A.M. V/C = 0.87/LOS D V/C = 0.74/LOS C Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road P.M. I V/C = 0.94/LOS E V/C = 0.79/LOS C Implementing the intersection improvements planned by the City of Moorpark would result in LOS C during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods under Cumulative + Project conditions. Widening of the 2-lane segment of Walnut Canyon Road-Moorpark Avenue from Casey Road to Poindexter Avenue to provide additional northbound and southbound through lanes would improve the operation of the Walnut Canyon/Casey Road, Walnut Canyon Road/High Street and Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue intersections. However City staff have indicated that widening is infeasible at this time. Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road: The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E during the A.M. peak hour period under Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions. The recommended improvement would be to provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase with the northbound left-turn phase. The mitigated A.M. and P.M. peak hour levels of service would be in the A-C range, as shown in Table 14. Table 14 Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Cumulative + Project Intersection Peak Period Existing Geometry With Improvements Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road A.M. V/C = 0.99/LOS E V/C = 0.77/LOS C Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road I P.M. V/C = 0.69/LOS B V/C = 0.58/LOS A ■ ■ ■ Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -20- March 26, 2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED Associated Transportation Engineers Scott A. Schell, AICP, PTP, Principal Planner Darryl F. Nelson, PTP, Senior Transportation Planner Matthew Farrington, Transportation Planner I I References Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9'►' Edition, 2012. Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2000. q Guidelines for Preparing Traffic and Circulation Studies,, City of Moorpark, November 22, 3 1993. li Persons Contacted David Klotzle, P.E., City Engineer/Public Works Director. City of Moorpark Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner, City of Moorpark Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -21 - March 76. 71)14 APPENDIX NO. 15 TECHNICAL APPENDIX CONTENTS: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS Reference 1 - Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road Reference 2 - Walnut Canyon Road/High Street Reference 3 - Spring Road/High Street Reference 4 - Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue Reference 5 - Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue Reference 6 - Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -22- March 26, 2014 APPENDIX NO. 15 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS I APPENDIX NO. 15 DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is usually less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. The technique used to compare the volumes and capacity of an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU or volume-to- capacity ratio, usually expressed as a percentage, is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity, then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used. The ICU calculation assumes that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes. It is possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficient time to satisfy its demand, and excess time exists on other movements. This is an operational problem which should be addressed. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 or 14 feet wide. Data collected by Kunzman Associates indicates a typical lane, whether a through-lane or a left-turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1,700 vehicles per hour, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane. This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE lournal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capacity" by William Kunzman. For this study, a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane will be assumed for left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes as per City policy. The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total yellow time accounts for less than 10 percent of a cycle, and a penalty of up to five percent is reasonable. On the other hand, during peak hour traffic operation, the yellow times are nearly completely used. In this study, no penalty will be applied for the yellow because the capacities have been assumed to be only 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane when in general they are 1,700- 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane. The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operations. The impact of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the intersection capacity utilization. Source: Oxnard Airport Business Park Traffic Study, Kunzman Assoc., City of Oxnard, 1985. 2. APPENDIX NO. 15 • Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Definition A < 10.0 < 0.60 Progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. B 10.1 20.0 0.61 0.70 Good progression,short cycle lengths,or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of delay. Only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both, result in higher cycle lengths. Cycle lengths may fail to serve queued C 20.1 -35.0 0.71 -0.80 vehicles, and overflow occurs. Number of vehicles stopped is significant, though many still pass through intersection without stopping. Congestion becomes more noticeable. Unfavorable progression, D 35.1 55.0 0.81 -0.90 long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios result in longer delays. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E 55.1 80.0 0.91 1.00 High delay values indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent Considered unacceptable for most drivers, this level occurs when F > 80.0 > 1.00 arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups, resulting in many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to high delay levels. a Average control delay per vehicle in seconds. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions The HCM1 uses control delay to determine the level of service at unsignalized intersections.Control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced at the control device and the travel time that would occur in the absence of the traffic control device. Control delay includes deceleration from free flow speed,queue move-up time,stopped delay and acceleration back to free flow speed. LOS Control Delay . ,,Seconds per Vehicle , ,` A < 10.0 B 10.1 - 15.0 C 15.1 -25.0 D 25.1 - 35.0 E 35.1 -50.0 F > 50.0 Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Board, 2000 CJAssociated Transportation Engineers 100 N. Hope Avenue,Suite 4,Santa Barbara (805)687-4418 APPENDIX NO. 15 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA II 41 APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary ,wPrree�paredy: ■ DS National Data&Surveying Services Walnut Can von Rd(State Route 23)and Casey Rd,Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-006 Day: Wednesday Lanes 0 1 0 City: Moorpark c N AM 61 247 0 134 AM o Ac� + U DI y NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour 745 AM {I 3 I NOON Peak Hour m� v PM 18 155 I 0 242 PM : I PM Peak Hour 500 PM Casey Rd 40°. 416 4 777 I AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes � ,_ r111)(/) � 0 0 0 0 rt I 304 I 0 1145 144= O0 0 CONTROL 0 0 0 0 Q 1 25 ( 0 ' 7 ( Q. Mr Signalized 0 0 0 0 $ � � D 113 0 ° ° ° o b � 0 0 0 aaa) o 1 259 0 60 ' ° AM NOON PM Lance'. AM NOON PM h t ICount Periods Start End AM 506 243 1109 I 0 AM..-: AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON • NOON 215 127 - 235 0 PM PM' PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 1 1 0 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 308 134 AM 442 AM 0 I 0 NOON 0 NOON 173 242 PM .415 PM AM NOON PM I fr East Leg AM NOON PM 304 0 145 I04111M 45211 '0 -0 0 586 0 212 J 0 0 0 284 0 r 67 Ilifitfr Milit>1 0" I .0 N 0 West Leg t_ AM NOO PM West LegI AM NOON' PM AM 506 ) 352 AM 05° NOON 0 )'" 0 NOONI0 PM 215' 362 PM 577. South Leg 5 11MCIF APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Nle S National Data&Surveying Services Walnut Canyon Rd(State Route 23)and Casey Rd,Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Dale: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach project#: 14-5105-006RTOR Day: Wednesday a lanes 0 1 0 City: Moorpark C N 7 0 0 0 AM' A U OC NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour 745 AM a c «4 I m NOON Peak Hour v PM 1 0 0 0 PM - I PM Peak Hour 500 PM Casey Rd 4 y AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanese L N 7 0 1 RTOR 0 0 0 0 U RS a 0 0 0 0 ; !7. OC CONTROL �. zto 2 i 0 0 0jp, Signalized o 0 0 0 r 0 'a 0 0 0 0 8 1 126 0 45 0 0 0 lanes: AM '. NOON PM 'AM NOON PM i tik Count Pe Start End AM 126 0 0 0 AM AM NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON PM 45 0 0 0 PM IPM I 1 1 0 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins &Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg 7 �,,.. AM 7 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON 1 0 PM 1 PM AM NOON PM 1 East Leg PM6 East Leg 7 0 1 0 0 0 133AM 0 40 0 0 126 0 45 I 0 0 I,. 0 West Leg • AM NOON PM West NOON Leg AM NOON PM II. AM 126 0. AM 126 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM A6. 0. PM 45 ilSouth Leg APPENDIX NO. 15 #2 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Nl` S National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Hiah St, Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-001 Day: Wednesday Lanes " 0 1 1 City: Moorpark AM AM 10 362 129 353 QA NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour I 745 AM " � I NOON Peak Hour PM I 8 I 210 54 340 PM I PM Peak Hour I 430 PM 111 411 High St t 4 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes. mc 1 11.1 N 33 0 113 121 0 96 1 O rt O CONTROL 14 0 45 os Q 1J, Signalized 213 0 229 0.5 g- 0 1 0 13 C • 0 1 15 0 50 O O r 334 0 450 N 0 12 0 70 Lanes AM NOON `PM AM NOON PM �. . 1 Count Period: Start End AM; 587 9 231 190 AM AM 7:00 AM 900 AM 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON NOON 509 60 231 346 PM PM PM 406 PM 600 PM " 0.5 0.5 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins &Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg 501 353 AM 854 AM 0 0 NOON I 0 NOON 272 340 PM I 612 PM AM NOON PM 4 -f- East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg I 33 0 113 4iM elfallS 348 0 370 61 . 0 246 682 0 820 28 0 '133 334 0450 West Leg AM NO0 PM West Leg AM NOO PM AM 587 J 430 AM 1017 NOON 0 ) 0NOON 0" PM 509 "637 : PM 1146 Eimit 7 APPENDIX NO. 15 *2..grotz ITM Peak Hour Summary prepared by: N ■ fDS National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Hiah St.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-001 RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes 0 1 1 City: Moorpark QAM 0 0 0 63 AM AY °' NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON 0 AM Peak Hour 745 AM 0 NOON Peak Hour PM 0 0 0 56 PM PM Peak Hour 430 PM High St 4J I 4 1 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes (�/j 0 0 0 RTOR 63 0 56 Lal t�6 0 lir C C CONTROL +� 0 0 0 0.5 Q 0 0 0 �' o Signalized 0 0 0 0.5 'a a .a I 1 0 0 0 O Q vi)O )�II 0 42 N 0 0 0 0 i n S Lanes AM NOON 'PM AM NOON PM covn�Periods Start End AM 0 0 0 15 AM AM 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON INOON PM I 14 I 0 0 42 PM PM0.5 0.5 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg 0 63 AM 63 : AM 0 0 NOON I 0 NOON 0 56 PM I 56 PM AM NOON PM 4 '( East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg I 0 0 0 63, 0 56 I 0 0 14 78 0 98 0 0 14 s_,.. ♦ 15 0 42' West Leg '�• AM NOON PM West Leg AM WOO PM AM 0 115—. AM I 15 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PMiiii PM 56 South Leg K it'3 APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NDS National Data&Surveying Services Spring Rd and High St,Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach project it: 14-5105-004 Day: Wednesday Lanes 0.5 '1.5 1 City: Moorpark 16 538 369 350 AM Ce AM m Ac 'Q NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 730 AM V) t NOON Peak Hour PM 1 34 ( 314 176 ii,862 PM PM Peak Hour445 PM High St 4 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes t.) 392 0 412 155 0 313 1 O Er'' � L o CONTROL a... 253 0 253 CL 1 Q. �' : Q t Signalized 100 0 115 1 . 1 15 1 0 ( 380 1 201 !!! 0 327 (� O .0 't r 3 847 0 746 Cl) 0 0 1 96 0 104 C) Lanes '. AM NOON PM j AM NOON PM Count Periods Start End AM, 734 123 180 277 AM'. AM 7:00AM 9:00 AM0 0 0 0 NOONI NOON NOON 533 125 511 243 PM ' PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 1 `2 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg NNorth Leg North Leg 923: 350 AM 1273 AM 0' 0 NOON 1386 PM 0 '.. NOON 524, 862. PM AM NOON PM �- East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg 392 0 412 508 0 681 704 0 881 1355 0 1427. 312" 0 469 847 0 I'746 West Legto_ AM OON PM West Leg I AM NODI( PM AM 734 560 AM 1314 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM 533 879 PM 1412 South Leg #3 R•rO' APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak S PrepareHourd byummary N S National Data&Suryeying Services Spring Rd and Hiah St,Moorpark PeakHouri Summary Date: 2126/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: /4-51(1)5-004RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes i1,5 1.5 1 City: Moorpark 1:5AM 3 0 0 37 AM m C .Q NOON 0 0 10 I 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 730 AM A 07 NOON Peak Hour PM 1ft 0 0 0 63 PM - PM Peak Hour I 445 PM High St ?'''' L • 1 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes rli N 3 0 10 TO 37 0 63 1 G O CONTROL 0 0 0 1 Q C Q Q- i o 0 0 Signalized 0 0 0 1 $ D ' r C a 0 0 0 s ally ' O ,� 57 0 33 to —% 1 25 0 46 Lanes z. AM "NOON PM AM NOON PM Count Periods Start End AM 25 0 0 57 AM. AM 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON NOON 46 0 0 33 PMPM PM 1 2 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Total Volume Per Leg NorthIns Leg&Outs North Leg 3 37' AM 40 AM 0' 0 NOON I ,.0 NOON \\\ 10 fig PM I 73 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg 3 0 10 37 0 63 28 0 56 94 0 96 25 0 46 57,. I 0 33 West Leg AM NOO PM West Leg AM NOD PM AM 25 57 AM I 82 NOON' 0 0 NOONI 0 PM 46 33 PM ,.. 79 South Leg South Leg /0 APPENDIX NO. 15 #4 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NDS National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Poindexter Ave.Mooroark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach project#: 14-5105-003 Day: Wednesday Lanes 0 1 City: Moorpark Q301 270 4 449 AM Ao NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 800 AM � NOON Peak Hour • PM 224 289 11 644 PM I PM Peak Hour 445 PM • Poindexter Ave `'' to 4 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes (�/) 424 0 308 {,u{1 ,' 10 0 � 11 0.5 O O CONTROL 45 6 28 05 Q - 0 Q- 1 199 0 278 Signalized 5 0 11 1 'Zj r 0 0 14 0 57 31 O1:1a+ 22 0 N 1 93 0 86 � Lanes- AM NOON PM AM NOON PM co.tPod d. Start End AM 368 78 240 4 AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON NOON 386 56 355 15 PM. PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 1 1 0 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins &Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 575 449 AM 1024 AM 0 0 , NOON 0 NOON 524 644 PM I 1166 PM AM NOON PMI t East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg I 424 0 308 60 0 50 730 0 703 82 0 107. 306 0 395 e . 22� 0) 157 West Leg AM NOO PM West Leg AM HOOF! PM AM I 368 322 AM 690 NOON '0 0 NOONI 0 PM 386 426 PM 812 1 South Leg / APPENDIX NO. 150 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NDS National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Poindexter Ave.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach I Project#: 14-5105-003 RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes ', 0 1 1 City: Moorpark AMI 72 ( 0 0 o AM l0 °"A NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 800 AM NOON Peak Hour PM I 42 I 0 0 I 0 PM PM Peak Hour 445 PM Poindexter Ave . I 4 -ft AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes millRTOR J o o o 0.5 tQ 1 72 0 42 O A L O CONTROL Aim o 0 0 05 " Q 44 fl. 1 0 0 Signalized a a 0 0 1 'a ! D � ° 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 u E 1 0 0 0 Z Lanes AM NOON. 'PM AM NOON PM 4 1 r► Count Periods Start End AM 0 0 0 0 AM AM 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON NOON PM I 0 0 0 0 PM PM 1 1 0 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins &Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 72 0 AM 72 AM I 0 0 NOON 0 NOON I 42 0 PM 42 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg I 72 l I 0 !I 92 , 0 0 ' 0 72 0 42 0 0 0 0, 0 00 0 0 West Log Y AM 00 PM i West Leg AM NOO PM AM 0 0 AM ° NOON D 0NOONPM ° 0 0 PM 0 South Leg South Leg 1 v APPENDIX NO. 155 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: N;IS National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Los Angeles Ave.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-002 Day: Wednesday Lanes 1.3 0.3 1.3 City: Moorpark QAM 120 n 144 359 AM Y `A ro E NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 745 AM 0 0 NOON Peak Hour PM 110 95 211 354 PM PM Peak Hour 445 PM Los Angeles Ave 0 `, 4 "'0- Am NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 1113 1063 0 1144 147 0 159 1 O OCONTROL a 886 0 984 2 Q J a Signalized fl- 1 133 o 86 0 243 1 '� r 3 861 0 966 .Q rr 1148 0 1280 N {7 0 35 0 39 i� 41 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 4 lte Icount Periods Start End AM 175 57 79 143 AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON - NOON PM 377 50 71 103 pM IPM 400 PM 6:00 PM 1.5 0.5 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins &Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg 318 359 AM 677 AM 0 0 r NOON I D NOON 416 354 PM 770 PM East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM '� 11063 0 1144 -- 1119 0 1386 2092 0 2273 2267 0 2666 1029 0 1129. 111N111 1148 1 0 1280 West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOO PM AM 175 279 AM I 454 NOON 0 0 NOON' 0 PM 377 224 PM ,601 South Leg i 3 APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour y:Summary Nrepared ■ fi S National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Los Angeles Ave, Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-002RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes 1.3 0.3 1.3 City: Moorpark Q AM 56 0 0 2 AM Y I ' c NOON 0 I 0 ( 0 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 745 AM NOON Peak Hour to PM 65 00 A 11 PM : PM Peak Hour 445 PM 1 Los Angeles Ave 4) 4 j AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes corn RTOFI2 •0 I 1 1 LU 56 0 65 I O L O CONTROL �, 0 0 o 2 Q Q- 1 0 0 o Signalized a 0 o 1 'a • 3 0 0 0 .1? 28 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 t7 AM NOON PM Lanes mi ir ii,,, AM NOON PM team P,rlCdt Start End AM 0 0 `I 0 I 28 AM AM 0 0 1 0 0 NOON NOON I NOON 0 0 0 42 PM PM: PM 14 0.5 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins &Outs Total Volume Per Leg 1 North Leg 56., . 2 AM 58 1111 AM I 0 ) 0 NOON 0 NOON 66 PM 65 I 1 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM East leg 56 0 J 65 i--+ — 2 0 1 56 0 65 30 0 43 0 0 0 28 I 0 42 West Leg AM NOO PM West Leg AM NOO PM AM 0 28 AM 28 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM ,0 42 PM 42 South Leg South Leg #6 APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: N)S National Data&Surveying Services Spring Rd and Los Anae/es Ave.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 226/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-005 Day: Wednesday Lanes 1 1 2 City: Moorpark AM v AM 97 270 466 710 CL a NOON 10 0 , 0 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 745 AM I A 2 N NOON Peak Hour PM 41 92 I I 225 I 369 972 PM PM Peak Hour 500 PM l Los Angeles Ave I 4 777 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes. rn 263 0 548 1 C (p 1188 0 1314 O OCONTROL 867 0 976 2 Q C Q Signalized I 65 ( 0 108 1 Q- 2 157 0 169 � '1.;S. O 2 910 886 O w O 1462 0 1321 � N 1 158 0 232 n Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM h t ti, Count Pedode Start End 493 224 290 86 AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON NOON 565 244 255 64 PM ' PM PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 2 1.5 0.5 Larges Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg 11111111 North Leg 833 710 AM 1543 AM ( 0 0 NOONI 0 NOON 686 972.' PM I 1658.. PM AM NOON PM4 East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg 1188 0 11314 < 1195 0 X1634: 2413 0 2603 2657 0 2955 1225 0 1289 1462 0 1321. West Leg • AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM I 493 600 AM 1093 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 565' 563 South Leg PM 1128. South Leg PM (I APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NADS National Data&Surveying Services Spring Rd and Los Angeles Ave. Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-005 RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes 1 1 2 City: Moorpark AM 26 0 0 16 AM" Ce rn c 'a NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 745 AM A cn NOON Peak Hour PM 20 0 0 21 PM PMP eak Hour 500 PM Los Angeles Ave 1 4 to , AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes iii 26 0 20 O 16 ltmi 0 21 1 O O CONTROL I 0 0 0 2 Q C 4 Q- 2 0 0 0 Signalized -c o 0 0 1 C D a o 2 0 0 0 1 ,r 21 0 18 N n 1 39 0 oil O 54 Lanes' AM NOON PM AM NOON PM .0- h T ri,/, Count Periods Start End AM 39 0 0 21 AM AM 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON NOON 54 0 0 I 18 PM PM PM 2 1.5 0.5 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg IIIMII 26 16 AM 42 AM 0 0 NOON I 0 NOON 20 21 PM I , 41 PM AM NOON PM �- East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg I 26 0 J 20 i 16 0 21 65 0 74 37 0 39 39 0' 54 21 0 16 West Leg AM NOO PM West Leg AM NOO PM AM 39 21 AM : 60 NOON' 0 0 NOON 0 PM 54 18 PM 72 South Leg w APPENDIX NO. 15 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS Reference 1 - Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road Reference 2 - Walnut Canyon Road/High Street Reference 3 - Spring Road/High Street Reference 4 - Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue Reference 5 - Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue Reference 6 - Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road (7 APPENDNO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 01 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD EAMSTREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 243 109 0 0 247 61 25 0 259 0 0 0 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 40 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 41 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 293 218 0 0 495 61 25 0 432 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 243 283 293 333 0.16 * 0.19 * 0.20 * 0.22 * NBT 1 1600 109 109 218 218 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.14 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBT 1 1600 247 247 495 495 0.19 * 0.20 * 0.35 * 0.35 SBR 0 0 61 65 61 65 - - - - EBL 1 1500 25 30 25 30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - EBR 1 1500 259 300 432 473 0.17 * 0.20 * 0.29 * 0.32 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.63 0.68 0.93 0.99 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B E E NOTE S: Printed: 03/25/14 i APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 01 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD EM/STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY. ... .. .... .. ,.. ,. ... ., .„,. NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 127 235 0 0 155 18 7 0 60 0 0 0 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 58 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 54 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 302 513 0 0 338 18 7 0 154 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS ... SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS • • MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO WC RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 127 185 302 360 0.09 * 0.12 * 0.20 * 0.24 * NBT 1 1600 235 235 513 513 0.15 0.15 0.32 0.32 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBT 1 1600 155 155 338 338 0.10 * 0.10 * 0.21 * 0.21 * SBR 1 1500 18 25 18 25 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 EBL 1 1500 7 13 7 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - EBR 1 1500 60 114 154 208 0.04 * 0.08 * 0.10 * 0.14 * WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - LOST IIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.32 0.40 0.62 0.69 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A B B NOTES: Printed: 03/25/14 111 APPENDIX j\J 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 01 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD FM STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL . TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 243 109 0 0 247 61 25 0 259 0 0 0 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 40 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 32 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 293 218 0 0 495 61 25 0 432 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS • MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 243 283 293 333 0.16 * 0.19 * 0.20 * 0.22 * NBT 1 1600 109 109 218 218 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.14 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBT 1 1600 247 247 495 495 0.19 * 0.20 * 0.35 * 0.35 * SBR 0 0 61 65 61 65 - - - - EBL 1 1500 25 29 25 29 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - EBR 1 1500 16 17 139 149 0.01 * 0.01 * 0.09 * 0.10 * WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0,47 0.50 0.74 0.77 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A C C NOTES:Eastbound Right-Turn Overlap with Northbound Left-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT y . REF: 01 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD FAN STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL ., TRAFFIC ..... .. ., .„ ... . VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 235 127 0 0 155 18 7 0 60 0 0 0 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 58 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 54 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 302 513 0 0 338 18 7 0 154 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) . LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 235 293 302 360 0.16 * 0.20 * 0.20 * 0.24 * NBT 1 1600 127 127 513 513 0.08 0.08 0.32 0.32 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBT 1 1600 155 155 338 338 0.11 * 0.11 * 0.22 * 0.23 * SBR 0 0 18 25 18 25 - - - - EBL 1 1500 7 13 7 13 0.01 * 0.01 * 0.01 * 0.01 * EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - EBR 1 1500 0 0. 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.37 0.42 0.53 0.58 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A NOTES:Eastbound Right-Turn Overlap with Northbound Right-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ., .. _REF: 02 AM... INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD E/W STREET: HIGH STREET CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 9 231 190 129 362 10 1 15 12 213 14 121 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 24 0 16 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 (C) CUMULATIVE: 39 371 193 172 738 12 18 38 122 222 21 133 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS LT R L TR LTR LT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 9 9 39 39 - - - - NBT 1 1600 231 255 371 395 0,15 * 0.17 * 0.26 * 0.27 * NBR 1 1500 190 190 193 193 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 SBL 1 1500 129 145 172 188 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.13 SBT 1 1600 362 387 738 763 0.23 * 0.25 * 0.47 * 0.48 * SBR 0 0 10 10 12 12 - - - - EBL 0 0 1 1 18 18 - - - - EBT 1 1600 15 15 38 38 0.02 * 0.02 * 0.11 * 0.11 * EBR 0 0 12 12 122 122 - - - - WBL 0 0 213 213 222 222 - - - - WBT 1 1600 14 14 21 21 0.14 * 0.14 * 0.15 * 0.15 WBR 1 1500 121 137 133 149 0.08 0,09 0.09 0.10 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.64 0.67 1.09 1.12 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B F F NOTES: Printed: 03/25/14 • 22 . . .. . .. APPENDIX NCS. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 02 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD EM/STREET: HIGH STREET CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 60 231 346 54 210 8 13 50 70 229 45 96 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 36 0 0 33 21 0 0 0 0 0 22 (C) CUMULATIVE: 146 645 356 80 457 12 15 62 117 234 66 143 , GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS LT R L TR LTR LT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 60 60 146 146 - - - - NBT 1 1600 231 267 645 681 0.18 0,20 0.49 * 0.52 * NBR 1 1500 346 346 356 356 0.23 * 0.23 * 0.24 0.24 SBL 1 1500 54 54 80 80 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 SBT 1 1600 210 243 457 490 0.14 * 0.17 * 0.29 * 0.33 * SBR 0 0 8 29 12 33 - - - - EBL 0 0 13 13 15 15 - - - EBT 1 1600 50 50 62 62 0.08 * 0.08 * 0.12 * 0,12 * EBR 0 0 70 70 117 117 - - - - WBL 0 0 229 229 234 234 - - - - WBT 1 1600 45 45 66 66 0.17 * 0.17 * 0.19 * 0.19 WBR 1 1500 96 118 143 165 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.11 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.72 0.76 1.20 1.25 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: C C F F NOTES. Printed: 03/25/14 21 _ APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 03 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR NWS STREET: SPRING ROAD ENV STREET: HIGH STREET CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 123 180 277 369 538 16 15 201 96 100 253 155 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 0 7 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 124 226 310 386 668 25 18 263 100 116 271 161 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T R L T R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 123 132 124 133 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 NBT 2 3200 180 180 226 226 0.06 0,06 0.07 0.07 NBR 1 1500 277 277 310 310 0.19 * 0.19 * 0.21 * 0.21 * • SBL 1 1500 369 369 386 386 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.26 * 0.26 * SBT 2 3200 538 538 668 668 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.22 SBR 0 0 16 16 25 25 - - - - EBL 1 1500 15 15 18 18 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 EBT 1 1600 201 208 263 270 0.13 * 0.13 * 0.16 * 0.17 * EBR 1 1500 96 105 100 109 0.06 0,07 0.07 0.07 WBL 1 1500 100 100 116 116 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.08 * 0.08 * WBT 1 1600 253 260 271 278 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 WBR 1 1500 155 155 161 161 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.72 0.73 0,81 0,81 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: C C D D NOTES:.. Printed: 03/25/14 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 03 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR WS STREET: SPRING ROAD E/W STREET: HIGH STREET CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 125 511 243 176 314 34 38 327 104 115 253 313 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 12 0 9 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 129 662 266 187 400 39 48 363 106 149 317 332 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T R L T R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 125 138 129 142 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 NBT 2 3200 511 511 662 662 0.16 * 0.16 * 0.21 * 0.21 * NBR 1 1500 243 243 266 266 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 SBL 1 1500 176 176 187 187 0.12 * 0.12 * 0.13 * 0.13 * SBT 2 3200 314 314 400 400 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 SBR 0 0 34 34 39 39 - - - - EBL 1 1500 38 38 48 48 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 EBT 1 1600 327 336 363 372 0.20 * 0.21 * 0.23 * 0.23 * EBR 1 1500 104 116 106 118 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 WBL 1 1500 115 115 149 149 0.08 * 0.08 * 0.10 * 0.10 * WBT 1 1600 253 262 317 326 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.20 WBR 1 1500 313 313 332 332 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.66 0.66 0.76 0.76 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B C C NOTE S. .. Printed: 03/25/14 L3 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 04 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE ENV STREET: POINDEXTER AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME,. . SUMMARY .,... ., .... NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 78 240 4 4 270 301 199 14 93 5 45 10 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 24 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 78 413 4 4 765 301 199 14 93 5 45 10 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L TR L TR L TR L TR TRAFFIC SCENARIOS ., SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 78 78 78 78 0.05 * 0.05 * 0.05 * 0.05 * NBT 1 1600 240 264 413 437 0.15 0.17 0.26 0.28 NBR 0 0 4 4 4 4 - - - - SBL 1 1500 4 4 4 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SBT 1 1600 270 295 765 790 0.36 * 0.37 * 0.67 * 0.68 * SBR 0 0 301 301 301 301 - - - - EBL 1 1500 199 199 199 199 0.13 * 0.13 * 0.13 * 0.13 EBT 1 1600 14 14 14 14 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 EBR 0 0 93 93 93 93 - - - - WBL 1 1500 5 5 5 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WBT 1 1600 45 45 45 45 0.03 * 0.03 * 0.03 * 0.03 * WBR 0 0 10 10 10 10 - - - - LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.68 0.69 0.99 1.00 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B E E Printed: 03/25/14 v APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 04 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARKAVENUE E/W STREET: POINDEXTER AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 56 355 15 11 289 224 278 31 86 11 28 11 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 36 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 56 876 15 11 597 224 278 31 86 11 28 11 ..,...... .,.,. .... .., .,,..... GEOMETRICS..... . . .......,, ., ..., ...., . ....,, „ ... .. . ., .., .,.,., NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L TR L TR L TR L TR .. ....,„ .... ., TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 56 56 56 56 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.04 * NBT 1 1600 355 391 876 912 0.23 0.25 0.56 0.58 NBR 0 0 15 15 15 15 - - - - SBL 1 1500 11 11 11 11 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 SBT 1 1600 289 322 597 630 0.32 * 0.34 * 0.51 * 0.53 * SBR 0 0 224 224 224 224 - - - - EBL 1 1500 278 278 278 278 0.19 * 0.19 * 0.19 * 0.19 EBT 1 1600 31 31 31 31 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 EBR 0 0 86 86 86 86 - - - - WBL 1 1500 11 11 11 11 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 WBT 1 1600 28 28 28 28 0.02 * 0.02 * 0.02 * 0.02 WBR 0 0 11 11 11 11 - - - - LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.67 0.69 0.86 0.88 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B D D NOTES: ..,,.. Printed: 03/25/14 2I APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 05 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE E/1N STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 57 79 143 144 54 120 133 861 35 86 886 147 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 4 0 9 5 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 (C) CUMULATIVE: 64 79 148 496 56 283 195 950 42 91 1047 303 1 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 57 57 64 64 - - - - NBT 2 3200 79 83 79 83 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 NBR 1 1500 143 143 148 148 0.10 * 0.10 * 0.10 * 0.10 * SBL 0 0 144 153 496 505 - - - - SBT 3 4800 54 59 56 61 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.17 * 0.18 * SBR 0 0 120 129 283 292 - - - EBL 1 1500 133 142 195 204 0.09 * 0.10 * 0,13 * 0.14 * EBT 3 4800 861 861 950 950 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.21 EBR 0 0 35 35 42 42 - - - - WBL 1 1500 86 86 91 91 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 WBT 2 3200 • 886 886 1047 1047 0.28 * 0.28 * 0.33 * 0.33 * WBR 1 1500 70 74 144 149 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.63 0.64 0.83 0.84 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B D D NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap p with Southbound Left-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001- ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 05 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 50 71 103 211 95 110 124 966 39 243 984 159 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 6 0 12 6 12 13 0 0 0 0 13 (C) CUMULATIVE: 65 73 108 455 96 204 274 1229 54 248 1177 629 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 50 50 65 65 - - - - NBT 2 3200 71 77 73 79 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 NBR 1 1500 103 103 108 108 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.07 * SBL 0 0 211 223 455 467 - - - - SBT 3 4800 95 101 96 102 0.09 * 0.09 * 0.16 * 0.16 SBR 0 0 110 122 204 216 - - - - EBL 1 1500 124 137 274 287 0.08 * 0.09 * 0.18 * 0.19 * EBT 3 4800 966 966 1229 1229 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.27 EBR 0 0 39 39 54 54 - - - WBL 1 1500 243 243 248 248 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 WBT 2 3200 984 984 1177 1177 0.31 * 0.31 * 0.37 * 0.37 * WBR 1 1500 53 57 209 214 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.14 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.65 0.66 0.88 0.90 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B D D NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbound Left-Turn ft-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 2-7 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 05 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARKAVENUE E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 57 79 143 144 54 120 133 861 35 86 886 147 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 4 0 9 5 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 (C) CUMULATIVE: 64 79 148 496 56 283 195 950 42 91 1047 303 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED GEOMETRICS L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS • • MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS • MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 • NBL 0 0 57 57 64 64 - - - - NBT 2 3200 79 83 79 83 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 NBR 1 1500 143 143 148 148 0.10 * 0.10 * 0.10 * 0.10 SBL 0 0 144 153 496 505 - - - - SBT 3 4800 54 59 56 61 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.17 * 0.18 SBR 0 0 120 129 283 292 - - - - EBL 1 1500 133 142 195 204 0.09 * 0.10 * 0.13 * 0.14 EBT 3 4800 861 861 950 950 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.21 EBR 0 0 35 35 42 42 - - - - WBL 1 1500 86 86 91 91 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 WBT 3 4800 886 886 1047 1047 0.19 * 0.19 * 0.22 * 0.22 * WBR 1 1500 71 75 145 150 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.54 0.55 0.72 0.73 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A C C NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbound Left-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 if APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 05 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 50 71 103 211 95 110 124 966 39 243 984 159 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 6 0 12 6 12 13 0 0 0 0 13 (C) CUMULATIVE: 65 73 108 455 96 204 274 1229 54 248 1177 629 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED GEOMETRICS L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 50 50 65 65 - - - - NBT 2 3200 71 77 73 79 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 NBR 1 1500 103 103 108 108 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.07 * SBL 0 0 211 223 455 467 - - - - SBT 3 4800 95 101 96 102 0.09 * 0.09 * 0.16 * 0.16 * SBR 0 0 110 122 204 216 - - - - EBL 1 1500 124 137 274 287 0.08 0.09 0.18 0.19 EBT 3 4800 966 966 1229 1229 0.21 * 0.21 * 0.27 * 0.27 * EBR 0 0 39 39 54 54 - - - - WBL 1 1500 243 243 248 248 0.16 * 0.16 * 0.17 * 0.17 * WBT 3 4800 984 984 1177 1177 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 WBR 1 1500 52 57 208 212 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.14 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.63 0.63 0.76 0.77 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B C C NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbound Left-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 .1 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECTREF: 06 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD EMI STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L I R (A) EXISTING: 224 290 86 466 270 97 157 910 158 65 867 263 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 5 0 4 5 0 0 5 2 0 9 4 (C) CUMULATIVE: 288 309 116 549 344 170 208 1235 381 96 983 297 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS LL T TR L L T R LL TT R L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS R S SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 2 3000 224 224 288 288 0.08 0.08 0.10 * 0.10 NBT 2 3200 290 295 309 314 0.12 * 0.12 * 0.13 0.13 NBR 0 0 86 86 116 116 - - - - SBL 2 ' 3000 466 470 549 553 0.16 * 0.16 * 0.18 0.18 SBT 1 1600 270 275 344 349 0.17 0.17 0.22 * 0.22 * 513R 1 1500 97 97 170 170 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.11 EBL 2 3000 157 157 208 208 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 EBT 2 3200 910 915 1235 1240 0.28 * 0.29 * 0.39 * 0.39 * EBR 1 1500 158 160 381 383 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.26 WBL 1 1500 65 65' 96 96 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.06 * 0.06 * WBT 2 3200 867 876 983 992 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.31 WBR 1 1500 30 30 34 34 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.70 0.71 0.86 0,87 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B C D D NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Soufhbund Left-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 06 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY26,2014 • TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD EM/STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 244 255 64 369 225 92 169 888 232 108 978 548 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 7 0 6 6 0 0 9 3 0 13 6 (C) CUMULATIVE: 471 310 174 427 271 169 248 1147 349 136 1357 640 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS LL T TR L L T R LL TT R L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 2 3000 244 244 471 471 0.08 0.08 0.16 * 0.16 * NBT 2 3200 255 262 310 317 0.10 * 0.10 * 0.15 0.15 NBR 0 0 64 64 174 174 - - - - SBL 2 3000 369 375 427 433 0.12 * 0.13 * 0.14 0.14 SBT 1 1600 225 231 271 277 0.14 0.14 0.17 * 0.17 * SBR 1 1500 92 92 169 169 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 EBL 2 3000 169 169 248 248 0.06 * 0.06 * 0.08 * 0.08 * EBT 2 3200 888 897 1147 1156 0.28 0.28 0.36 0.36 EBR 1 1500 232 235 349 352 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.24 WBL 1 1500 108 108 136 136 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 WBT 2 3200 978 991 1357 1370 0.31 * 0.31 * 0.42 * 0.43 * WBR 1 1500 364 368 425 429 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.29 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.69 0.69 0.93 0.94 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B E E NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbound Right-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 � f APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: ..06 C AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD EN STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL.TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 224 290 86 466 270 97 157 910 158 65 867 263 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 5 0 4 5 0 0 5 2 0 9 4 (C) CUMULATIVE: 288 309 116 549 344 170 208 1235 381 96 983 297 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED GEOMETRICS LL T TR L L T R LL TT R L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 2 3000 224 224 288 288 0.08 0.08 0.10 * 0.10 * NBT 2 3200 290 295 309 314 0.12 * 0.12 * 0.13 0.13 NBR 0 0 86 86 116 116 - - - - SBL 2 3000 466 470 549 553 0.16 * 0.16 * 0.18 0.18 SBT 1 1600 270 275 344 349 0.17 0.17 0.22 * 0.22 * SBR 1 1500 97 97 170 170 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.11 EBL 2 3000 157 157 208 208 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 EBT 3 4800 910 915 1235 1240 0.19 * 0.19 * 0.26 * 0.26 * EBR 1 1500 158 160 381 383 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.26 WBL 1 1500 65 65 96 96 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.06 * 0.06 * WBT 3 4800 867 876 983 992 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.21 WBR 1 1500 29 29 33 33 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.61 0.61 0.73 0.74 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B C C NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbo and Left-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 APPENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 06 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY.. NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 244 255 64 369 225 92 169 888 232 108 978 548 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 7 0 6 6 0 0 9 3 0 13 6 (C) CUMULATIVE: 471 310 174 427 271 169 248 1147 349 136 1357 640 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED GEOMETRICS LL T TR LLTR LL TT R L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS • MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 2 3000 244 244 471 471 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 NBT 2 3200 255 262 310 317 0.10 * 0.10 * 0.15 * 0.15 * NBR 0 0 64 64 174 174 - - - - SBL 2 3000 369 375 427 433 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.14 SBT 1 1600 225 231 271 277 0.14 * 0.14 * 0.17 * 0.17 * SBR 1 1500 92 92 169 169 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 EBL 2 3000 169 169 248 248 0.06 * 0.06 * 0.08 * 0.08 * EBT 3 4800 888 897 1147 1156 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.24 EBR 1 1500 232 235 349 352 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.24 WBL 1 1500 108 108 136 136 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 WBT 3 4800 978 991 1357 1370 0.20 0.21 0.28 * 0.29 * WBR 1 1500 362 366 422 426 0.24 * 0.24 * 0.28 0.28 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.64 0.65 0.79 0.79 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B C C NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbound Left-Turn Printed: 03/26/14 � �. .