Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AGENDA REPORT 2002 0717 CC REG ITEM 10B
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM 10. 6. CTTV OF MOORPARK, CA1,1FORNIA City Cmincil Meetiniz nt T�1�y I"1, 200Z ACTTON: Appr"Q%/ejd C—tCrf -f- reco nomendGfion aC__ UmPnde� RV: TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Plan er DATE: July 3, 2002 (City Council Meeting of 7/17/02) SUBJECT: Landscaping and Fencing Issues Related to Moorpark Country Club Estates, Tract No. 4928, Residential Planned Development No. 94 -01, Conditional Use Permit No. 94 -01 BACKGROUND At the June 19, 2002, City Council meeting, staff was directed to prepare a report on the orchards and fencing issues of concern and provide a suggested course of action for items related to occupancy of the units. There are several other issues of concern that staff has with the project, but those issues will be discussed in a staff report for the August 21, 2002 City Council meeting. The Toll Brothers development (Toll) consists of 216 single- family dwellings, twenty -seven holes of golf and a clubhouse. It is located at the northern city limits on the west side of Walnut Canyon Road and extends westerly to include frontage on Grimes Canyon Road. Phase 1, adjacent to Grimes Canyon Road and south of Championship Drive, consists of ninety -five (95) lots, including six (6) lots in the model complex. Nineteen (19) of those lots are adjacent to Grimes Canyon Road with one (1) lot at the corner of Grimes Canyon Road and Championship Drive and nine (9) lots adjacent to Championship Drive. A total of thirty -six (36) building permits have been issued in Phase 1 (excluding 3 model homes), leaving fifty -three (53) additional homes to be built to complete Phase 1 (see Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1 shows nine (9) lots along Grimes Canyon Road and six (6) lots along Championship Drive where building permits have not been issued. The issues of the orchards and the fencing first arose when Toll asked about adjusting the lot lines for lots 2, 3 and 4, to move the property line from the top of slope to a point 10 to 12 -feet Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 2 below the top of slope. It was at this time that the current staff discovered that the lots along Grimes Canyon Road and one (1) lot on Championship Drive showed the rear property lines 10 to 12 -feet below the top of slope. While investigating the possibility of adjusting the lot lines for lots 2, 3, and 4, the orchard planting was discovered. Since staff did not. have an approved Landscape Plan nor an approved Fencing Plan, Toll was notified that the orchard planting was inappropriate and the fencing was required to be at the top of slope. Toll was directed to stop all planting and fencing and to correct the problem. DISCUSSION ORCHARDS: Residential Planned Development approval (RPD No. 94 -01) required landscaping of the entrances to the project. Section I, Condition No. 22, relating to Gateway Entrance Monumentation, Streetscape Standards and Neighborhood Design Form, states: "An orderly and consistent street tree planting program shall be required for both entranceways to provide a landscaping pattern that resembles a rural ranch, entry road design. Trees shall be spaced at equal intervals or clustered [emphasis added] as approved by the Community Development Director. Recommended tree plantings for these entry points and along "C" Street [Championship Drive] shall include the non - natives typically used in ranch settings for entryways including pepper, eucalyptus and olive trees. Other street tree plantings shall be consistent with the Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans. The Community Development Director shall review and approve all gateway, streetscape, and street tree planting programs for the project prior to Zoning Clearance for the first residential unit and all such landscaping for each approved phase shall be installed prior to the first occupancy for that phase." The original RPD was approved with "Draft Architectural Design Guidelines" that did not specifically address landscaping in the entry areas. Subsequently (September 26, 2001), Architectural Design Guidelines were reviewed and approved by the then Community Development Director and then Planning Manager. In violation of the aforementioned condition of approval of the project, the approved Architectural Design Guidelines call out for "...several working orchards, sited at focal points along Grimes Canyon Road and Walnut \ \MOR_PRI_SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \02.07.17 Toll Issues Report bkh rev l.doc 5.+ '✓ a.,� �.� s+a. Sri Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 3 Canyon Road..." Avocado and citrus trees are called out as the plant type for the orchards. Previous staff approved the Architectural Design Guidelines in error. Additionally, it was never pointed out to the Council that the Architectural Design Guidelines contemplated a different approach to the entry landscaping. It is also important to note that orchards are contrary to the Ventura County Landscape Guidelines currently used by the City of Moorpark. Portions of the landscaped area are within the Homeowner's Association (HOA) area of responsibility and other portions are within the Assessment District's area of responsibility. While the areas where the orchards are located are in the Assessment District, notes on the submitted but unapproved landscape plans, propose that the Homeowner's Association would maintain the orchards. Staff is concerned with the maintenance of the orchards. A Homeowner's Association is not in the agriculture business and as such, would have to contract for the maintenance of the orchard. Agriculture is a business dependent upon a number of factors that are often times, beyond the control of the owner; example, weather, pests, irrigation water, and labor. It is staff's opinion that introduction of orchards, as a part of the overall landscape maintenance, is inappropriate and should not be allowed. In addition, it appears to be contrary to Policy 11.2 of the Land Use Element of the Moorpark General Plan, which states: When new residential development is adjacent to existing agricultural uses, a 200 -foot minimum width setback shall be provided to minimize compatibility conflicts. In November 1999, the Planning Commission considered and recommended denial of Toll's General Plan Amendment request to modify the setback from 200 -feet to 100 -feet. Toll subsequently dropped this request and modified the map to conform to the 200 - foot buffer requirement. Recommendation: Two alternatives are presented. Recommended Alternative: Direct Toll to remove all orchard planting and submit Landscape Plans showing landscaping consistent with the approved conditions, along with a remediation plan for the grove areas. \ \MOR_PRI_SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \02.07.17 Toll Issues Report bkh rev l.doc 11 1e (x{41 ; Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 4 Alternative: Approve the orchard planting for the development; direct Toll to amend and record the approved CC &R's to include provisions for maintenance of orchards by the Homeowner's Association subject to approval by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney; direct Toll to amend the Landscape Maintenance District boundaries to exclude all orchard areas and amend the General Plan Land Use Policy 11.2 to allow orchards. FENCE LOCATIONS: Two (2) Minor Modifications have been approved for this project. Minor Modification No. 1 was approved on February 2, 2000, and Minor Modification No. 3 was approved on August 1, 2001. The Minor Modifications authorized changes to the golf course and residential lot layout. Minor Modification No. 1 substantially changed the layout of the golf course, the lots and the grading. It was at this time that the General Plan, zoning and the lot line issues should have been addressed. These modifications were ostensibly done to reduce the amount of grading, create private streets, and improve the neighborhood configuration by locating Championship Drive further north, reconfiguring the east golf course from eighteen (18) holes to nine (9) holes, reconfiguring the west neighborhood south of Championship Drive and rearranging the residential lot configuration. These modifications were approved with no discussion of the location of lot lines, vis -a -vis fence locations and slope locations. There was no indication in the original application that lot lines would be relocated to a nonstandard location; example, standard location of lot lines would be at the top of manufactured slopes. Exhibit 8 (Phase Plan and Maps) of the then, Community Development Director's report for the February 2, 2000 Council meeting has the contours, that upon very close scrutiny, shows the lot lines at a location below the top of the slope. The staff report itself does not address that the lot lines were being moved from the top of the slope location as originally approved on the Tentative Tract Map. I could not find any other documentation that the Council was requesting to specifically allow such a change. Based on Exhibit 8, the Final Map was approved by the then Community Development Director, City Engineer, and City Council with the lot lines below the top of the slope. There was also no discussion that the existing approved General Plan and zoning designations would be inconsistent with the new lot configurations. Current staff discovered that the lot lines were not at the top of the slope when Toll came forward for a lot line adjustment to relocate three (3) lot lines to below the top of the slope. At that time, in early January 2002, it was also discovered that the \ \MOR_PRI_SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \02.07.17 Toll Issues Report bkh rev l.doc CW l ' a � & Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 5 General Plan and zoning designations were not consistent with the approved map (see General Plan /Zoning below). The reason given by Toll for this non - standard practice was to offer homeowner's views that are unencumbered with fencing. It should be noted that the City of Moorpark does not have a Viewshed Ordinance and that views are frequently changed by growth of landscaping, development or changes in terrain. Usually, fencing and property lines are located at the top of slopes. This is done for a number of reasons. The top of a slope is an easily identifiable physical feature to have as a property line. Property lines located at the top of the slope would, in this case, create a clear visual and physical distinction between privately maintained areas and publicly maintained areas. Rear yard setbacks are typically measured from property lines. By placing a property line ten (10) to twelve (12) feet below the top of the slope, with the required 25 -foot rear yard setback, a room addition, patio cover, gazebo, cantilevered decks, "infinity" pools, or other structures could be constructed very close to the top of the slope. This situation would also defeat one of the purposes of a rear yard setback; example, having a private outdoor area for the homeowner's recreation. There is also concern over development in the slope area and the aesthetics, as