� ��.. �..I APPENDIX NO. 15 ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA REVISED TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY �o / is ts1FE • Casey Road e High Street {td}ryittHMRM xiIMMI/MH+HIMMItMr4M14tt�tifi♦• I _ Union PaciOe Railroad Poindexter Avenue - istStreet 3 . Los Angeles Avenue February 3, 2016 ATE Project #14001 Prepared for: Aldersgate Investments 300 Esplanade, Suite 430 Oxnard, CA 93036 • 011111 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 100 N. Hope Avenue,Suite 4,Santa Barbara,CA 93110-1686 (805)687-4418 Y FAX(805)682-8509 . APPENDIX NO. 15 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS �u u� 100 N. Hope Avenue,Suite 4, Santa Barbara,CA 93110 ® (805) 687-4418 ® FAX (805) 682-8509 Since 1978 Richard L. Pool, P.E. Scott A. Schell,AICP, PTP February 3, 2016 14001 R02.wp Mr. Matt Mansi Aldersgate Investments 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 430 Oxnard, CA 93036 REVISED TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY FOR THE ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT, CITY OF MOORPARK Associated Transportation Engineers has prepared the following revised traffic and circulation study for the Aldersgate Senior Living Project, proposed in the City of Moorpark. The revised traffic and circulation study addresses the June 10th 2015 comments provided by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers on the initial traffic and circulation study prepared by ATE. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Associated Transportation Engineers Scott A. Schell, AICP, PTP. Vice President Engineering . Planning . Parking . Signal Systems . Impact Reports . Bikeways . Transit APPENDIX NO. 15 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Street Network 1 Intersection Operations 5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 8 PROJECT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS 9 Project Trip Generation 9 Project Trip Distribution 9 Intersection Operations 11 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS 13 Traffic Forecasts 13 Intersection Operations 16 SITE ACCESS 19 MITIGATION MEASURES 19 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED 23 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 24 APPENDIX NO. 15 TABLES Table 1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service 8 Table 2 Project Trip Generation 9 Table 3 Project Trip Distribution 11 Table 4 Existing and Existing + Project A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 11 Table 5 Existing and Existing + Project P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 13 Table 6 Cumulative Development Projects Trip Generation 14 Table 7 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 16 Table 8 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 16 Table 9 Cumulative - Project Percent Contributions 20 Table 10 Mitigated Intersection Geometry 21 Table 11 Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 21 Table 12 Mitigated Intersection Geometry 21 Table 13 Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 22 Table 14 Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 22 FIGURES Figure 1 Existing Street Network and Project Site Location 2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan 3 Figure 3 Project Roadway and Intersection Improvements 4 Figure 4 Study-Area Intersections and Existing Lane Geometries 6 Figure 5 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 7 Figure 6 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 10 Figure 7 Existing + Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 12 Figure 8 Cumulative-Added Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 Figure 9 Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 17 Figure 10 Cumulative + Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 18 APPENDIX NO. 15 INTRODUCTION The following study contains an analysis of the potential traffic impacts associated with the Aldersgate Senior Living Project. The study provides information regarding existing and future traffic conditions within the project study-area and recommends improvements where necessary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is proposing to construct of a senior housing development with 258 independent living residences and a 212-bed assisted living facility. The project site is located on the north side of Casey Road west of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site within the City. Regional access to the project site will be provided by State Route 118 via the State Route 118-23/Los Angeles Avenue interchange. Direct access to the project site would be provided by a access road connection to Casey Road. Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan. The project will dedicate Right-of-Way and improve Casey Road along the project frontage in addition to improving the Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road intersection. Casey Road will be widened from Walnut Canyon Road to the Walnut Canyon Elementary School and provide two 12' travel lanes, bike lanes, curb gutter and sidewalk. Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road intersection will be improved to proved an exclusive right- turn lane on the southbound approach. Figure 3 illustrates the roadway and intersection improvements that will be implemented by the project. EXISTING CONDITIONS Street Network The project site is served by a system of highways, arterial roads and collector streets as illustrated in Figure 1. The following text provides a brief description of the major components of the study-area street network. State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue), located south of the project site, is a 2- to 6-lane highway that extends from the State Route 126 (Santa Paula Freeway) in the City of Ventura to State Route 210 (Foothill Freeway) east of the City of San Fernando. State Route 118 is signalized at Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road. State Route 23 (Walnut Canyon Road - Moorpark Avenue), located east of the project site, is a 2 to 3-lane roadway with a center left-turn lane in the study-area. State Route 23 serves as the primary north-south route between the Cities of Moorpark and Fillmore. Spring Road, located east of the project site, is a 2 to 4-lane divided arterial roadway that extends south from Walnut Canyon Road to Tierra Rejada Road within the City of Moorpark. Spring Road is signalized at High Street and Los Angeles Avenue. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 1 - February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 N NOT TO SCALE oaa \\\\\\\ °�o� CT SITE J` �c a 1 ® f Casey Road • High Street tli41414-1 l//11%1 M 111111111111111: I I I 1111111111111111111Hf#Ft}HtF}I\1111111111111111111111111111%111111111111111111111111:11111111 Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue 1st Street oo -o Os co a c Los Angeles Avenue SII IIS ASSOCIATED FIGURE 1 — = TRANSPORTATION EXISTING STREET NETWORK AND PROJECT LOCATION �J — IIS E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 l Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 2 February 3,2016 / APPENDIX NO. 15 , . vs too M, : (II ' is r r eA i ' Mi 011111111 am! 1 61 Vra . w ..4.., t... , ,,,;.., -,----„,,,,, ,,.._ , i , ,�! tr, .,,,, �' z�. *IA r / Iv \cveci_..-02,,,,,,.• grg ,,---,v 14P1,./..)/11111i1H „ ,(,' [7,,P7 0/1 //11/1 0 .' c> ,/,:,,,/ . / ,??,>, .--_,,/ I .. __. ft , ir „ , .. , 1 , , ;-'7 , T,.._,,,,)f,',1:/..:.-:'"(1.1.7 -,;/, / „::.. ,, ,,,...::_,_ \:, / ,.„, / 1• 1 .I, , ,,.... 7 0 _. ,i„ _ ,,,,,• , , _." • // ._ . , , , ,.„....••••„. ...... ,___ ...., ,,, ,,,,,________ .,,,, ,, -,,,, , ,, 1 , ......,,, , ,,,__, .,, _;:,/,•, ,,,„„ ,.„,,..,_ . L .3 1 ' ,,,,,,L:2' .. ,i if r 1 I /:;; _il__ // ..6-"i\ / ---7/1' ' / J1-1 1 \ \ I/' _'' if —1— --1..�o—» i , = .'., 14 i r �.', Y \ .. V - , ,f 1 _ .r! '�. 10,1.4 MI=Matia kl . , t NOT TO SCALE ' 'N • / , ' Il `III(=\ ASSOCIATED FIGURE (.......:2- " — TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SITE PLAN i. Ir / E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 J Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 3 February 3,2016 , s H > / F'.t...2 m !?,•• '. I CL CD / 1 / / 3 ,?//" 1 C E72, / t 7 8R22 Lot 88 M.R. 22 / 1// // . c 6.7 / •$r'''/. / 6.\*. •-t r- O R.: / ic li • / = 5 CPC \ c.ncro LoM.R. . ... o..•-‘ am Clss . / \-Q j / Lot 6 8 NI.R.22 J ;;/ / .c..,Z. .A 7/ 'c i / • \ V 41 Lot 58 M.R. 22 Lot 4 8 KR. di,,,,t.0 ' ', .. 2E: i / ailirc....'a-,-, 1 1-4 . , / /: '1,i:,140 h 'I \ I / Lot 3 8 M.R. 22 i'' /N i f 1 -_,..... • ---, co 1‘ '.1(IN N i Fgt.:Zal WIDENING gc*WASEY . 1 -Pit. c`pir'..; ,I //lc , , p, i. . . flor c, ;.:i, 41 0 -g . ..-4- ni ,,,,,,.:, it c..b. f. • l r'-`—• / I Loll 8 M.P.22 .71.,, tin. 1 \ 1 . . 1 4 ._ ii.dv, Mit, IP 0 - 7/ • . .../) Do4t1.980-421, o. . i .,1 \ _ .t, V is vv,,,-,' .- ilmion''• t.,,,6: li i ),1/410;1 / 2,,Nes,Bou ck.___ _. tl••• ill4111M. ' '''' C2Ca) :•e.4.030UND OEM /RAVEL LANE '72.7.. 'MEDIAN ' ' .--""74111111 100.----AIIIP l' / s. \ no .41re-NfillertliN,! 1 7 - ____ r--- -- ,— t \ * rdeitt 91-185164.or \ ' '' Ik‘ \ . ,,, ........ il ..I. 1- -0 i....„...„..„...„ 1 ,. 6 0 I.LC ENGINEERING GROUP INC. WIDENING EXHIBIT X SHEET z .. 11.....!NE11,5,..,....... ..20-n--.20 FOR Z –I .. . ALDERSGATE INVESTMENTS 1 M IR.. .0, I...“00 I 6504 CASEY ROAD ' 0 CA 93021 OF 1 1 • -Y1 gi 03 •-• —1 ASSOCIATED FIGURE C3 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IA iaj ,,,----; ii ,, ENGINEERS — MMF-#14001 ...1 APPENDIX NO. 15 High Street, located south of the project site, is a 2-lane arterial roadway that extends west from Walnut Canyon Road becoming Princeton Avenue east of Spring Road. High Street serves primarily commercial land uses. High Street is signalized at Moorpark Avenue. Poindexter Avenue, located south of the project site, is a 2-lane roadway that extends west from Moorpark Avenue to Gabbert Road. Poindexter Avenue forms an off-set 4-legged intersection with First Street at Moorpark Avenue. Poindexter Avenue serves primarily residential land uses. Poindexter Avenue is signalized at Moorpark Avenue. First Street, located south of the project site, is a 2-lane roadway that extends east from Moorpark Avenue to Bard Street. First Street forms an off-set 4-legged intersection with Poindexter Avenue at Moorpark Avenue. First Street serves primarily residential land uses. First Street is signalized at Moorpark Avenue. Casey Road, located south of the project site is a 2-lane roadway that extends west from Moorpark Avenue. Casey Road will provide access to the project site via Walnut Canyon Road. Casey Road primarily serves residential land uses in addition to the Boys and Girls Club of Moorpark and Walnut Canyon Elementary School. Casey Road is signalized at Walnut Canyon Road. Intersection Operations Because traffic flow on urban arterial roadways is most constrained at intersections, detailed traffic flow analyses focus on the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods. In rating intersection operations, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating free flow operations and LOS F indicating congested operations (more complete definitions of levels of service are included in the Technical Appendix).The City of Moorpark considers LOS C to be the minimum acceptable operating standard for intersections. Figure 4 illustrates the existing traffic controls andgeometries at the 6 stud area intersections. g g Y- fr Existing peak hour volumes for the study-area intersections were collected by ATE in February 2014 for this study (traffic count data is contained in the Technical Appendix for reference). The existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the study-area intersections are illustrated on Figure 5. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -5 - February 3, 2016 t APPENDIX NO. 15 s\ a y- \\\\\\ �- oc PROJECT �c N 'SITE �acJ NOT TO SCALE Casey Road 1 \ O r-3-1High Street Y 11111111111111111111111111:1#1111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111III1111111III11111111111111111111111111I:ili111111111FH11111111111111111IIII \Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue 17.41 1st Street O N O "O .'s-.. O aq a d y C a ci lib U 5 Los Angeles Avenue 6 iI 2I "44 -'W- T-- [ 8 High Street I Princeton Ave. Casey Road I M High Street I J 1 t + ;°,, --,tr - . rIttr' , a 51 6I Poindexter Ave.l p I 1st Street u II-os Angeles Ave. u ILos Angeles Ave. LEGEND } �� '. _ U -Signalized Intersection J a -tt r -► p• It?► N < O -Lane Geometry / ` -ll Ili ` ASSOCIATED FIGURE Cl.i. - = TRANSPORTATION STUDY-AREA INTERSECTIONS AND EXISTING LANE GEOMETRIES - 11 ,./ MMT-#14001 J I, is Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 6 February 3,2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 1 I oc PROJECT- Li N SITE �" ` NOT TO SCALE i Casey Road 1 I—'1 rn LJ High Street LLI ;1111111111111111111Ni-iiIII1111111III1111111I I111111111111111111111111111IIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue 1-411st Street I ' 3 lit 3 Los Angeles Avenue i il 21j J j --,uu', o a, W A rn co N W 4>U l W a1 V o N L(121)96 CT OW x(155)313 —(14)45 , —(253)253 J I J I VD L x(213)229 J I L x(100)115 7(25)--1 —, I 13(1) —1 } I- 38(15)- —I �- 60(259)-1 50(15) I _ 327(201)— '" 70(12)—! rn j 104(96)-1 N co Co t0 O v O W O V tT N N W `2-1 N N W W 4 N U W V to .-� W-4 J N N LI _ j N W N0o N 01 41..to Oto" CO to CO W N 1-0 V (10)11 (1 47)159 vrn 1—(263)548 o 0 o --(45)28 --(886)984 —(867)978 I L x(5)11 JI LF(86)243 J I L r(65)108 f' 278(199) —1 I (— 124(133)- —1 I I— 169(157)- -, I (- 31(14) 966(861) 888(910) LEGEND 86(93) a�Np -1' 39(35)— ,A 232(158)-j N g; 01 u, v� 4, 0, oN o „O N A -(XX)XX (A.M.)P.M.Peak Hour Volume u W t u, i SII ll -� ASSOCIATED FIGURE C5.. — = TRANSPORTATION EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ii .,) ENGINEERS MMF-#14001 J Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 7 February 3,2016 4 APPENDIX NO. 15 Levels of service were calculated for intersections using the "Intersection Capacity Utilization" (ICU) methodology adopted by the City of Moorpark. Table 1 lists the existing levels of service for the study-area intersections (calculation worksheets are contained in the Technical Appendix). Table 1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service IA.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road 0.54 LOS B 0.30 LOS A (Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 0.64 LOS B 0.72 LOS C 'Spring Road/High Street 0.72 ' LOS C ' 0.66 LOS B 'Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.68 I LOS B I 0.67 I LOS B 'Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.63 I LOS B I 0.65 I LOS B (Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.70 I LOS B I 0.68 I LOS B The data presented in Table 1 show that the study-area intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Per Policy 2.1 of the City of Moorpark Circulation Element, Level of Service (LOS) C shall be the system performance objective. For facilities already operating at less than LOS C, the system performance objective shall be to maintain or improve the current level of service. The City of Moorpark, "Guidelines for Preparing Traffic and Circulation Studies" states that if a level of service degradation of one level of service or greater is attributable to a project it will be considered significant enough to require mitigation measures. The City's criteria also states that a level of service degradation of less than one level of service may also be considered significant, depending on circumstances. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -8- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 PROJECT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Aldersgate Senor Living Project based on the rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trio Generation, 9th Edition for Senior Adult Housing - Attached (Land-Use Code #252) and Assisted Living (Land-Use Code#254).1 Table 2 summarizes the average daily, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation estimates for the project. Table 2 Project Trip Generation ADT A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips(In/Out) Rate Trips(In/Out) Senior Adult Housing-Attached 258 units 3.44 888 0.20 52 (18/34) 0.25 64 (34/30) Assisted Living Residential 212 beds 2.74 580 10.18 38 (26/12) 0.29 61 (31/30) Total Trip Generation: 1,468 I 90(44/46) 125 (65/60) The data presented in Table 2 show that the Aldersgate Senior Living Project would generate 1,468 average daily trips (ADT's), 90 A.M. peak hour trips, and 125 P.M. peak hour trips. Project Trip Distribution The project-generated traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the adjacent street network based on percentages illustrated in Table 3 and presented on Figure 6. The trip distribution percentages are based on recent traffic studies, existing traffic patterns observed in the study-area and consideration of the most logical travel routes for drivers accessing the proposed development. ' Trio Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -9- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 10% as J 4o P\\\ (1' N NOT TO SCALE 'SITE �c�` � a 1 ill Casey Road 1 15% r- 1 2 High Street L_I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1%1111IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111 Union Pacific Railroad o Poindexter Avenue E 1st Street 5% 3 LOCAL 1 g TRAFFIC a 5% OQ A 2 S a C C m I 20% 25% c 1I 5 0 Los Angeles Avenue a 5%/O 15% 1I 21 wj 3J N .A (ft rn J I L 1—(16)22 —(7)9 6(5)- I 9(7)--- 54(41)—t ii, N 12(9)—i Loo cn W w co rn 0 51- N 61 W N NJ W^ CO W v v 'l-131\30 I -(2)3 LEGEND _I I J I L L-(9)13 j 1- —(9)13 L(XX)XX -(A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume 3(2)J I 13(9)-1 I 12(10) Distribution Percentage w ` o r F -ll llASSOCIATED FIGURE C6,_; J TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Ili. E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 i Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 10 February 3,2016 i r APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 3 Project Trip Distribution Route Origin/Destination Percent Walnut Canyon Road North of Casey Road North 10% Moorpark Avenue South of Los Angeles Avenue South 5% Spring Road South of Los Angeles Avenue South 15% Los Angeles Avenue West of Moorpark Avenue West 20% Los Angeles Avenue East of Spring Road East 25% High Street East of Spring Road East 15% Poindexter Avenue West of Moorpark Avenue West 5% Local Area Below High Street Local Internal 3% Commercial Area West of Moorpark Avenue Local Commercial Internal 2% Total 100% I Intersection Operations Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Existing + Project traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 7. The improvements approved by the City for the Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road intersection are assumed to be in place (see Figure 3). Tables 4 and 5 compare the Existing and Existing + Project levels of service and identify potential project-specific impacts based on City thresholds. Table 4 Existing and Existing + Project A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service Existing Existing + Project LOS Change? Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Change Impact Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road(' 0.54 A 0.55 A NO NO i Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 0.64 B 0.67 B NO NO Spring Road/High Street 0.72 C 0.73 C NO NO Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.68 B 0.69 B NO NO Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.63 B 0.64 I B NO NO Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.70 B 0.71 I C NO NO (a) Exiting + Project LOS calculations assume implementation of the project improvements. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 11 - February 3, 2016 r,- 7 APPENDIX NO. 15 �I \\\\\\\ECT ��is 'SITE c° �a NOT TO SCALE I® / JO Casey Road 1 1 • Z High Street 3 I I I I I 1 1 1111 1 1%///41,1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I;I I I I I I I I I I 111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Union Pacific Railroad 1 Poindexter Avenue 4 1st Street 3 8 N ii xi55 N m 0. a C CD ilt o Los Angeles Avenue +V i 11 J N J co"' u, A V V N N00 Wim+ i 4,Ul W 0,v o (137)118 �W 0 L(155)313 —(14)45 —(260)262 J I J I L x(213)229 J I L x(100)115 13(30)--1 —I } 13(1)J J. J.— } (- 38(15)—j -I 1- 114(300) ,.I 50(15) I 336(208)— j W 70(12)—, a VD ,=--z, 116(105)-1 N o v —� —,'W JI NW 0, I —W+th .N U-1(Ti V 0" CO—,W it,,.. N N W V V VD N t0 t+.1 tD.P.N W N' tsi oW w L(10)11 L(156)172 "CO v cis (—(265)551 J , --(45)28 J L —(886)984 " --(876)991 I ` x(86)243 J I L (65)108 281(201) —II (- 137(142)—) —1 I I—169(157)—i —1 I 1- 31(14)* 966(861)* 900(920)* LEGEND 86(93)--) rn a' 39(35)-1 °' a, 232(158) N,rn N-' W .b. p, L(XX)XX (A.M.)P.M.Peak Hour Volume t,, l 81 r ,/ 11 II - ASSOCIATED FIGURE (.7_. TRANSPORTATION EXISTING+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES II ./ ENGINEERS MME-#14001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 12 February 3,2016 h is APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 5 Existing and Existing + Project P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service Existing Existing + Project LOS Change? Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Change Impact Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road') 0.30 A 0.34 A NO NO Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 0.72 C 0.76 C NO NO Spring Road/High Street 0.66 B I 0.66 I B NO NO Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue I 0.67 I B I 0.69 I B I NO I NO Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue I 0.65 I B I 0.66 I B NO I NO Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road I 0.69 I B I 0.69 I B NO I NO (a) Exiting + Project LOS calculations assume implementation of the project improvements. The data presented in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that the addition of project-generated traffic to the study-area intersections would not degrade the existing LOS by one level of service or greater. Therefore the project would not generate project-specific impacts at the study-area intersections based on City of Moorpark thresholds. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS Traffic Forecasts Cumulative traffic volumes were forecast for the study-area roadways and intersections assuming the development of 18 approved and pending projects located in the City of Moorpark that would add traffic to the study-area roadways and intersections. The list of developments was provided by City staff. Trip generation estimates were developed for the cumulative projects using the rates published in the ITE, Trio Generation, 9th Edition. Table 6 summarizes the average daily, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation for the cumulative projects. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 13- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 6 Cumulative Development Projects Trip Generation I Project Land Use Size ADT A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour' IToll Brothers Single Family Res. 49 Units 466 37 49 Single Family Res. 157 Units 1,495 118 157 Pacific Communities Condominiums 300 Units 1,743 132 156 Single-Family Res. 235 Units 2,237 176 235 Hitch Ranch Partners Multi-Family Res. 520 Units 3,427 239 302 I Pardee Homes Single Family Res. 133 Units 1,266 I 100 I 133 Richmond American Homes Single Family Res. 43 Units 409 I 32 43 Toll Brothers Single Family Res. 132 Units 1,257 99 132 City Ventures Single Family Res. 110 Units 1,047 82 I 110 John C. Chiu, FLP-N Condominiums 60 Units 349 26 I 31 Resmark EQ. Partners, LLC Single Family Res. 248 Units 2,361 186 248 Resmark EQ. Partners, LLC Single Family Res. 17 Units 162 13 17 Jane Blasingham Condominiums 99 Units 575 44 51 Essex Moorpark, L.P. Multi-Family Res. 200 Units 1,318 92 57 Grand Moorpark Medical Office 76,000 SF 2,746 182 271 Kim Clement Centee Church 21,644 SF 66 0 9 Patriot Commerce Center Industrial 350,000 SF 2,440 322 340 A-B Properties Industrial 36 acres 1,865 224 261 National Ready Mix Batch Plant 10 acres 600 20 20 Triliad Development Movie Studio I 37 acres 100 10 10 Wayne J. Sand & Gravel Quarry I N/A 504 92 34 I Grimes Rock Quarry I N/A 480 35 14 Total Trips:126,913 I 2,261 I 2,680 (a)Trip generation based on a project traffic study prepared by ATE. The data presented in Table 6 indicate that the cumulative projects would generate a total of 26,913 average daily trips, 2,261 A.M. peak hour trips and 2,680 P.M. peak hour trips. The cumulative projects' peak hour traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the study-area intersections based on the location of each project, recent traffic studies, existing traffic patterns observed in the study area as well as a general knowledge of the population, employment and commercial centers in Moorpark,Ventura, Oxnard,Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley. The resulting cumulative-added traffic forecasts are illustrated on Figure 8. C Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 14- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 so,"?' �o PROJECT C"....?? N iSITEAli ASNOT TO SCALE Casey Road 1 C U I-1 High Street U IIIII I II II I IIIIII IIIIII1111111III II IIIII II I II 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IHFX11111111111111111111;11111111 Union Pacific Railroad ', Poindexter Avenue 141 1st Street o N o 0 Os A a o a Iltr—I Los Angeles Avenue b J ?J co co co N N o,--‘ rn N 0 w L(12)47 o L(6)19 r I J I L -(9)51 J I L -(16)34 97(173) - I 2(7)-i -I f 1- 10(3)J --) I c- 12(23)— 36(62) o i„ 47(110)—� Wow 2(4)-t rn w coNO —+ N V N 4, :1'1 W Ur c0 N O J N J 0 J W 4, 1.0 V A In to W 1 V CS CO o-, 1 98)482 wwL-(34)92w v o I J ` L -(5)5)193 J L (158)391 -(31)28 I 150(62)-j -1 263(89) I I- 79(51)) -I 4(353)~ I 1- 27 LEGEND - 15(7)-) o 117(223)--- m o N In N to --, L(XX)XX (A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume c V V V O 1• �II�� ASSOCIATED FIGURE (f...TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE-ADDED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMESJ • IIS E NGINEERS MMF-#74007 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 15 February 3,2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 Intersection Operations Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project traffic volumes illustrated on Figures 9 and 10. The calculations for Cumulative and Cumulative + Project levels of service for the study-area intersections are compared in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service Cumulative Cumulative + Project LOS Change? Intersection ICU LOS V/C LOS Change Impact Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road(' 0.77 C 0.81 D YES YES Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 1.13 F 1.16 F NO NO Spring Road/High Street I 0.81 I D 0.81 D I NO I NO Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 1.01 I F ( 1.01 F I NO I NO Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue I 0.84 I D I 0.85 I D I NO I NO Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road I 0.87 I D 0.88 I D I NO I NO (a) Cumulative + Project LOS calculations assume implementation of the project improvements. Table 8 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project P.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service Cumulative Cumulative + Project LOS Change? Intersection ICU LOS V/C LOS Change Impact Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road(a) 0.55 A 0.60 A NO NO IWalnut Canyon Road/High Street 1.21 F 1.27 F NO NO Spring Road/High Street I 0.76 C 0.76 C NO NO Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue I 0.87 D 0.89 I D NO I NO Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue I 0.88 D 0.90 I D NO I NO ILos Angeles Avenue/Spring Road I 0.94 E 0.95 I E NO I NO (a) Cumulative + Project LOS calculations assume implementation of the project improvements. j r The data presented in Tables 7 and 8 indicate that the majority of study-area intersections are forecast to operate in the LOS D-F range during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods under Cumulative and Cumulative+Project conditions. The data also indicate that the LOS of the Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road intersection degrades by one level of service with the F' addition of project traffic. The LOS would not degrade with the addition of project traffic at the remaining intersections. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 16- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 N\ ,,a lQ0 I J \\\\\\\ECT � N 'SITE 'Si'� NOT TO SCALE 1la Casey Road 0 \ I is x21 E I— I High Street LJ 11111 IIIIIII11III1II11111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111ICIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111IIII11111111111111111111C41- Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue D; 1st Street I, I[ o R 0 oo 0 G CD 5 Los Angeles Avenue ) II L J VC oC -,W --LNO WOV stn NV--� COOtW °'w N o N (133)143 w co L-(161)332 —(21)66 —(271)317 J I J I L x(222)234 J I L j---(116)149 7(25)-1 —I 15(8)-i —1 48(18)-i —_ — 157(432)-1 I 62(38) 1-- 363(263)—•-- If� NN LO 117(122 o 106(100)—) N N W O W v p CI,O W o , O O1 W -6t O N to (n RI'10 O1 Ntn V CT, tONCSN J N aN J N 4, N.p. .AN Op tOO tO-Cr,V-`V 0 0 �-(10)11 w v x(345)641 0 —(297)640 J I L -(5)118 J I L x(91)24877 _J I L x(96)13669 278(199)---) J. 274(195)—i —I 248(208)-1 —1 31(14) — 1229(950)— - 1162(1263) - LEGEND 86(93) tti s.-13-. 54(42)--) ,p 349(381) o vuv 0,Voo who L(XX)XX (A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume tom° N N W O co - `! +O 11 IIS\ ASSOCIATED FIGURE Eg — 1= TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11i � E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 J Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 17 February 3,2016 1 / APPENDIX NO. 15 I v p% I PROJECT ,c , 'SITE a,° NOT TO SCALE ill / I ( Casey Road 1 1 \ IS r-1 L_J High Street L I -,IIII1111111111111111111III:IIIII1111111IIIIll 111111111111111111111111111111111111: 1111111 11111111111111111111111 1111111111 Union Pacific Railroad Poindexter Avenue L J 1st Street i I o -o -o o o A C s. O N Q. n C at D Los Angeles Avenue r---i, € € 11 w w J oo J oco NW 17;( tn-5_, WOV tD^ ur,w N co w L(149)165 ��rn ‘-(161)332 J I J ` L ~(21)66(222)234 J I L —(278)32611 E(222)234 ` i-(116)149 13(30)-1 - 115(8)-1 - f r 48(18)-1 I r- 211(473)� I 62(38)— I 372(270)- I "C7 LO C7, 117(1 22) w 118(109)-1 w niN W O ,� V W Co O,O W 01 - O�W -+01 N 001 5 I Iv 01 W 01 6 I 01 N N Cr, J Nip. - . coo O1 ibW V N o cc 1,3 CD 00 W j NtD O rn (10)11 w !--(354)654 -I iJ ul (-(299)643Lo a (45)28 —(1047)1177 —(1034)1382 J j L x(5)11 J I L �-(91)248 J L (96)136 281(201)--) -I I- 287(204)-J -) I- 248(208)-1 -I .-I- - 31(14) 1229(950) 1174(1273) LEGEND 86(93) w V 54(42) °',°o 349(381)-1 rn rn tCA o to C'V -4j O V N V t--(XX)XX -(A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume o "�1I -II - ASSOCIATED FIGURE i o� TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES `_ III=/ E NGINEERS MMF-#14001 Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study 18 February 3,2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 SITE ACCESS Access to the project site is proposed via an access road connection on the north side of Casey Road. The new roadway would intersect Casey Road approximately 240 feet west of the Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road intersection. The access road would be built to City of Moorpark design standards which would accommodate turning movements by both passenger vehicles and trucks. Given the projected traffic volumes and the proposed Casey Road cross- section, conflicts with school's eastern driveway and the project access roadway would be minimal. Project traffic (right-turns inbound/left-turns outbound) would not conflict with school traffic making left-turns to enter the school. ATE conducted a field review to determine if sufficient sight distance exists at the project access road location. The segment of Casey Road adjacent to the project site is posted 25 MPH. Based on Caltrans criteria, the minimum required stopping sight distance standard for a 25 MPH design speed is 150 feet and corner sight distance of 275 feet. The sight distance to the east was measured at 240 feet to Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road intersection, in excess of the 150-foot stopping sight distance minimum. The sight distance to the west was measured at 280 feet to the elementary school driveway which exceeds the 150-foot and 275- foot minimums. Obstructions, such as fences, walls, screens, etc., should not be constructed within the sight triangles adjacent to the project access roadway in order to maintain adequate sight distances for vehicles exiting the site. Pedestrian Facilities There are limited existing pedestrian facilities (crosswalks/sidewalks etc.) located along the roadways in the study-area. No sidewalks are provided on the north side of Casey Road adjacent to the project site, however a pedestrian crosswalk is provided on the western and southern legs of the Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road intersection. Along Casey Road, a sidewalk is provided on the south side from Walnut Canyon Road to the cul-de-sac and no sidewalks are provided on the north side of the road. The planned project improvements to Casey Road and the project access roadway would enhance pedestrian facilities in the study-area. The project includes the construction of 8 foot minimum width pedestrian sidewalks on Casey Road from Walnut Canyon Road to the elementary school. The access road would be built to City of Moorpark design standards and provide curb gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the road. MITIGATION MEASURES The traffic analysis did not identify any project-specific impacts for the Existing + Project scenario. However under cumulative conditions, several of the study-area intersections are forecast to operate below the City of Moorpark's LOS C performance objective with or without the project. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 19- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 In addition to paying the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee, there is an Area of Contribution (AOC) established for the Los Angeles Avenue, Gabbert Road/Casey Road and Spring Road/Tierra Rejada Road corridors. The project will be required to pay the AOC fee based upon the level of traffic added within these corridors. The percent contribution at the study- area intersections is shown in Table 9. Table 9 Cumulative - Project Percent Contributions Study Intersection Project Percent Contribution (%) Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road 14% Walnut Canyon Road/High Street 10% Spring Road/High Street 9% Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 8% Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 7% ILos Angeles Avenue/Spring Road I 3% As part of the AOC,the City has identified and programmed improvements for the Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road intersections that would mitigate cumulative impacts, as discussed below. Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue: The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E during the A.M. peak hour period under Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions. The programmed improvement consists of adding an additional through lane on the westbound approach. The mitigated geometrics and peak hour levels of service are shown in Tables 10 and 11. Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -20- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 10 Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue Mitigated Intersection Geometry Scenario Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Existing Geometry L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TT R I Mitigated Geometry L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TTT R Table 11 Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Cumulative + Project Intersection Peak Period Existing Geometry With Improvements ILos Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue A.M. V/C = 0.84/LOS D V/C = 0.74/LOS C I Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue P.M. V/C = 0.90/LOS D V/C = 0.77/LOS C Implementing the intersection improvements planned by the City of Moorpark would result in LOS C during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods under Cumulative + Project conditions. Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road: The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D/E during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods under Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions. The programmed improvement consists of adding an additional through lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The mitigated geometrics and peak hour levels of service are shown in Tables 12 and 13. Table 12 Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road Mitigated Intersection Geometry Scenario Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Existing Geometry L L T TR LLTR L L TT R L TT R Mitigated Geometry L L T TR LLTR L L TTT R L TTT R Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -21 - February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 Table 13 Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Cumulative + Project Intersection Peak Period Existing Geometry With Improvements Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road A.M. V/C = 0.88/LOS D V/C = 0.74/LOS C I Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road P.M. V/C = 0.95/LOS E V/C = 0.80/LOS C Implementing the intersection improvements planned by the City of Moorpark would result in LOS C during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods under Cumulative + Project conditions. Widening of the 2-lane segment of Walnut Canyon Road-Moorpark Avenue from Casey Road to Poindexter Avenue to provide additional northbound and southbound through lanes would improve the operation of the Walnut Canyon/Casey Road, Walnut Canyon Road/High Street and Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue intersections. City staff have indicated that widening is infeasible at this time. However ATE has developed the following mitigation for the Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road intersection. Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road: The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D during the A.M. peak hour period under Cumulative + Project conditions. The recommended improvement would be to provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase with the northbound left-turn phase. The mitigated A.M. and P.M. peak hour levels of service would be in the A-B range, as shown in Table 14. Table 14 Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road Mitigated A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Cumulative + Project Intersection Peak Period Existing Geometry With Improvements Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road A.M. V/C = 0.81/LOS D V/C = 0.67/LOS B Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road P.M. V/C = 0.60/LOS A V/C = 0.57/LOS A s ■ ■ Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -22- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED Associated Transportation Engineers Scott A. Schell, AICP, PTP, Principal Planner Darryl F. Nelson, PTP, Senior Transportation Planner Matthew Farrington, Transportation Planner I References Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012. Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Traffic and Circulation Studies, City of Moorpark, November 22, 1993. Persons Contacted David Klotzle, P.E., City Engineer/Public Works Director, City of Moorpark Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner, City of Moorpark David Bobart, Community Development Director, City of Moorpark David S. Shender, P.E., Linscott Law & Greenspan Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -23- February 3, 2016 APPENDIX NO. 15 TECHNICAL APPENDIX CONTENTS: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS Reference 1 - Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road Reference 2 - Walnut Canyon Road/High Street Reference 3 - Spring Road/High Street Reference 4 - Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue Reference 5 - Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue Reference 6 - Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road is is it Aldersgate Senior Living Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -24- February 3, 2016 1XNO. 15 PPPEN� , 1 , i 4 1 k , \ ,, i t S t ��CE DtiF1N,1\° , LEVE`°F SER s 4 i 1 i- APPENDIX NO. 15 DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is usually less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. The technique used to compare the volumes and capacity of an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU or volume-to- capacity ratio, usually expressed as a percentage, is.the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity, then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used. The ICU calculation assumes that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes. It is possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficient time to satisfy its demand, and excess time exists on other movements. This is an operational problem which should be addressed. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have approximately thesame capacity whether they are 11 or 14 feet wide. Data collected by Kunzman Associates indicates a typical lane, whether a through-lane or a left-turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1,700 vehicles per hour, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane. This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE Journal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capacity" by William Kunzman. For this study, a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane will be assumed for left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes as per City policy. The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total yellow time accounts for less than 10 percent of a cycle, and a penalty of up to five percent is reasonable. On the other hand, during peak hour traffic operation, the yellow times are nearly completely used. In this study, no penalty will be applied for the yellow because the capacities have been assumed to be only 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane when in general they are 1,700- 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane. The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operations. The impact of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the intersection capacity utilization. Source: Oxnard Airport Business Park Traffic Study, Kunzman Assoc., City of Oxnard, 1985. APPENDIX NO. 15 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions V/C Ratio .. ,-0, Defmitiott.. , A < 10.0 < 0.60 Progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Good progression,short cycle lengths,or both.More vehicles stop B 10.1 20.0 0.61 0.70 than with LOS A, causing higher levels of delay. Only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both, result in higher cycle lengths. Cycle lengths may fail to serve queued C 20.1 -35.0 0.71 -0.80 vehicles, and overflow occurs. Number of vehicles stopped is significant, though many still pass through intersection without stopping. Congestion becomes more noticeable. Unfavorable progression, D 35.1 55.0 0.81 0.90 long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios result in longer delays. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E 55.1 80.0 0.91 1.00 High delay values indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent Considered unacceptable for most drivers, this level occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups, resulting in f` F > 80.0 > 1.00 many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to high delay levels. a Average control delay per vehicle in seconds. Unsienalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions The HCM' uses control delay to determine the level of service at unsignalized intersections.Control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced at the control device and the travel time that would occur in the absence of the traffic control device. Control delay includes deceleration from free flow speed,queue move-up time,stopped delay and acceleration back to free flow speed. LOS . Control.Delay • Seconds per Vehicle: • A < 10.0 B 10.1 - 15.0 C 15.1 -25.0 ID I 25.1 -35.0 E 35.1 -50.0 F > 50.0 Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Board, 2000 (t-\ Associated Transportation Engineers 100 N. Hope Avenue,Suite 4,Santa Barbara (805)687-4418 PppENplX NO. 15 \(( 4S COUN1 DPP �Rp,FF\C ek tig Mfr APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: Nil National Data&Surveying Services Walnut Canyon Rd(State Route 23)and Casey Rd.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary • • I Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach : Project#: 14-5105-006 :j Day: Wednesday C2 a^„, Lames " 0 1 D City: Moorpark o d AM 61 247 0 134 Am A . c 3 ,0 NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour 745 AM I„ c;o ro u) 1 NOON Peak Hour PM 18 155 0 242 PM I PM Peak Hour I 500 PM f' Casey Rd 4i I 4 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes rn : ,.0 it N 304 0 145f 0 I 0 0 0 a'tMIQ j. CONTROL 0 0 0 0 Q-: _ a Q 1 25 0 7 Signalized 0 0 I 0 0 , r ; D 3 r -. 0 1 01 . 0 0 NNI O � ` ..� 1 259 0 60 0 0 0 d Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM . 1 i fro ,,c1.... Icount Periods I Start I End AM 506 243 I 109 0 AM AM I 7:00 AM I 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 i; NOON NOON I NOON I 215 127 235 0 PM I PM IPM 14:00 PM 6:00 PM 1 1 0 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 308 134 AM 442 AM 8 Q NOON 0 NOON 173 242 PM 415 PM AM NOON' PM I4 t East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg I,304 0 145 1 0 0 0 588 0 212 0 0 0 I 284 0 I 67 0 0 1 0 ,I WestLe AM OON PM West Leg - 8 I I AM 'NOON PM AM I 506.. 352 AM 858 t` NOONI 8 8 NOON 8 PM 1 215 362PM 577 South Leg South Leg • 5 APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: S■ `'' National Data&Surveying Services 1 • Walnut Can von Rd(State Route 23)and Casey Rd,Moorpark Peak Hour Summary 1, Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-006RTOR Day: Wednesday Laries 0 t 0 M 1 City: Moorpark c N AM 7 11 0 1 1 0 1 0 AM c A ,,„_ °1 NOON 0 0 0 I 0 I NOON AM Peak Hour I 745 AM I Z. 1 I N NOON Peak Hour 1 PM 1 10 I I 0 I 0 PM PM Peak Hour 1 500 PM I Casey Rd . AM NOON PM AM NOON : PM Lanes M a 17 10 I 1 I RTO� I ° 11 l 1 1 0 o 2 # CONTROL 1 o I 1 0 1 1 o 1 o Q Q.. 1 0 0 I 0 lot Signalized . Io11011 ° 10 0 Ja1 0IMk I ii 126 1 I 0 I I 45 Imo. 0 I I 0 I I O N . z- .0, , 1 i e. - Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM • Count Periods I Start I End I AM: 126 I 10 I I 0 I I 0 I AM AMI NOON 0 10 I I 0 I 0 NOON NOON I PM 45 10 I 1 0 I I 0 I PM PM I I I 1 1 0 Lanes • Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg = Nartlr,Leg 7 0 AM 7 0 0 NOON I ° NOON 1 0 PM 1 I PM AM NOON PM '- East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg ` I\ 7 0 1 0 0 0 126 0 45 0 0 0 133 0 46 0 ° -0 West Leg ' AM MOON PM P I� West Leg AM 126 AM NOON PM AM 126 0 NOONI 0 NOON 0 0 PM 45 0 PM I X45 ,. South Leg South Leg Y/ 1 E" 6 APPENDIX NO. 15 IT"M Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NDS National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Hiah St.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach: Project#: 14-5105-001 Day: Wednesday Lanes "0 1 1 City: Moorpark Qj. AM 10 362 129 353 AM Y A. (0o NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour 745 AM •i 0 NOON Peak Hour PM 8 210 54 340 PM I PM Peak Hour I 430 PM • High St 410114 y • AM NOON PM - AM NOON PM Lanes 33 0 113 121 I 0 96 9 fa O CONTROL a I 14 I 0 45 0s CL 0 1 0 13 Signalized 213 0 229 0.5 1 15 0 50 0 0 . . .1 o fl) 0 12 0 70o >� 334 0 450 z +g�� 9 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 1 t e . . ICount Periods I Start I End AM 587 9 231 190 AM AM I 7:00 AM I 9:00 AM NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON I I 509 60 231 346 PM PM IPM 14:00 PMI 6:00 PM 0.5 OS 1 Lanes Northbound Approach • • Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 1' 501` 353 AM 854 AM . I 0 I ° NOON 0 NOON I 272: I 340 PM 1 612 PM AM NOON PM 4, t East Leg _ AM NOON PM I East Lep - I 33 0 113 ? 348 0 370 61 . 0 246 682 0 820 28 0 133 .•._ ,si 334 0 450 AM OON PM West Leg 4. West Ley AM NOON PM AM 587 430 AM 1017 NOONI 0 0 NOON 0 t PM I 509 ` 637 PM • 1146 South Leg South Leg • L #2..girov APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary ' Prepared by: MS National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Hiah St.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Date: 2/26!2014 Project#: 14-5105-001 RTOR Day: Wednesday rtes 0 '1 1 City: Moorpark Q AM 0 0 1 0 I 63 AM" -F. o NOON 10 l 0 1 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour 745 AM ` I NOON Peak Hour PM 0 0 I 0 I 56 PM I PM Peak Hour I 430 PM High St 4 Y y Q AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes M IL II) ra RT � 63 I 0 56 1 ; 0 CONTROL 411111 0 0 0 0.5 CL ! Q 0. 0 0 0 0CL Signalized 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 D C 1 10 I 0 0IMI 0 0 0 0 14 15 0 I 42 I CD o Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM .41 1 i e - ICount Panoas I Start I End AM 0 10 I 0 15 AM I AM I I NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON I I .14 0 0 42 PMPM PM I I 0.5 0.5 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 1, 0 63 AM 63 AM O 0 NOON 0 NOON 0 56 PM 56 PM AM NOON PM East Leg AM NOON PM � East Leg O 0 0 4S1 63 '0 56 O 0 14 15 0 42 0 0 14 78 0 98 AM NOON PM .. . West Leg AM NOON PM Westl_eg f AMI 0 15 AMS 15 I NOONI 0 0 NOON O PM 114 42PM 56 South Leg :I ._-.. South Leg °. y 'g APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: ii✓ National Data&Surveying Services G Sprina Rd and Hiah St,Moorpark c; PeaklHour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-004 Day: Wednesday Lanes 0.5 1.5 1 City: Moorpark AM 16 538 1369 I 350 AM A . ' 6,00N1 0 1 i 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour I 730 AM NOON Peak Hour PM 34 314 176 862 PM I PM Peak Hour i 445 PM High St AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes m s 155 0 313 1 V 392 0 412 (13 cr L O o CONTROL 4m. 253 0 I 253 1 QAIM it E. 1 15 0 38 Signalized 100 0 115 1 r D C I � 1 201 0 327 o 0 n1 96 I 0 I 104 INV 847 746 S Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM count Period. I Start I End AM 734 123 180 277 Am AM I 7:00 AM I 9:00 AM NOON 0 10 I I 0 I 0 NOON NOON i I PM 533 125 511 243 r pM PM 1. 4:00 PMI 6:00 PM 1 2 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg • North Leg North Leg • 923 350 AM - 1273 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON 524, I 862 I PM 1386 - PM AM NOON PMEast Leg AM NOON PM East Ley F 392 0 412 44m1 508 0 681 704 0 881 1355 0 1427 312 ' 0 469 4 f1 847 '0 746 r 'aWestLe AM NOON PM Leg AM NOON PM AM 734 580 AM I 1314 • NOONI 0 0 NOON 0 PM 533 ) 879 pM 1412 I la South Leg South Leg I. C f G 1 f 3`R(01 APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: MS National Data&Surveying Services Spring Rd and Hiah St.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 .Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-004RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes 0.5 15 1 City: Moorpark AM 3 0 0 37 AM' re I °� I a NOON 0 I 0 I 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour i 730 AM to NOON Peak Hour PM 10 0 0 63 PM I PM Peak Hour I 445 PM f• High St 41 4 4 I AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes M `4 B) RTOR 37 0 63 1 V 1 co 2 CONTROL a o 0 : : !CL Signaliz00 J 1 0 0 "_.0 y - 0. 0 I 11) 1 25 10 46 57 jO33 N c = 111 a) o Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM . 4 1 t e . Count Periods I Start I End I AM 25 0 0 I 57 pM AM I I 0 .0 0 0 NOON NOON NOON I 46 0 0 33 PM PM PM I I • 1 2 1 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 3 37 AM 40 AM 0 0 y NOON 0 NOON 10 I 63 PM 73 PM AM NOON PM 4 1 East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg I3 0 I 10 37 0 63 I 28 0 56 94 0 96 25 46 4 57 0 33 West Leg # t AM NOON PM Fp West Leg AM NOON PM L AM 25 57 82 AM NOON 0 I 0 NOON -0 PM I 46 ;I 33 ti PM 79 South Leg South Leg. I APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: it J National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Poindexter Ave.Moorpark Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach PP Project#: 14-5105-003 Day: Wednesday Lanes 0 1 1 City: Moorpark Q AM 301 270 4 449 AM.. I�. Am I `on NOON 0 I 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour 800 AM o ll I I � NOON Peak Hour PM 224 289 11 644 PM I PM Peak Hour I 445 PM I 4j Poindexter Ave 4) 1 . 4, AM NOON PM • AM NOON PM Lanes rn 10 10 I I 11 I 0.5 t0 424 0 308 0 o. o CONTROL 145 I I 0 I 128 10.5 Q . Q Q 1 11991 0 278 Signalized 5 J0 I 111 i C I 0 14 0 31 y o I, 0 1 93 I 0 I 86 ll, 22 I 0 57 (n CD Lanes AM NOON PM - AM NOON PM . . lte • • . r . Count Poriods I Start End AM I 368 78 240 4 AM AM 7:00 AM 9:00AM 0 NOON 0 0 10 NOON . NOON I I 386 56 355 15 PMpM PM 14:00 PM 6:00 PM 1 1 0 Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg • North Leg North Leg 575 449 AM 1024 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON 524 I044 PM 1 1168 PM AM NOON PM 4.- East Leg AM NOON PM East Leg 1424 0 30860 0 50 111��, 730 0 703 82 0 107 306 0 395 .-_, I 22 0 57 AM MOON PM West Leg West Leg ' AM NOON PM AM 368 322 AM .I 690 NOON' 0 0 NOON' 0 PM 386 I 426 PM 812 South Leg t South Leg /1 APPENDIX NO. 15 tt" ® ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NOS National Data&Surveying Services • Moorpark Ave and Poindexter Ave.Moorpark Peak Hoar Summary I Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach ,_ Project it: 14-5105-003 RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes 0 1 T City: Moorpark QAM 72 _ 0 I 0 I 0 Y i ro o NOON, 0 0 0 0 NOONA I AM Peak Hour I 800 AM o NOON Peak Hour PM 42 0 0 0 PM PM Peak Hour I 445 PM I Poindexter Ave '411111 .j AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes M 72RTOR 000Cu) i 0 42 �!— . C Er. o o CONTROL a 0 0 0 0.5 Q J Signalized Q I: Q. 1 o 0 0 0" 0 0 t 'c I 73 D 4F .13 0 0 0 10 I I Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM - 1 it e • ICountPedods I Start I End AM 0 0 10 AM IAM I NOON 0 0 0 1 0 NOON 1 NOON I PM I 0 0 0 I 0 PM IPM I 1 1 0 Laces Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 72 ' 0 AM 72 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON 42 I 0 PM 42 PM AM NOON PM 4 t East Leg AM NOON PM 4asfLeg • 72 0 42 0 0 0 ,:.. 72 I 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Leg0 0 0 AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM I 0 0 AM.,I 0 NOON 0 0 NOON 0 PM 0 0 PM 0 South Leg "';South Leg • E /X i i APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NDS National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Los Angeles Ave.Moorpark Peak Hour Summa outhbound Approach Date: 2/26/2014 Project#: 14-5105-002 � Day: Wednesday Lanes 1.3 0.3 1.3 City: Moorpark A ,s120 54 144 359 AM. Fs Q Y o NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON AM Peak Hour 745 AM o NOON Peak Hour PM 110 95 211 354 PM PM Peak Hour I 445 PM Los Angeles Ave 4 AM NOON PM .„, tai AM NOON PM Lanes rn DJ 147 I. 0 159 1 1 07 1063 0 1144 1.2 •I R I L 4NIN 886 0 984 2 CL Q- 1 133 I 0 124 I Signalized 86 0 243 1 • (; 3 I 861 I. 0 I ..966 ti O O 0 35 0 39 �I 1148 0 1280 to Lanes AM NOON PM - AM NOON PM 1 f e . i Icount Periods I Start I End 17557 79 143 AM AM 17:00 AM I 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 NOON NOON NOON I I 377 50 71 I 103 PM pM PM 14:00 PMI 6:00 PM 1S 0.5 1 Lanes Northbound;Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 318 359 AM 677 AM 0 0 NOON 0 NOON I 416 I 354 PM ... 770 PM AM NOON PM : AM NOON PM East Leg I East Leg 11063 0 1144 1119 0 1386 ,�I 12092 0 2273 2267 0 2666 1029 0 1129 .. ` 1148 0 1280 West Leg AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM . 175 279AM 454 NOON' 0I\ 0 NOONI - 0 PM I 377 224 PM 601 E South Leg South Leg APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NDS National Data&Surveying Services Moorpark Ave and Los Anaeles Ave. Moorpark • Peak Hour Summary Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound Approach Project#: 14-5105-002 RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes 1.3 0.3 1.3 City: Moorpark j8, AM 56 0 0 2 AM e.A (El • °' NOON 0o o 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour I 745 AM NOON Peak Hour I PM 65 0 0 1PM I PM Peak Hour I 445 PM Los Angeles Ave 4 - - AM NOON PM MAM ' NOON PM Lanes litca t 56 0 65 RTOR 2 10 I 1 1 ea � i CONTROL +111111I 6 I 0 0 2 CL 1 Q CL 1 0 0 0 Signalized 0 10 0 1 < 75 3 0 0 0 I C 8 0 0 8 28 0 42 CD Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM . `Uv 1 -te Icomm Period. I Start I End Am 0 0 0 28 AM AM I . NOON 0 0 8 0 NOON NOON I I PM ..0 0 0 A2 PM PM I I 1.5 0.5 1 Lanes • Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg :North Leg 56 2 AM 58 AM I 0 0 NOON 0 It NOON 65 I 1 pM fi6 PM AM NOON PM I 4 t east Leg` AM NOON PM I East Leg I56 0 65 2 0 1 56 0 65 30 0 43 0 0 0 r WO 28 0 42 West Leg.�,� � ft. AM NOON PM West Leg AM NOON PM AM 0 28 AM 28 NOONI 00 0 NOON PM I 0 I 42 pM 42 o Suth Leg South" Leg • 4' k. l E. APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: ,i4 S National Data&Surveying Services • Spring Rd and Los Anpeies Ave.Moorpark • Peak Hour Summary . Approach Date: 2/26/2014 Southbound A pp Project#: 14-5105-005 Day: Wednesday Lanes 1 1 2 City: Moorpark ArA 97 - 270 466 710 AM tY at c 'q NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour I 745 AM to INOON Peak Hour I 'th • PM 192 225 369 972 PM I PM Peak Hour I 500 PM Los Angeles Ave 41 fit' AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes -. M N jiiooj 0 1314 263 0 548 1 a. 0 CONTROL .867 0 978 2 �. Cl. 2 157 0 169 Signalized AIM 65 0 108 1 a. 2 910 0 888 M . .. : '..� 1 158 0 232 1462 0 1321 Lanes -AM NOON PM - AM NOON PM IcouniPadods I Start I End AM 493 224 290 86 AM AM I 7:00AM I 9:00AM NOON 0 0 o 0 NOON NOON I PM 565 244 255 64 PM y s r PM I 4:00 PM 1 6:00 PM 2 1.5 0.5 Lancs Northbound Approach • t Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg North Leg North Leg 833 710 AM .1543 AM • 0 0 NOON 0 NOON 686. 972 PM I 1658 I PM AM NOON PM 4 t East Lep AM NOON PM East Leg 1 1188 0 1314 1195 0 1634 l- 2413 0 2603 2657• 0 2955 11225 0 1289 4 C1 1462 0 1321 PM DON West Legs' AM West Leg AM NOON PM AM I 493 600 AM 1093 NOONI 0 0 NOON 0 PM 565 I 563PM 1128 South Leg South Le • (; APPENDIX NO. 15 ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: NDS National Data&Surveying Services • Sprina Rd and Los Angeles Ave.Moorpark Southbound Hour SummaryAI Date: 2/26/2014 Approach ' Project#: 14-5105-005RTOR Day: Wednesday Lanes 1 1 2 City: Moorpark .a AMI 26 I 0 I'I 0 16 Am. cn A . '¢ NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON I AM Peak Hour I 745 AM NOON Peak Hour PM 20I 0 I I 0 I 21 PM I PM Peak Hour I 500 PM Los Angeles Ave 4 4 4 Q AM NOON PM AM NOONI PM. Lanes fa)mt (p 26 0 20 RTOR 116 I 0 21 11 V cr 0 0 5.. • D2 0 0 0 Signalized I 0 I 0 0 1 • 2 0 0 p limOk 0 O O ++ 0 1 39 0 54 I Z b 21 0 18 fest) 00 11 tv Z Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM ICount Periods I Start I End AM 39 0 0 21 AM' AM I I 0 0 0 I 0 NOON NOON NOON PM 54 10 I 0 I 18'::. PM:. I PM I I 2 1.5 @S Lanes Northbound Approach Total Ins&Outs Total Volume Per Leg • North Leg - North Leg 26 16 AM : 42 AM 0 0 NOON I 0 NOON • 20 I 21 PM I 41 'PM AM NOON PM '4- East Leg AM NOON PM Last Leg - I26 0 20Oct , 16 0 21 r I 65 0 74 37 0 39 I 39 0 54 141 21 0 18 '.. AM OON PM I AM NOON PM 4NestLeg West Leg AM 39 21 AM fi0 NOON' 0 0 NOON 0 PM I 54 ,.I 18 PM 72 I South Leg South Leg W i I' APPENDIX NO. 15 . ' Ii INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS Reference 1 - Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road Reference 2 - Walnut Canyon Road/High Street Reference 3 - Spring Road/High Street Reference 4 - Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue Reference 5 - Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue Reference 6 - Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road ( 7 PPEN DI #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 01 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD E/W STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 243 109 0 0 247 61 25 0 259 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS. MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 243 0.162 * NBT 1 1600 109 0.068 NBR 0 0 0 - SBL 0 0 0 - SBT 1 1600 247 0.193 * SBR 0 0 61 - EBL 1 1500 25 0.017 EBT 0 0 0 - EBR(a) 1 1500 133 0.089 * WBL 0 0 0 - WBT 0 0 0 - WBR 0 0 0 - LOST TIME: 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.544 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A NOTES:(a)49 percent RTOR Printed: 02/03/16 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 01 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD EM/STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 127 235 0 0 155 18 7 0 60 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 127 0.085 * NBT 1 1600 235 0.147 NBR 0 0 0 - SBL 0 0 0 - SBT 1 1600 155 0.108 * SBR 0 0 18 - EBL 1 1500 7 0.005 EBT 0 0 0 - EBR(a) 1 1500 15 0.010 * L WBL 0 0 0 - WBT 0 0 0 - WBR 0 0 0 - LOST TIME: 0.100 C r TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.303 E SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A NOTES:(a)75 percent RTOR i Printed: 02/03/16 i f DDC_ I #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECr. T 1REF: 01 AM 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY26,2014 : TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD ENV STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R is (A) EXISTING: 243 109 0 0 247 61 25 0 259 0 0 0 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 40 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 41 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 293 260 0 0 523 61 25 0 432 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS,.....,.__.�..�..,........