viewed from public streets and other public areas. Since this is an area which is not seen by the homeowner, it can often times be utilized for dog runs, mechanical /pool equipment storage and vegetable gardens or orchards in an effort to maximize the useable lot area. Cross lot drainage, however little, could also become a concern, especially in the event of soil over saturation and slope failure. It should also be noted, that the property line fences are proposed to follow property lines, which do not in many cases, follow the contour lines. What this creates, is a fence that would appear from the down slope side, to vary in height as it crosses contour lines. From the down slope side; example, the golf course, Grimes Canyon or Championship Drive, the fencing would appear to "jump" back and forth in height. However, with the proper legal tools it is possible to minimize potential drawbacks to below grade fencing. In this case, a restriction could be added to the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC &R's) to prohibit development on or over the slope area. The CC &R's could also provide a minimum setback of ten (10) feet from the top of the slope to a structure, in order to minimize the overbuilt look. The CC &R's could also restrict the type of \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \02.07.17 Toll Issues Report bkh rev l.doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 6 landscaping and require an appropriate level of maintenance by the homeowner, with enforcement by the Homeowner's Association. If the fencing is to be relocated to the top of the slopes, the property lines must also be relocated to remain consistent with the conditions of approval, which state that property line walls and fencing must be no further than one (1) inch from the property line. The following table describes those lots in Phase 1 (TM 4928 -1) that face Grimes Canyon Road, Championship Drive, the golf course, or other lots: Rear lots Rear lots facing Rear lots facing Rear lots Grimes facing Golf facing Canyon Championship Course other lots Zoning Clearance Issued 11 3 13 12 Zoning Clearance Not Issued 9 6 21 20 Total 20 9 34 32 There are a total of ninety -five (95) residential lots recorded in Phase 1. Recommendation: There are two (2) recommended alternatives presented for the West Neighborhood. Recommended Alternative for the West Neighborhood: Direct staff to approve the location of fences 10 to 12 -feet below the top of the slope except for lots 1, 2, 3,and a portion of 4 where the fencing shall be at the top of slope. Direct Toll to submit fencing plans, showing the fencing at the approved locations. Direct Toll to amend and record the CC &R's, prior to any occupancy of the homes, to include provisions for HOA maintenance of privately -owned areas from the top of the slope to the property line, in the event individual property owners fail to maintain this area; restrict any construction within said areas; prohibit structures in said area S: \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \02.07.17 Toll Issues Report bkh rev l.doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 7 (except for pools which would be allowed with in 3 -feet of the top of slope), or any roof overhang from a structure or projection of the structure beyond the footprint of the structure within ten (10) feet of the top of the slope; prohibit structures, equipment or anything other than well - maintained landscaping within the slope area; allow for the planting of vines, hedges or other landscape screening in said area in front (the public view side) of the fences to screen the fences. Direct Toll to insert language in the CC &R's that states that views are not guaranteed by the City or the developer and may be at some point in the future obscured by mature landscaping or other changes. The CC &Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney prior to recordation. Alternative for the West Neighborhood: Direct Toll to file a Tentative Tract Map to relocate the property lines of all lots to the top of the slopes and to relocate all fencing to the top of the slopes. ADDITIONAL OUTSTANDING CONDITIONS AND ITEMS: There are a number of outstanding items, which still remain to be completed. The General Plan Amendment and the zone change still remains to be completed and is not likely to be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission until August 26, 2002, and City Council action until September 18, 2002. The Landscape Plan and Fencing Plan needs to be changed to reflect the latest Council action, resubmitted to the City Landscape Architect and reviewed for compliance and then approved, if it complies. There are eight (8) conditions of approval of the RPD and the Vesting Tentative Map (see attachment 2) which, as currently worded, are required to be met prior to occupancy of the first home. Obviously, it this is not going to occur, staff recommends that the Council give direction to staff to release for occupancy the first thirty -six (36) homes where building permits have been issued. Additionally, Council should direct staff to meet with Toll so that resolution of these conditions can be accomplished at the August 21, 2002 City Council meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve staff recommended alternative for the orchards as indicated in the staff report. 2. Approve staff recommended alternative for the fencing as indicated in the staff report for the west neighborhoods. \ \MOR_PRI_SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \02.07.17 Toll Issues Report bkh rev l.doc v Ys 'u . 3 Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 8 3. Allow a maximum of thirty -six (36) occupancies in Phase 1 before completion - or prior to the first occupancy requirements. 4. Direct staff to meet with Toll to present a recommendation to Council at its August 21, 2002 meeting that resolves the conditions of approval of the RPD and VTM which are tied to occupancy. Attachments: 1. Exhibit 1 - Phase 1 Toll Development. 2. Conditions to be met prior to occupancy. \ \MOR_PRI_SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \02.07.17 Toll Issues Report bkh rev l.doc C 4 i • r • ' W ag %d �O �'r_ f Y 1� •�w m K H 1 1 w� a M 'All 24 o v ,11.86' / � I 1410.32' XTAIL HEREON) �O �'r_ f Y 1� •�w m K H 1 1 w� Toll Conditions Tied to Occupancy 1. VTM #20: Prior to opening "C" Street, the western residential area streets and cul -de -sacs (labeled as public on the Vesting Tentative Map) to public use, the Applicant /Developer shall request the City to adopt a resolution authorizing enforcement of applicable provisions of the California Vehicle Code and Moorpark Municipal Code. 2. VTM #23: The draft CC &R's shall be submitted to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney for review and approval, prior to approval of the first phase of the Final Map by the City Council, and the subdivider shall be required to pay all costs associated with such review. All applicable conditions of approval shall be highlighted in the copies of the CC &R's submitted for city review. Prior to the sale of any lots, the CC &R's shall be approved by the State Department of Real Estate and then recorded. Approval by the City shall not be construed to mean that the City has any obligation to enforce CC &R' s . 3. RPD #22: Both the eastern and western "C" Street entrances to the proposed project shall provide residential, community entry monumentation signage and appropriate landscaping at entry points. A sign program shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to the first residential occupancy. An orderly and consistent street tree planting program shall be required for both entranceways to provide a landscaping pattern that resembles a rural ranch, entry road design. Trees shall be spaced at equal intervals or clustered, as approved by the Community Development Director. Recommended tree plantings for these entry points and along "C" Street shall include the non - natives typically used in ranch settings for entryways including pepper, eucalyptus and olive trees. Other street tree plantings shall be consistent with the Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans. The Community Development Director shall review and approve all gateway, streetscapes, and street tree planting programs for the project, prior to Zoning Clearance for the first residential unit, and all such CC EXHIBIT a %_ I --. landscaping for each approved phase shall be installed, prior to the first occupancy for that phase. 4. RPD #29: Prior to the recordation of each applicable phase of development, two (2) sets of Landscaping and Irrigation Plans, together with a maintenance program, shall be prepared by a State - licensed Landscape Architect for the Maintenance Areas and Common Maintenance Areas for the Tract. The plans shall be in accordance with the Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans and applicable City policies, plans and ordinances, and shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The Applicant /Developer shall bear the full cost of plan review, installation and final inspection. The landscaping for the Maintenance Areas and Common Maintenance Areas in each approved phase of development shall be installed and receive final inspection and approval, prior to the first occupancy in each phase. (The landscaping for "C" Street is required to be installed prior to the first golf course occupancy; however, if residential development precedes golf course construction, the landscaping for "C" Street shall be installed and receive final inspection and approval, prior to the first residential occupancy.) 5. VTM #55: A Perimeter Boundary Fencing and Wall Plan are required to be submitted for the Community Development Director's approval, prior to approval of the first phase of the Final Vesting Map. The Perimeter Boundary Fencing and Wall Plan shall include the type, height and location of all fencing and /or wall to be installed, along the perimeter of the entire project site and along "C" Street and within the "C" Street parkway. Boundary perimeter fencing or walls shall be installed prior to the first residential or golf course occupancy in each phase. Perimeter boundary fencing shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and shall be installed by the Applicant /Developer, adjacent to agricultural zoned property, prior to the first golf course occupancy approval or first residential occupancy approval north of "C" Street, whichever occurs first, and shall represent a substantial barrier to discourage vandalism and trespassing. The Community Development Director may approve high - quality chain link fencing, adjacent to agricultural properties, in locations where such fencing would not be visible from the public right -of -way or the adjacent residential pads. In all other perimeter locations, not adjacent to agricultural zoned property, either wrought iron fencing, a block wall, or a combination shall be provided, as determined by the Community Development Director in the Perimeter Fencing and Wall Plan. 6. VTM #136: Prior to occupancy of the first residential unity of Tract No. 4928 or the first golf course facility, whichever occurs first, the subdivider shall improve Walnut Canyon Road, as specified in these - conditions. 