_�. .. .. .. NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED LANE GEOMETRICS L T T R L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4= CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS.,... . .... .. .. .... .. .. ....... . . .., MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 243 283 293 333 0.189 * 0.195 * 0.222 * NBT 1 1600 109 109 260 260 0.068 0.163 0.163 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - SBT 1 1600 247 247 523 523 0.154 * 0.327 * 0.327 SBR 1 1500 61 65 61 65 0.043 0.041 0.043 EBL 1 1500 25 30 25 30 0.020 0.017 0.020 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - EBR(a) 1 1500 133 154 222 243 0.103 * 0.148 * 0.162 * WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - _ WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 F TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.546 0.770 0.811 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A C D NOTES:(a)49 percent RTOR ...,,,,Printed: 02/03/16. #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 01 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET ) COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD E/W STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 127 235 0 0 155 18 7 0 60 0 0 0 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 58 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 54 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 302 525 0 0 353 18 7 0 157 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND is IMPROVED LANE GEOMETRICS L T T R L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) (_ SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 127 185 302 360 0.123 * 0.201 * 0.240 * NBT 1 1600 235 235 525 525 0.147 0.328 0.328 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - SBT 1 1600 155 155 353 353 0.097 * 0.221 * 0.221 * SBR 1 1500 18 25 18 25 0.017 0.012 0.017 EBL 1 1500 7 13 7 13 0.009 0.005 0.009 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - F EBR(a) 1 1500 15 29 39 53 0.019 * 0.026 * 0.035 * WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.339 0.548 0.596 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A NOTES:(a)7 percent RTOR Printed: 02/03/16 r #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 01 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD EAN STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 243 109 0 0 247 61 25 0 259 0 0 0 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 40 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 41 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 293 260 0 0 523 61 25 0 432 0 0 0 1 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED LANE GEOMETRICS L T T R L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS { MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 243 283 293 333 0.162 * 0.189 * 0.195 * 0.222 * NBT 1 1600 109 109 260 260 0.068 0.068 0.163 0.163 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBT 1 1600 247 247 523 523 0.154 * 0.154 * 0.327 * 0.327 * SBR 1 1500 61 65 61 65 0.041 0.043 0.041 0.043 EBL 1 1500 25 30 25 30 0.017 * 0.020 * 0.017 * 0.020 * EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - EBR 1 1500 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.433 0.463 0.639 0.669 V .. .., ... .. .,,... .. ....... SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: ... .......A,,...... A .,... 8 B I,......... ..... ,.., ..... .... .,... NOTES:Eastbound Right-Turn Overlap with Northbound Left-Turn E_ 1I) Printed: 02/03/16 Is E's - r r #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 01 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD E/W STREET: CASEY ROAD CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 127 235 0 0 155 18 7 0 60 0 0 0 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 58 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 54 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 302 525 0 0 353 18 7 0 157 0 0 0 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED LANE GEOMETRICS L T T R L R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) j. SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) �r SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 127 185 302 360 0.085 * 0.123 * 0.201 * 0.240 * NBT 1 1600 235 235 525 525 0.147 0.147 0.328 0.328 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - [ SBT 1 1600 155 155 353 353 0.097 * 0.097 * 0.221 * 0.221 * SBR 1 1500 18 25 18 25 0.012 0.017 0.012 0.017 EBL 1 1500 7 13 7 13 0.005 * 0.009 * 0.005 * 0.009 * EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - EBR 1 1500 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - ( LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.287 0.329 0.527 0.570 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A ti NOTES:Eastbound Right-Turn Overlap with Northbound Left-Turn Printed: 02/03/16 . #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 02 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET KIK NO 15 COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD E/W STREET: HIGH STREET CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 9 231 190 129 362 10 1 15 12 213 14 121 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 24 0 16 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 (C) CUMULATIVE: 39 413 193 172 770 12 8 38 122 222 21 133 it GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS LT R L TR LTR LT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 9 9 39 39 - - - - NBT 1 1600 231 255 413 437 0.150 * 0.165 * 0.283 * 0.298 * NBR 1 1500 190 190 193 193 0.127 0.127 0.129 0.129 SBL 1 1500 129 145 172 188 0.086 0.097 0.115 0.125 SBT 1 1600 362 387 770 795 0.233 * 0.248 * 0.489 * 0.504 * SBR 0 0 10 10 12 12 - - - - EBL 0 0 1 1 8 8 - - EBT 1 1600 15 15 38 38 0.018 * 0.018 * 0.105 * 0.105 * EBR 0 0 12 12 122 122 - - - - WBL 0 0 213 213 222 222 - - - - WBT 1 1600 14 14 21 21 0.142 * 0.142 * 0.152 * 0.152 * WBR 1 1500 121 137 133 149 0.081 0.091 0.089 0.099 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.643 0.673 1.129 1.159 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B F F NOTES: �y. .. . , .. ... ( L Printed: 01/31/16 II #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 02 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: WALNUT CANYON ROAD E/W STREET: HIGH STREET CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 60 231 346 54 210 8 13 50 70 229 45 96 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 36 0 0 33 21 0 0 0 0 0 22 (C) CUMULATIVE: 146 657 356 80 472 12 15 62 117 234 66 143 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS LT R L TR LTR LT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) [[{ LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 60 60 146 146 - - - - NBT 1 1600 231 267 657 693 0.182 0.204 0.502 * 0.524 * NBR 1 1500 346 346 356 356 0.231 * 0.231 * 0.237 0.237 SBL 1 1500 54 54 80 80 0.036 0.036 0.053 0.053 SBT 1 1600 210 243 472 505 0.136 * 0.170 * 0.303 * 0.336 * SBR 0 0 8 29 12 33 - - - - EBL 0 0 13 13 15 15 - - - - EBT 1 1600 50 50 62 62 0.083 * 0.083 * 0.121 * 0.121 * EBR 0 0 70 70 117 117 - - - - WBL 0 0 229 229 234 234 - - - - WBT 1 1600 45 45 66 66 0.171 * 0.171 * 0.188 * 0.188 * WBR 1 1500 96 118 143 165 0.064 0.079 0.095 0.110 LOST TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.721 0.755 1.214 1.269 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: C C F F I NOTES: Printed: 01/31/16 CF t #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 03 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD E/W STREET: HIGH STREET CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 123 180 277 369 538 16 15 201 96 100 253 155 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 0 7 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 124 226 310 386 668 25 18 263 100 116 271 161 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T R L T R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS [ SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 123 132 124 133 0.082 0.088 0.083 0.089 NBT 2 3200 180 180 226 226 0.056 0.056 0.071 0.071 NBR 1 1500 277 277 310 310 0.185 * 0.185 * 0.207 * 0.207 * SBL 1 1500 369 369 386 386 0.246 * 0.246 * 0.257 * 0.257 * SBT 2 3200 538 538 668 668 0.173 0.173 0.217 0.217 SBR 0 0 16 16 25 25 - - - - EBL 1 1500 15 15 18 18 0.010 0.010 0.012 0.012 EBT 1 1600 201 208 263 270 0.126 * 0.130 * 0.164 * 0.169 * EBR 1 1500 96 105 100 109 0.064 0.070 0.067 0.073 WBL 1 1500 100 100 116 116 0.067 * 0.067 * 0.077 * 0.077 * WBT 1 1600 253 260 271 278 0.158 0.163 0.169 0.174 WBR 1 1500 155 155 161 161 0.103 0.103 0.107 0.107 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.724 0.728 0.805 0.810 II SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: C C D D I' NOTES: Printed: 01/31/16 f€ u _. _ __--___-- ArrENDIX NO, 15 I #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 03 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD FAA/STREET: HIGH STREET CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 125 511 243 176 314 34 38 327 104 115 253 313 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 12 0 9 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 129 662 266 187 400 39 48 363 106 149 317 332 • GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T R L T R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS . SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 125 138 129 142 0.083 0.092 0.086 0.095 NBT 2 3200 511 511 662 662 0.160 * 0.160 * 0.207 * 0.207 * NBR 1 1500 243 243 266 266 0.162 0.162 0.177 0.177 SBL 1 1500 176 176 187 187 0.117 * 0.117 * 0.125 * 0.125 SBT 2 3200 314 314 400 400 0.109 0.109 0.137 0.137 SBR 0 0 34 34 39 39 - - - - EBL 1 1500 38 38 48 48 0.025 0.025 0.032 0.032 EBT 1 1600 327 336 363 372 0.204 * 0.210 * 0.227 * 0.233 EBR 1 1500 104 116 106 118 0.069 0.077 0.071 0.079 WBL 1 1500 115 115 149 149 0.077 * 0.077 * 0.099 * 0.099 * WBT 1 1600 253 262 317 326 0.158 0.164 0.198 0.204 WBR 1 1500 313 313 332 332 0.209 0.209 0.221 0.221 II LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.658 0.664 0.758 0.764 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B C C NOTES: i k Printed: 01/31/16 k t' #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 04 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARKAVENUE EM/STREET: POINDEXTER AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY 1 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND - VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 78 240 4 4 270 301 199 14 93 5 45 10 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 22 0 0 23 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 78 455 4 4 793 301 199 14 93 5 45 10 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L TR L TR L TR L TR TRAFFIC SCENARIOS , SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 78 78 78 78 0.052 * 0.052 * 0.052 * 0.052 * NBT 1 1600 240 262 455 477 0.153 0.166 0.287 0.301 NBR 0 0 4 4 4 4 - - - - SBL 1 1500 4 4 4 4 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 SBT 1 1600 270 293 793 816 0.357 * 0.373 * 0.684 * 0.699 * SBR 0 0 301 303 301 303 - - - - EBL . 1 1500 199 201 199 201 0.133 * 0.134 * 0.133 * 0.134 * EBT 1 1600 14 14 14 14 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 EBR 0 0 93 93 93 93 - - - - 4` ( WBL 1 1500 5 5 5 5 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 WBT 1 1600 45 45 45 45 0.034 * 0.034 * 0.034 * 0.034 WBR 0 0 10 10 10 10 - - - - i LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.676 0.693 1.003 1.019 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B E F . NOTES: ........ ... ...... ............� .,,,.,... ........ Printed: 01/31/16 - NDIX-N e #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 04 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARKAVENUE E/W STREET: POINDEXTER AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 56 355 15 11 289 224 278 31 86 11 28 11 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 33 0 0 30 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE: 56 892 15 11 612 224 278 31 86 11 28 11 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L TR LTR LTR LTR TRAFFIC SCENARIOS 1 4 SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) I SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) IP LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS J MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1500 56 56 56 56 0.037 * 0.037 * 0.037 * 0.037 * NBT 1 1600 355 388 892 925 0.231 0,252 0.567 0.588 NBR 0 0 15 15 15 15 - - - - r SBL 1 1500 11 11 11 11 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 SBT 1 1600 289 319 612 642 0.321 * 0.341 * 0.523 * 0.543 SBR 0 0 224 227 224 227 - - - EBL 1 1500 278 281 278 281 0.185 * 0.187 * 0.185 * 0.187 * EBT 1 1600 31 31 31 31 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.073 EBR 0 0 86 86 86 86 - - - WBL 1 1500 11 11 11 11 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 WBT 1 1600 28 28 28 28 0.024 * 0.024 * 0.024 * 0.024 * - WBR 0 0 11 11 11 11 - - - - I r LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.667 0.689 0.869 0.891 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B D D NOTES: ( Printed: 01/31/16 -- - -- __ *rrENDIX NO. 15 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 05 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR NIS STREET: MOORPARKAVENUE EAN STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 57 79 143 144 54 120 133 861 35 86 886 147 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 2 0 10 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 (C) CUMULATIVE: 64 79 148 524 56 283 195 950 42 91 1047 345 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 57 57 64 64 - - - - NBT 2 3200 79 81 79 81 0.043 0.043 0.045 0.045 N BR 1 1500 143 143 148 148 0.095 * 0.095 * 0.099 * 0.099 * SBL 0 0 144 154 524 534 - - - - SBT 3 4800 54 56 56 58 0.066 * 0.071 * 0.180 * 0.184 SBR 0 0 120 129 283 292 - - - - EBL 1 1500 133 142 195 204 0.089 * 0.095 * 0.130 * 0.136 EBT 3 4800 861 861 950 950 0.187 0.187 0.207 0.207 EBR 0 0 35 35 42 42 - - - - WBL 1 1500 86 86 91 91 0.057 0.057 0.061 0.061 WBT 2 3200 886 886 1047 1047 0.277 * 0.277 * 0.327 * 0.327 * WBR 1 1500 70 74 164 169 0.047 0.049 0.109 0.113 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 J TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.627 0.638 0.836 0.846 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B D D I t NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbound Left-Turn J Printed: 01/31/16 4 l' #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 05 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 6 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE EM/STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 50 71 103 211 95 110 124 966 39 243 984 159 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 3 0 12 3 12 13 0 0 0 0 13 (C) CUMULATIVE: 65 73 108 470 96 204 274 1229 54 248 1177 641 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 50 50 65 65 - - - - NBT 2 3200 71 74 73 76 0.038 0.039 0.043 0.044 NBR 1 1500 103 103 108 108 0.069 * 0.069 * 0.072 * 0.072 * SBL 0 0 211 223 470 482 - - - - SBT 3 4800 95 98 96 99 0.087 * 0.092 * 0.160 * 0.166 * SBR 0 0 110 122 204 216 - - - - EBL 1 1500 124 137 274 287 0.083 * 0.091 * 0.183 * 0.191 * EBT 3 4800 966 966 1229 1229 0.209 0.209 0.267 0.267 EBR 0 0 39 39 54 54 - - - - WBL 1 1500 243 243 248 248 0.162 0.162 0.165 0.165 WBT 2 3200 984 984 1177 1177 0.308 * 0.308 * 0.368 * 0.368 * WBR 1 1500 53 57 213 218 0.035 0.038 0.142 0.145 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.647 0.660 0.883 0.897 E,. SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B D D r NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southleft-Turn und Left-TTurnurn- - - . Southbound (€ r I Printed: 01/31/16 - 1= H r X #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT �� REF: 06 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD EAN STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 224 290 86 466 270 97 157 910 158 65 867 263 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 7 0 2 7 0 0 10 0 0 9 2 (C) CUMULATIVE: 288 309 116 549 344 170 208 1263 381 96 1025 297 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS LL T TR LLTR LL TT R L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS F' MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 2 3000 224 224 288 288 0.075 0.075 0.096 * 0.096 * NBT 2 3200 290 297 309 316 0.118 * 0.120 * 0.133 0.135 NBR 0 0 86 86 116 116 - - - - c SBL 2 3000 466 468 549 551 0.155 * 0.156 * 0.183 0.184 . SBT 1 1600 270 277 344 351 0.169 0.173 0.215 * 0.219 * SBR 1 1500 97 97 170 170 0.065 0.065 0.113 0.113 r-. EBL 2 3000 157 157 208 208 0.052 0.052 0.069 0.069 EBT 2 3200 910 920 1263 1273 0.284 * 0.288 * 0.395 * 0.398 * EBR 1 1500 158 158 381 381 0.105 0.105 0.254 0.254 it WBL 1 1500 65 65 96 96 0.043 * 0.043 * 0.064 * 0.064 * WBT 2 3200 867 876 1025 1034 0.271 0.274 0.320 0.323 WBR 1 1500 30 30 34 34 0.020 0.020 0.023 0.023 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.700 0.707 0.870 0.877 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B C D D NOTES:Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbund Left-Turn eet .. ........ ..... ft-Turn I Printed: 01/31/16 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT A � L©IX NO REF: 06 PM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD EM/STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 244 255 64 369 225 92 169 888 232 108 978 548 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 10 0 3 9 0 0 12 0 0 13 3 (C) CUMULATIVE: 471 310 174 427 271 169 248 1162 349 136 1369 640 GEOMETRICS I! NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND LANE GEOMETRICS LL T TR LLTR LL TT R L TT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) is LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 2 3000 244 244 471 471 0.081 0.081 0.157 * 0.157 * NBT 2 3200 255 265 310 320 0.100 * 0.103 * 0.151 0.154 NBR 0 0 64 64 174 174 - - - - SBL 2 3000 369 372 427 430 0.123 * 0.124 * 0.142 0.143 SBT 1 1600 225 234 271 280 0.141 0.146 0.169 * 0.175 * SBR 1 1500 92 92 169 169 0.061 0.061 0.113 0.113 & EBL 2 3000 169 169 248 248 0.056 * 0.056 * 0.083 * 0.083 * EBT 2 3200 888 900 1162 1174 0.278 0.281 0.363 0.367 EBR 1 1500 232 232 349 349 0.155 0.155 0.233 0.233 WBL 1 1500 108 108 136 136 0.072 0.072 0.091 0.091 WBT 2 3200 978 991 1369 1382 0.306 * 0.310 * 0.428 * 0.432 * WBR 1 1500 364 366 425 427 0.243 0.244 0.283 0.285 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.685 0.693 0.937 0.947 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B E E NOTES: Westbound Right-Turn Overlap witit Southbound Southhbound Right-Turn Printed: 0181/16 I1 f- t+ #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 06 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD OW STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 224 290 86 466 270 97 157 910 158 65 867 263 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 7 0 2 7 0 0 10 0 0 9 2 (C) CUMULATIVE: 288 309 116 549 344 170 208 1263 381 96 1025 297 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND 44 IMPROVED GEOMETRICS LL T TR LLTR LL TTT R L TTT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4= CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 2 3000 224 224 288 288 0.075 0.075 0.096 * 0.096 * NBT 2 3200 290 297 309 316 0.118 * 0.120 * 0.133 0.135 NBR 0 0 86 86 116 116 - - - - 1 SBL 2 3000 466 468 549 551 0.155 * 0.156 * 0.183 0.184 SBT 1 1600 270 277 344 351 0.169 0.173 0.215 * 0.219 SBR 1 1500 97 97 170 170 0.065 0.065 0.113 0.113 EBL 2 3000 157 157 208 208 0.052 0.052 0.069 0.069 EBT 3 4800 910 920 1263 1273 0.190 * 0.192 * 0.263 * 0.265 * EBR 1 1500 158 158 381 381 0.105 0.105 0.254 0.254 WBL 1 1500 65 65 96 96 0.043 * 0.043 * 0.064 * 0.064 * 4= WBT 3 4800 867 876 1025 1034 0.181 0.183 0.214 0.215 WBR 1 1500 30 30 34 34 0.020 0.020 0.023 0.023 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.606 0.611 0.738 0.744 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B 13 C C J. NOTES:Additional Westbound and Eastbound Through Lanes. Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbund Left-Turn........ .. i Printed: 01/31/16 r - - - - PfElr4 `4 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF:06 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 ' TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 244 255 64 369 225 92 169 888 232 108 978 548 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 10 0 3 9 0 0 12 0 0 13 3 (C) CUMULATIVE: 471 310 174 427 271 169 248 1162 349 136 1369 640 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED GEOMETRICS LL T TR LLTR LL TTT R L TTT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS 'VENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 2 3000 244 244 471 471 0.081 0.081 0.157 * 0.157 NBT 2 3200 255 265 310 320 0.100 * 0.103 * 0.151 0.154 NBR 0 0 64 64 174 174 - - - - r SBL 2 3000 369 372 427 430 0.123 * 0.124 * 0.142 0.143 SBT 1 1600 225 234 271 280 0.141 0.146 0.169 * 0.175 SBR 1 1500 92 92 169 169 0.061 0.061 0.113 0.113 EBL 2 3000 169 169 248 248 0.056 * 0.056 * 0.083 * 0.083 * EBT 3 4800 888 900 1162 1174 0.185 0.188 0.242 0.245 EBR 1 1500 232 232 349 349 0.155 0.155 0.233 0.233 WBL 1 1500 108 108 136 136 0.072 0.072 0.091 0.091 WBT 3 4800 978 991 1369 1382 0.204 * 0.206 * 0.285 * 0.288 * WBR 1 1500 364 366 425 427 0.243 0.244 0.283 0.285 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.583 0.589 0.794 0.803 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A C C NOTES:Additional Westbond and Eastbound Through Lanes. Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Sout ibound Right-Turn Printed: 01/31/16 1,% if #14001 -ALDERSGATESENIOR LIVING PROJECT `�f'f'CN��X N®REF105AM 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: A.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARKAVENUE I E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY t NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND I VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 57 79 143 144 54 120 133 861 35 86 886 147Il (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 2 0 10 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 (C) CUMULATIVE: 64 79 148 524 56 283 195 950 42 91 1047 345 II i GEOMETRICS ii ii NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND II IMPROVED GEOMETRICS L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TTT R it TRAFFIC SCENARIOS N LI SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) II SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) II SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) I SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) IIi`, LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS r MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 57 57 64 64 - - - - NBT 2 3200 79 81 79 81 0.043 0.043 0.045 0.045 NBR 1 1500 143 143 148 148 0.095 * 0.095 * 0.099 * 0.099 SBL 0 0 144 154 524 534 - - - - SBT 3 4800 54 56 56 58 0.066 * 0.071 * 0.180 * 0.184 J SBR 0 0 120 129 283 292 - - - - r (_ EBL 1 1500 133 142 195 204 0.089 * 0.095 * 0.130 * 0.136 * EBT 3 4800 861 861 950 950 0.187 0.187 0.207 0.207 EBR 0 0 35 35 42 42 - - - - L r (( WBL 1 1500 86 86 91 91 0.057 0.057 0.061 0.061 WBT 3 4800 886 886 1047 1047 0.185 * 0.185 * 0.218 * 0.218 * r. WBR 1 1500 70 74 164 169 0.047 0.049 0.109 0.113 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 t TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.535 0.546 0.727 0.737 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A C C NOTES:Additional Westbound Through Lane. Westbound Right-Turn Overlap with Southbound Left-Turn. . . .....,, ........ ....... ...,..... .,..,. ....,.,, iii r Printed: 01/31/16 II t ( M ® -.. -. rCIIDI 1, * �, d 4 #14001 -ALDERSGATE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT REF: 05 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2014 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE EAN STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL • TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING: 50 71 103 211 95 110 124 966 39 243 984 159 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 3 0 12 3 12 13 0 0 0 0 13 (C) CUMULATIVE: 65 73 108 470 96 204 274 1229 54 248 1177 641 a GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND IMPROVED GEOMETRICS L LT R L LTR R L TT TR L TTT R TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES(A) SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B) SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE(C) SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES(B+C) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 0 0 50 50 65 65 - - - - NBT 2 3200 71 74 73 76 0.038 0.039 0.043 0.044 NBR 1 1500 103 103 108 108 0.069 * 0.069 * 0.072 * 0.072 * 1 SBL 0 0 211 223 470 482 - - - - SBT 3 4800 95 98 96 99 0.087 * 0.092 * 0.160 * 0.166 * SBR 0 0 110 122 204 216 - - - - EBL 1 1500 124 137 274 287 0.083 * 0.091 * 0.183 * 0.191 EBT 3 4800 966 966 1229 1229 0.209 0.209 0.267 0.267 EBR 0 0 39 39 54 54 - - - - I WBL 1 1500 243 243 248 248 0.162 0.162 0.165 0.165 WBT 3 4800 984 984 1177 1177 0.205 * 0.205 * 0.245 * 0.245 * WBR 1 1500 53 57 213 218 0.035 0.038 0.142 0.145 LOST TIME: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.544 0.557 0.760 0.774 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A C C NOTES:Additional Westbound Through Lane. Westbound Right-Turn Overlapwith Southbound Left -Turn Turn Printed: 01/31/16 I, r•' it (s. APPENDIX NO. 17 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERS DELINEATION REPORT CASEY ROAD ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY PROJECT MOORPARK, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Aldersgate Investment, LLC 300 E Esplanade Drive, Suite 430 Oxnard, California 93036 Contact: Matt Mansi Prepared by: B R C BioResource Consultants Inc. PO Box 1539,Ojai,CA 93023 805.646.9006 12 May 2016 APPENDIX NO. 17 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3 4.1 Hydrology 3 4.2 Water Quality 3 4.2.1 Beneficial Uses 3 4.2.2 Impaired Water Bodies; CWA Section 303(d) 4 4.3 Vegetation Communities 4 4.4 Soils 4 5.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 5 5.1 Executive Order 11990 (May, 24 1977) Protection of Wetlands 5 5.2 United States Army Corps of Engineers Regulations 5 5.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board Regulations 6 5.4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Regulations 6 6.0 METHODS 7 6.1 Jurisdictional Delineation 7 6.2 Jurisdictional Determination 7 7.0 RESULTS 8 7.1 Wetlands 8 7.2 Waters 8 7.3 Jurisdictional Determination 8 8.0 CONCLUSION 10 8.1 Impacts 10 8.2 Permitting 10 8.3 Mitigation 11 9.0 REFERENCES 12 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report i Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project APPENDIX NO. 17 List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map 2 List of Tables Table 1. Wetlands and Waters on the Project Area 10 Table 2. Project Impacts to Wetlands and Waters 10 List of Appendecis Appendix A: Hydrology Map Appendix B: Vegetation Communities Appendix C: Soils Map Appendix D: Delineation Map Appendix E: Impact and Mitigation Map Appendix F: Photographic Log Appendix G: Wetland Delineation Forms Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report ii Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project APPENDIX NO. 17 1.0 INTRODUCTION BioResource Consultants, Inc. (BRC)was retained by Aldersgate Investments to conduct a wetland delineation to determine the extent of wetlands and Waters of the U.S. pursuant Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act(CWA), and lake, rivers, or streambeds and associated riparian vegetation pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. This report addresses the Casey Road Assisted Living Project(Project) in Moorpark, Ventura County California. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located near the intersection of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23)in the City of Moorpark, Ventura County, California. The Project site consists of 48 acres located on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)Moorpark 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Section 4 & 5, T2N, R19W; Sections 32 & 34, T3N, R19W(Figure 1). Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 1 APPENDIX NO. 17 FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION -trOjeliiiI ... , /�010 j44 ~ t . rr mac. I '., i r a. f A...036-` ' ` Project Location f:-: am4. '�Pli' _ -0is - • II 1PIPtt:• . "L+ ?Dor .. E moi, Tim IB. -- _ ao`rciae s it. .. ,,tooppatilitomootok , . . . _ , .3cnme",a K BRC ,\ Project Location Bio Resource Consultants Inc N Map t°° "° 77--] I Miles Location se 0 0.25 0.5 1 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 2 APPENDIX NO. 17 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of a proposed multi-faceted assisted living complex comprised of 390 units. These units will cater to the diverse needs of active and non-active senior citizens. The facility will include assisted, non-assisted and memory care facilities. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project site consists of open-space covered primarily by coastal sage scrub, and is bordered on the north by previously graded residential pads that are reverting back to coastal sage scrub, and on the west by open space. Walnut Canyon Elementary School is located on the south side of Casey Road, and residential housing exists between the Project site and Walnut Canyon Road to the east. The Project site ranges in elevation from 556 meters to 730 meters above mean sea level. 4.1 HYDROLOGY The Project is within the South Coast Hydrologic Region (SCHR). The SCHR comprises approximately 6.78 million acres (10,600 square miles)in southern California, including all of Orange County, most of San Diego and Los Angeles Counties, parts of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties, and a small amount of Kern and Santa Barbara Counties. Within the SCHR, the Project is within the Santa Clara Calleguas Hydrologic Unit(SCCHU). Within the SCCHU the Project is within the Calleguas Conejo Hydrologic Area (CCHA). A Project hydrologic map is presented in Appendix A. 4.2 WATER QUALITY A summary of applicable water quality regulations and programs is provided below. 4.2.1 Beneficial Uses The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)protects ground and surface water quality in the SCHR, including the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, and a small portion of coastal Santa Barbara County. Water quality standards and beneficial uses for waterbodies within the SCHR are documented in the Los Angeles RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan: Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. The ephemeral drainages within the basin provide the following intermittent beneficial uses: • GWR: Ground Water Recharge • WILD: Wildlife Habitat • AGR: Agricultural Supply In addition, waters that are not specifically listed within the plan, generally small tributaries, are designated with the same beneficial uses as the streams, lakes or reservoirs to which they are tributaries. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 3 APPENDIX NO. 17 4.2.2 Impaired Water Bodies; CWA Section 303(d) Listing a water body as impaired in California is governed by the Water Quality Policy for developing California Clean Water Act(CWA), Section 303(d) Listing Policy. The State and Regional Boards assess water quality data for California's waters every two years to determine if they contain pollutants at levels that exceed protective water quality criteria and standards. This biennial assessment is required under Section 303(d) of the CWA. Based on this assessment, there are no impaired water bodies in the Project area. 4.3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES The Project site is dominated by California Sagebrush Scrub (Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance)with Non-Native Annual Grassland and disturbed or developed areas. Arroyo Willow Thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland alliance), Mulefat Thickets (Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance), Non-Native Annual Grasslands, and Upland Mustard—Semi Natural Herbaceous Stands occur along the unnamed ephemeral drainage. A Project vegetation communities map is presented in Appendix B. 4.4 SoILs The Project is located entirely within the Soil Survey for the Ventura Area(CA674) (NRCS 1986). The Project area is characterized by the following soil types, and a Project soils map is presented in Appendix C. Badlands (BdG) The Badland Association occurs on 50 to 75 percent slopes and consists primarily of residuum weathered from sedimentary rock and the soil association is well-drained. This soil complex is somewhat excessively drained to the subsurface paralithic bedrock that varies from 0 to 60 inches deep. This soil type is listed as hydric on the Hydric Soils of the U.S. The soil type has hydric criteria of frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. Chesteron Coarse Sandy Loam (ChD2) The Chesterton Coarse Sandy Loam is composed of alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. This soil complex typically occurs on 5 to 15 percent slopes with a low to very low capacity for retaining surface water for long periods. The soil layer transitions from 20 to 46 inches deep to sub-weathered bedrock. This soil type is not listed on the Hydric Soils of the U.S. This soil type is not listed on the Hydric Soils of the U.S. Garretson Loam (GaC) Garretson Loam occurs on 2 to 9 percent slopes and consists primarily of alluvium weathered form sedimentary rock and the soil association is well-drained. This soil complex reaches the subsurface paralithic bedrock at more than 80 inches deep. This soil type is not listed on the Hydric Soils of the U.S. This soil type is not listed on the Hydric Soils of the U.S. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 4 APPENDIX NO. 17 Soper Gravelly Loam (SvF2) Soper Gravelly Loam occurs on 30 to 50 percent slopes and consists of residuum weathered from conglomerate or sandstone and the soil association is well drained. This soil complex has a soil horizon from 0 to 11 inches of gravely loam, l lto 40 inches of very gravelly clay loam and is from 40 to 50 inches to weathered bedrock. This soil type is not listed on the Hydric Soils of the U.S. Sorrento Silty Clay Loam (SxC) Sorrento Silty Clay Loam occurs on 2 to 9 percent slopes and is composed of alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. This soil has a high water capacity with a soil horizon composed of 0 to 60 inches of silty clay loam. This soil type is not listed on the Hydric Soils of the U.S. 5.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 5.1 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 (MAY, 24 1977) PROTECTION OF WETLANDS This Federal Executive Order establishes a national policy "to avoid the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative." 5.2 UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATIONS Pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act(CWA), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into Waters of the United States. The term "Waters of the United States" is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 328, and includes (1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide), (2) all interstate waters and wetlands, (3) all impoundments of waters mentioned above, (4) all tributaries to waters mentioned above, (5)the territorial seas, and(6) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above. Wetlands are defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The United States Supreme Court decision (SWANCC 2001)determined that USACE jurisdiction may not necessarily extend to intrastate waters and wetlands where the only federal nexus is potential use by migratory birds. USACE jurisdiction generally includes traditional navigable waters (TNW), all wetlands adjacent to TNWs, non-navigable tributaries of TNWs that are relatively permanent(RPW) (tributaries that typically flow year round or have continuous flow at least seasonally), wetlands that directly abut such tributaries, and non RPWs if the water body is determined to have a significant nexus with a TNW. Issuance of a Section 404 permit to discharge dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters is considered a Federal action and cannot be undertaken by USACE if the permitted actions could adversely affect federally listed (or proposed) endangered or threatened species unless USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 5 APPENDIX NO. 17 consults with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. 5.3 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REGULATIONS Dredge and fill activities in Federal jurisdictional waters (Waters of the U.S.)that require authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also require water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), through its RWQCBs, has jurisdiction over the Section 401 water quality certification process in California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act(Porter-Cologne), Division 7 of the California Water Code, establishes the responsibilities and authorities of the nine RWQCBs and the SWRCB. This act establishes that the "Waters of the State" shall be protected for use and enjoyment by the people of the State; that the activities and factors which may affect the quality of the waters of the State shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality. The act also names the RWQCBs to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas within the region. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the Regional Boards regulate discharge of waste. All parties proposing to discharge waste that could affect waters of the state must file a report of waste discharge with the appropriate board (Section 13260 of the California Water Code). The Regional Board will then respond to the report of waste discharge by issuing waste discharge requirements (WDRs), or by waiving WDRs for the proposed discharge. Both of the terms "Discharge of Waste" and "Waters of the State" are broadly defined such that discharges of waste, including fill, any material resulting from human activity or any other discharge that may directly or indirectly impact Waters of the State. While all Waters of the U.S. that are within the borders of California area also Waters of the State, the converse is not true; Waters of the U.S. is a subset of Waters of the State. While Section 404 permits and 401 Certifications are required when activity results in fill or discharge directly below ordinary high water mark(OHWM) of Waters of the U.S., any activity that results or may result in a discharge that directly or indirectly impacts Waters of the State or the beneficial uses of those waters are subject to WDRs. 5.4 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE REGULATIONS Pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFW may require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow, or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream or lake, or use material from a streambed. CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks, and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. CDFW's definition of lake includes natural lakes or man-made reservoirs. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 6 APPENDIX NO. 17 In addition to the bed and banks of a stream, CDFW jurisdiction includes riparian or wetland vegetation associated with a stream. CDFW's issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement is a discretionary action subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). When environmental review for a project is being conducted by a City, County or other public agency acting as lead agency as defined by CEQA, CDFW, as a responsible agency under CEQA, may consider the lead agency's Categorical Exemption, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report for the Project. Federal projects on Federal land do not require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. However, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required of a non-Federal participant for projects on Federal land carried out, or funded by the non-Federal participant. 6.0 METHODS 6.1 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION Qualified biologists conducted a reconnaissance-level survey at the Project site to determine the general characteristics of the site and presence of potentially jurisdictional wetlands, Waters of the U.S. and State Waters. The survey focused on USACE's three mandatory criteria (hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation) to determine the need for further analysis based on the routine onsite determination method described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(1987), and in accordance with the methods identified in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (September 2008). Wetland delineation forms are presented in Appendix G and representative photographs are presented in Appendix F. The boundaries of non-tidal, non-wetland waters were delineated at the OHWM as defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3 and in accordance with A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the U.S., A Delineation Manual(August 2008). The boundaries of State Waters potentially subject to regulation by CDFW were delineated using agency-issued guidance under the California Fish and Game Code, related CDFW materials, and standard practices by CDFW personnel. CDFW jurisdiction was delineated by measuring the outer boundaries of the greater of either the top of bank measurement or the extent of associated riparian or wetland vegetation. 6.2 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Drainages were determined to be Waters of U.S., under the jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal CWA, as outlined in the USACE Jurisdictional Determination Instructional Guidebook and Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (AJDF) (2007), and therefore, determined to be likewise within the jurisdiction of the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 7 APPENDIX NO. 17 Drainages identified as waters were considered potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFW under Section 1602 of the FGC and the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, Division 7, and Section 13260 of the California Water Code. 7.0 RESULTS 7.1 WETLANDS One area meeting the three mandatory criteria(hydrophytic vegetation, hydrology and hydric soils)for wetlands occurs within the Project site. The area is a manmade detention basin that has an inlet and outlet from an ephemeral drainage. It should be noted that this basin was originally intended to be cleaned out(removal of debris and sediment) on an annual basis; however, this activity has not been conducted for several years. The area is dominated by curly dock(Rumex crispus) and has indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soil indicators of a low chroma. A delineation map is presented in Appendix D, and wetland delineation forms are presented in Appendix F. 7.2 WATERS An unnamed blue-line ephemeral drainage flows north to south on the western side of the Project. The drainage has a defined bed and bank, reliable OHWM, and other physical indicators of riverine flow. The drainage supports riparian Arroyo Willow Thickets and Mulefat Thickets in the northern portion. The drainage flows into the previously mentioned manmade basin, which is characterized as a wetland, and outlets to the south through Mulefat Thickets and disturbed black mustard (Brassica nigra)populations, eventually flowing into an underground culvert at Casey Road. The drainage flows directly into Arroyo Simi then into Callequas Creek and eventually into the Pacific Ocean. 7.3 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION The drainage is considered a Non-RPW that flows directly or indirectly into TNW. Non-RPWs are drainages in which flows are not continuous, at least seasonally. The onsite unnamed drainage flows directly into Calleguas Creek and indirectly to the Pacific Ocean, a TNW. The unnamed drainage exhibits channel morphology that would be considered jurisdictional, including; bank, scour, sediment deposit, and OHWM. Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs require a significant nexus to assert jurisdiction over this class of water body under the CWA. Due to the close proximity and direct hydrologic connection to Calleguas Creek and hydrological connection to the Pacific Ocean, the onsite unnamed drainage is considered to have a significant nexus. Therefore, the unnamed drainage, a Non-RPW tributary to the Pacific Ocean, is considered jurisdictional pursuant to the USACE under Section 404 of the Federal CWA and the RWQCB under Section 401 of the Federal CWA. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 8 APPENDIX NO. 17 Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE Final Clean Water Rule- Definition of Waters of the United States (May 26, 2015), the unnamed drainage, a tributary to the Pacific Ocean, is considered Waters of the United States. Under the new rule, "tributaries are more precisely defined as waters that are characterized by the presence of physical indicators of flow, bed and banks and ordinary high water mark and that contribute flow directly or indirectly to traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas." The rule concludes that such tributaries are "Waters of the U.S" The onsite wetland is considered adjacent to the unnamed drainage and therefore,jurisdictional pursuant to USACE and Section 404 of the CWA, as well as RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA. Dredge and fill activities in federally jurisdictional waters (wetlands and Waters of the U.S.)that trigger coverage under a Section 404 must also receive water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA. The SWRCB and its RWQCBs have regulatory oversight over Section 401 water quality certifications in California. The unnamed drainage and its associated adjacent wetland are considered wetlands and Waters of the U.S, and therefore subject to Section 401 of the CWA. The unnamed drainage has a reliable OHWM, a defined channel with bed and bank and other physical indicators of flow. Therefore, the drainage is considered State Waters. In addition, the basin with wetland indicators would be considered State Waters. State Waters are regulated under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, and the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, division 7 and Section 13260 of the California Code. All determinations in this report should be considered preliminary until concurrence through either a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, or request for a formal Jurisdictional Determination by USACE, Los Angeles District. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 9 APPENDIX NO. 17 8.0 CONCLUSION Based on the results of the delineation, there are 0.332 acres of wetlands and 0.110 acres of Waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of USACE and RWQCB pursuant to the CWA, and 0.580 acres of State Waters subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code within the Project site (Table 1). TABLE 1. WETLANDS AND WATERS ON THE PROJECT SITE T Wetland (USACE, Waters of U.S. State Waters Feature RWQCB, CDFW)* (USACE, RWQCB) (CDFW) Acres Acres Linear Feet Acres Linear Feet Unnamed 0.332* 0.110 1891 0.580 1891 drainage Total 0.332 0.110 1891 0.580 1891 *Basin adjacent wetland 8.1 IMPACTS Activities associated with the development of the Project will cause temporary and/or permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, Waters of the U.S. and State Waters (Table 2 and Appendix E). TABLE 2. PROJECT IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND WATERS Wetland (USACE, Waters of U.S. State Waters Feature RWQCB, CDFW)* (USACE, RWQCB) (CDFW) Acres Acres Linear Feet Acres Linear Feet Unnamed 0.332* 0.110 1891 0.580 1891 drainage Total 0.332 0.110 1891 0.580 1891 *Basin adjacent wetland 8.2 PERMITTING Activities associated with Project construction will cause temporary and permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S. and State Waters. Therefore, the Project would require permit authorization by the USACE(Los Angeles field office) pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, Section 401 Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA by the South Coast RWQCB and a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code by the CDFW, South Coast Region, San Diego office. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 10 APPENDIX NO. 17 8.3 MITIGATION To offset impacts to U.S. and State Wetland and Waters, onsite mitigation will be implemented in the southern portion of the proposed Project(Appendix E). The proposed mitigation/restoration will result in the creation of 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre-construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage to compensate for the impact to 1.022 acres of jurisdictional area. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be developed as part of the permitting process and submitted to the USACE and CDFW for approval. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 11 APPENDIX NO. 17 9.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B. G. Et al. [ed.]. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California: Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. Calflora. 2012. The Calflora Database: information on California plants for education, research and conservation [web application]. The Calflora Database, Berkeley, California. Http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed June 2015. California Watershed Portal. HTTP://WWW.Conservation.C A.GO V/DLRP/W atershedp ortal/Pages/Index.A SPX. Accessed June 2015. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Washington D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. (Technical Report (Y-87-1) Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Hickman. J.C. (ed) Munsell Color. 1992. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Revised Edition. Macbeth, Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. Newburgh, New York. NRCS Web Soil Survey. Www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/websoilsurvey.aspx. Accessed June 2015. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plants That Occur in Wetlands: California. Biological Report. Washington, DC. Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. USACE. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Instructional Guidebook. Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. USACE. 2008. Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the U.S. A Delineation Manual. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Ed.JS. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report Casey Road Assisted Living Facility Project 12 APPENDIX NO. 17 APPENDIX A: HYDROLOGY MAP APPENDIX NO. 17 Santa - Paula Fru TPiru ren - Toler,Sespe SANTA CLARA - CALLEGUAS r _ N.ppt.c�+v 'Santa con 'r P.k qP~a la ol .. .. Lal c.nnr (( cor�k;c` Project Location j - -. Moor, tt:. � Calleguas-Conejo •— • oruook 0. Pig (.. . Thousand. `:a. •aks r ! SANTA MONICA BAY Ramho'Serrn -it Creek ,titin Streams •P",.• _ :w�ia� ' a 1Village VENTURA COASTAL STREAM. _,/ Ni. r ] Hydrologic Area Hydrologic Unit ''° °"° I BRC ,\ ''''''p BioResource Consultants Inc. N Project Location Map avnoN�. Location Saa M I Miles `°"°° 0 1 2 4 APPENDIX NO. 17 APPENDIX B: VEGETATION COMMUNITIES APPENDIX NO. 17 fre ,,. s'.. %VPI"Pr-' . 4'1,13...." ,4,4:/',: - Mfg el: f F ap.�.`NAv ' .. . r:,,,,,„ ,..t., CSS NNG - ', 1, t - L . iii _ . kip, ! mss1: . e 1R, . ...4, .. .,, , 1. NNG l " .6' 6, r= 1: _ _. NNG ,' .. • ' , ' : t.., rat.,4'.1, ': - R MF � NNG j,' °: _ _- - NNC • c m _ , „�,,,;,ir 1 I ! y YR tg �' .4 .. ,Zvi. 1 i,1 . �t •e 1 �,+, 0l . ..,i / ur E rirdigdOK5InL to e Eoilw1t1P oJYJo�nl b,.._,-,A,. . S]/ S D +y;, Obx�l 1 ' SDA-LJ.'%%C'E� t; o nii l ](y(o, CM,0R @al�,&]ulisa GI, — 1'i;.!tA°6 - � �C'SM1r�n 4H C$ tt7i6,t p vlAd 6C wGi tlu , . I t .'{14.9. 11 O. MM.Ek4L,'s]rn.[..AAp7ejl"dii., 1�a1�N0i ,o ' 11011tbsRa ginc7 f(r7.a'NO mor commute, 4-. -, Project Property(48.24 acres) -Disturbed[D](5 70 acres) O Project Impact Area(Grading Area 40.55 Acres) Mulefat Thicket[MF] (0.32 acres) W1 B RC - Arroyo Willow Thicket[AW](0.34 acres) Non-native Grassland[NNG](12.08 acres) Bie Rese urce Coneulta me In: -Coastal Sage Scrub[CSS] (21.51 acres) .Upland Mustard Semi-herbaceous Stands[UM] (0.27;.,..,..,, N -Cement Spillway[Cem](0 016 acres) -Wetland[Wet](0.34 acres) I LJ I Feet —••—Drainage(1995 feet) 0 100 200 400 APPENDIX NO. 17 APPENDIX C: SOILS MAP APPENDIX NO. 17 AsF SwC 1.1 19 ,,�� SwC ��6vF2 1 ' f v 1 SvF2 p - • •. ' ic . i Fie t IL • 206A ChD2 BdG �« ,t . . — « CF' a . , _ 0 ..., J` ' 4011,- 4 SvF2 •-.* •'f s. i. • - k . • GaC -. r µ , _ SvF2 • SvF2 • _.Il y �cr C/ 2 1 + t t Ilr IBRC i • BloRecourcc Consultaq“I WalnutC•i �o �;,) 4._. nN Elementary WICCfl II •-ems L c,iobe, e [1111,13.1,/1 o >x;etmapp I I I I Feet _ill iaajdarim r - ioHE'E „� - a L, 0 150 300 600 ttj t Project Property GaC: Garretson loam,2 to 9 percent slopes Project Impact Area(Grading Area) SbF: San Andreas sandy loam,30 to 50 percent slopes _AsF: Arnold sand,9 to 50 percent slopes SvF2: Soper gravelly loam,30 to 50 percent slopes,eroded BdG: Badland SwC: Sorrento loam,2 to 9 percent slopes -ChD2: Chesterton coarse sandy loam,5 to 15 percent slopes,e roded SxC: Sorrento silty clay loam,2 to 9 percent slopes APPENDIX NO. 17 APPENDIX D: DELINEATION MAP APPENDIX NO. 17 VI w. . . • • lag • 4 roll tA>-#.•*, r r v • Wits r ss � 1 4..'.. r ,yt•• _ Ir. ice 4r 1,1 f f { • " I • f 4 r� ' ii •1 - '`moi ' F. . 1 ... , opf, , ,. „., t. ','y f 1 4. 4 ! ti• , Ati, A v0 • Y I ,.t Irrli 1%,• f , "f. . . ,,_ _ -nom., .....as, ,j� rt T0. r r •" ,it' `ma ^ ' ?" „0 Fj f6 Salrce'eEsri SgiIGlobe GeoEye Earthstar t:I' 1 A� 4.* - ^ `USDA USES •EX Getd' ping;Aerognd IGN,(�¢p',� tripjtp f• _ beer®o'?n iv Esi., E 5]1 P M pm I die Q�o�-- , r ko ibu ors,[fy,,(E= E, kg I i dPmylndi`a o00p- ree M.p'- - p ••3 ntribu er-milk;igo§viagrzieruak -ry USACE/CDFW Project Property J J3D C USACE/CDFW Wetland ♦ Culvertj`rn s .,• ^N\1 CDFW I LJ I Feet Cement Spillway 0 100 200 400 APPENDIX NO. 17 APPENDIX E: IMPACT AND MITIGATION MAP APPENDIX NO. 17 '. I ., - Future North Hills Parkway , .,, g ' i ' ' I -`` __ i 1Lr--_-t` 11 .,,,iiii iF1 - 40 r ._J .___,f9' — ., ,,_.-14ib� •: s dit 1. /um., . : .viyi ,, „...10, ; ,,..,:s; ::: ' -LSF j r - rf 1. . ofior ., - )1 ---). 7C" - I I�— .. 3 • _ ..., ; Project Property t•' -••-•• Centerline • , _fir,' 4.> Total Waters Impact Area: 1.022 Acres :',..t, 8 _ MIUSACE/CDFW=0.110 Acres 'II . • _ d In USACE/CDFW Wetland=0.332 Acres + '" • - CDFW=0.580 Acres r") i• ii mg Proposed JD Mitigation Area: 1.24 Acres e _ _ - . ti Sour'c r Grading Plan liiiimill I DS' �� GI Sl-,agi KBRC I I 1 I Feet ,,„,....\ BioResource Consultants Inc. 0 200 400 800 N APPENDIX NO. 17 APPENDIX F: PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG APPENDIX NO. 17 Photo 1. Northern end of unnamed drainage, facing south. �� • • ••Y `tom 4.•. �T' .' e.f' h . NY'' ' AS .tom `�A`� -� e �., • -r• . •` rte,,; , •,• •� s „k,. , • .4405' ...••-fp'. y 4 ° i f t' t ,+ `"/l 1, { . 44,/' y,,f �i Pr, of r t 4 t •N.-� �r'} 4 + . 1. .'''-�f'v$ •it°C 4_ . ' '''e2104...-/. .... A ••,, .` ; • \. et, • ,•,.es, +. ' 1 y1.,ft47, F+vj, l , 1 s• �� �4 q , •j or J'r- _ �r _ •r• t :i '.riEt, L3•' 1 ,-.it ` a : •.:- 4.p s?Ni. 'H r 1 ,,• l' 57+_4j �t,.o' � • • • ` '4°.Y 1i i A.• _ ... .. 1 .. a -1..r.ee._Iv.t. APPENDIX NO. 17 Photo 2. Arroyo Willow Thicket within the unnamed drainage, facing north. • r • k 't mi. '''txre 'X ` ., A 41 '. /-4, �2,k e* ..0 is .s- 4.,• •�`' 4..^ lox '. Iftstb, r. 4 " ri x r 1444. 4fr Ori - 4 - r F ,i: 1 rrr .k • •'�:. _- ' : ...V‘' .' x ° Y rC ; ra+ r 74+`ii + . N •y\ t .;•.It •. _ \ � I� - y. It `'• .s t � � � � /., ` of . . APPENDIX NO. 17 Photo 3. Basin-Jurisdictional Wetland, facing north. MARI tr • • rr� ' APPENDIX NO. 17 Photo 4. Unnamed drainage south of the basin, facing north. i'• 10111k -1�' "r • dI� APPENDIX NO. 17 Photo 5. Culvert at Casey Road. 4. 1 \. it . \ �iIP.'. r�_ tt `.f •%'' ! rr - Jam. - 1.4..`''-,...' + S . ,1,14,,‘ . i rK ; �� .4'.;1-‘,„.‘rils•t• - • is r � - 6 ,,. ;a, ` y ' i Imo` -� ,. r'I is ; ,4 .6"4 • .•' r -• - '. .T"tib ..-+7•_ - N 4 . ,,, „ _._ • •x • 1 'S' K .*-. .h� _ � �,. ,fit•,. L F - ,'-- . ,•s .� .' 1' . - a:4','. ` . •_ — V I; _.• ';-„.''�` I :. y ,r rte�,�°,p t, r. •.. +` 1 Al I tik.a•-'' ^ • `+hf H t4 •J �r • ' a` APPENDIX NO. 17 APPENDIX G: WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS APPENDIX NO. 17 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Arid West Region Project/Site: i✓e t�c.'42-J..- City/County: Yh(l,✓`'Q�1 Sampling Date. h 0 )i 1 Applicant/Owner 1 State- <A Sampling Point I Investigator(s) Ciiifirs_,r \,,v..r\ Section.Township.Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace.etc.): Local relief(concave.convex.none): Slope(%). Subregion(LRR): Lat Long Datum: Soil Map Unit Name, ri6d\ov r' / NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes �/ No (If no.explain in Remarks.) / Are Vegetation .Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation .Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed.explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes >/ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes 17- No within a Wetland? Yes . No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ll No Remarks: VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: , %Cover Soecies2 Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL.FACW.or FAC: ) (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata. \ (B) 4_ Percentof Dominant Species =Total Cover That Are OBL.FACW.or FAC: 1 U J (A/B) Santii�n;a/Shrub Stratum (Plot size, 1 1. ICnukv)--4t( rAic,f.,• i Ss'U Uo FACtsJ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. (r r,-,r,. i.w- I a..\i C 1\Atr ,nye, Total%Cover of. Multiply by. 3. OBL species x 1= 4. FACW species S✓ x 2= 1 IJ 0 5_ FAC species x 3= Se' 1-1,11-1,1a\ SS =Total Cover FACU species _ x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot sizea)" l' UPL species x 5= 1. Column Totals: .",i (A) /6 0 (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index =B/A= 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _/Dominance Test is>50% 6 1Prevalence Index is 553.0' ? _ Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) =Total Cover — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 1 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 be present.unless disturbed or problematic. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks: /7 L US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West–Version 2.0 APPENDIX NO. 17 SOIL Sampling Point Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist)_ 6,6 Type' Loc` Texture Remarks (. -'7 9.(z&2SL2 1G4... cL.. a.Vig).;Ii c\‘‘.3 r.'' 'Type C=Concentration.D=Depletion.RM=Reduced Matrix.CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location PL=Pore Lining.M=Malnx Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(All _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR C) Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR 8) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) _ Reduced Vertic(F18) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Depressions(F8) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Vernal Pools(F9) wetland hydrology must be present. Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required,check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Surface Water(A1) Salt Crust(B11) _ Water Marks(61)(Riverine) High Water Table(A2) _ Biotic Crust(B12) _ Sediment Deposits(B2)(Riverine) Saturation(A3) _Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Drift Deposits(B3)(Riverine) ZWater Marks(B1)(Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) Sediment Deposits(B2)(Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Drift Deposits(B3)(Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) /Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _ Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches). Water Table Present' Yes No Depth(inches). Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches). Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ./ No (Includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge.monitoring well,aerial photos.previous inspections).if available Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West-Version 2 0 APPENDIX NO. 17 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Arid West Region Project/Site: CC-(')Sr v\arA. City/County: r Oo,r,/")t,L /Sampling Date: L�/12 I, I— v 1 Applicant/Owner: State: (-/a Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): C:Ar-r .\ov.A Section.Township.Range: Landform(hillslope.terrace.etc.): Local relief(concave.convex.none): Slope(%). Subregion(LRR): L_ Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name. V'r 4 d I f it NVN classification. Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are'Normal Circumstances"present? Yes No Are Vegetation .Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed.explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present's Yes No Remarks, VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size. %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL.FACW.or FAC. IT (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: / (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species =Total Cover That Are OBL.FACW.or FAC. 0 (A/B) Sanlino/S/hrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 1. 1.V GIAA u 1 V.in ,w I ____LS: l-_r L Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. A(1 1C 4- 1r1 i .r I 'S U a,,,... t it Total%Cover of: Multiply by: r 3. (r h uv.o. !n-t° 1 lir kV i (u 1,4i- to(IL OBL species x 1= 4. Y<u N-tt CV. t1)r, 1 (. 1,..r plc i.. FACW species ( x2= I t 5. FAC species x 3= C a_ ' \L V =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 Bc .-q o UPL species �r x 5= in--%'±-. 1 Column Totals: i ( -... (A) 1-1 '1 '- (B) 2 3 Prevalence Index =B/A= 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ Dominance Test is>50% 6_ _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7 _ Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 1. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 be present.unless disturbed or problematic. =Total Cover Hydrophytic / Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West-Version 2.0 APPENDIX NO. 17 SOIL Sampling Point Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Mi/nx Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) d/o TypeLoc` Texture Remarks G MI 9.c1'a. cl<-3 'Type. C=Concentration.D=Depletion.RM=Reduced Matrix.CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location. PL=Pore Lining.M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR B) _ Black Histic(A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) _ Reduced Vertic(F18) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Depressions(F8) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Vernal Pools(F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks' HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more reauhedl_ Surface Water(A1) Salt Crust(B11) _ Water Marks(B1)(Riverine) High Water Table(A2) Biotic Crust(B12) _ Sediment Deposits(82)(Riverine) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(813) _ Drift Deposits(B3)(Riverine) Water Marks(131)(Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Sediment Deposits(B2)(Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Drift Deposits(B3)(Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) Surface Soil Cracks(136) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) _ Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present'? Yes No_ Depth(inches). Water Table Present'? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches). Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge.monitoring well,aerial photos.previous inspeG ons),if available. Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West-Version 2.0 APPENDIX NO. 17 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Arid West Region Project/Site: CA \c r. te2rl\ City/County: V\C ovrat4tiv- Sampling Date. ApplicantOwner: / \ State: CA Sampling Point Investigator(s). \-1�i r --.\,w,r\_ Section,Township,Range'. Landform(hillslope,terrace.etc.): Local relief(concave.convex,none). Slope(%) Subregion(LRR): f \ Lat Long: Datum. Soil Map Unit Name'. I w,rl rs-� NWI classification: / Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes / No (If no.explain in Remarks.) / Are Vegetation Soil .or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes / No Are Vegetation Soil .or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed.explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 7" No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No l within a Wetland' Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No___Z__. Remarks `1 ( f • VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: I %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species /J 1. C 1<�., k"c,.%of�,- — 7 L. ,py, c,,)\ That Are OBL.FACW.or FAC: > (A) 2. 1 o t t.4Jr._ id G O G\n l C Total Number of Dominant 3. �j i,r r .,,z S,\,r,A. :w s T n.%�w Species Across All Strata (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species S- -[i7 ei r S. =Total Cover That Are OBL.FACW,or FAC: /( C.) (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: a c,- ti 1 Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 Total%Cover of- Multiply by 3 OBL species x 1= 4 FACW species x 2= 5 FAC species x 3= =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size, 1 UPL species x 5= 1, Column Totals. (A) (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index =B/A= 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 _ Dominance Test is>50% 6 _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 7. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size. 1 1 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West-Version 2.0 APPENDIX NO. 17 SOIL Sampling Point- Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Mgtnx Redox Fe,ytures (inches) Color(moist)_ % Color(moist)_ % Tvpe. Loc` Texture Remarks C-1) SLI►2 311, _ Cie 3 Type C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix.CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 'Location: PL=Pore Lining.M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(A1) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR B) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) _ Reduced Vertic(F18) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Depressions(F8) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Vernal Pools(F9) wetland hydrology must be present. Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type Depth(inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one rewired:check all that apply, Ser ndary Indicators(2 or more required) _ Surface Water(Al) Salt Crust(B11) Water Marks(BlI(Riverine) High Water Table(A2) _ Biotic Crust(B12( Sediment Deposits(B2)(Riverine) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Drift Deposits(B3)(Riverine) Water Marks(81)(Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Drainage Patterns(810) Sediment Deposits(B2)(Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Drift Deposits(B3)(Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _ Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present' Yes No Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Qnclud s S�pillary fringe) Describe Recorded Dale(stream gauge.monitoring well,aerial photos.previous inspecnons),if available: Remarks. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West-Version 2 0