7. VTM #142: Prior to issuance of the first Zoning Clearance for occupancy of either the golf course or the first residential unit, the intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Highway 118 (Los Angeles Avenue), shall be modified to provide a southbound left turn pocket on Grimes Canyon Road and westbound right turn lane on Los Angeles Avenue. Modifications shall also be made at the railroad crossing adjacent to this intersection to improve the safety of this location, as approved by the City Engineer. In addition, a median acceleration lane shall be provided for southbound traffic turning eastbound along State Route 118. Plans for modification of the Los Angeles Avenue (State Route 118) /Grimes Canyon Road intersection shall be reviewed and approved by the City and Caltrans. Plans for modification of the railroad crossing shall be reviewed and approved by the Southern Pacific Railroad, County of Ventura and the City. A sight distance study shall also be conducted as part of the intersection and railroad crossing modifications. 8. VTM #143: Prior to occupancy of the first residential unit of Tract No. 4928 or the golf. course facility, whichever occurs first, the subdivider shall improve Grimes Canyon Road, as specified in these conditions. C �' _ %' T-; 4-� r- 07, Pc 1 •�� � �'d04 ITEM ' C`8 MOORPARX, CAL1'FORM�k CITY OF MOORPARK Cif, Cnlancil Meeting COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �1 I - >Z MEMORANDUM A ve 5_-1Crff— recor► -wnien dgfiOr _QS - -- To: Honorable City Council Q `!"?d ea r� C From: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Plann Date: July 3, 2002 (City Council Meeting of 7/17/02) Subject: Violations at Moorpark Country Club Estates, Tract No. 4928, Residential Planned Development No. 94 -01, Conditional Use Permit No. 94 -01 The following are the Zoning /Planning and Engineering violations that have taken place during the course of this project. Zoning /Planning Issues 1. Landscaping has been installed without benefit of approved Landscape /Irrigation Plans. This includes landscaping of slopes and the orchards /groves. 2. Fencing partially installed without benefit of approved Fencing Plan. 3. Lack of compliance with conditions of approval that tie in with occupancy. - 4. Lack of compliance with Zoning and General Plan, when lot lines were moved by approval of Minor Modification No. 1. Engineering Issues The City Engineer has identified a number of issues of concern. These issues include certain failures in plan preparation, construction without permits, and unresponsiveness to plan check corrections and field corrections. The attached memorandum from the City Engineer outlines in detail the issues of concern (Attachment 1). BKH:jf Attachment: Memorandum from City Engineer Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Moorpark MEMORANDUM Date: July 12, 2002 To: Steve Kueny From: Walter Brown, City Engineer Subject: Tract 4928, Toll Brothers - Problems In response to your query today, regarding problems with the project, I have reviewed meeting minutes, interviewed my staff, reviewed my journal and searched my memory. The consensus is that the project is troublesome. There is no confidence level that, what is supposed to happen will happen, without an extraordinary level of diligence on our part. Toll Brothers and their contractors have a consistent track record of: arguing over the meaning of the conditions of approval for the project; performing design work in contravention of the conditions of approval; installing improvements that are not "as shown" on the approved plans; and, committing to courses of action and reneging on their commitments at a later date. Some specific examples are listed below. A. PLAN PREPARATION 1. Insistent refusal to design in accordance with the conditions of approval. Examples are: a. Unmodified conditions required that two (2) lanes be kept free of stormwater inundation during the design storm. The developer and its engineer refused to prepare plans to show the number of drain inlets and extent of the storm drain system to meet the condition of approval. The developer sought approval of a modification of the condition that would reduce the number of open lanes to one (1). The developer's engineer then pressed for a design that fell short of the new and reduced requirement. b. Walnut Canyon Road lane widths are specified in the conditions of approval. The developer has not \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1999 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 3 moved from a position that the lane widths should be narrower than the ones clearly specified in the conditions of approval. 2. Failure to address plan review comments. 3. Reformatting (new sheet cuts) of plans between subsequent plan reviews. This resulted in poor quality control by Hunsaker Engineering and the need to plan review each submittal as though it were a first review. 4. Consistent insistence by the developer's engineer that Moorpark should allow the use of Orange County Design Standards (rather than Ventura County or City of Moorpark Standards). Preparation of revisions to the project plans that contained unannotated changes. The industry practice in plan revisions is to mark them with red pencil and surround them with a red "cloud." The developer's engineer prepared revisions marked with red pencil, while also adding changes to the plans that were blue printed onto the plan sheet, without red marking or "clouds." My comments to the engineer were, "Failing to designate changes in the plans as revisions is, in the most generous take, a serious mistake. Submission of undesignated changes for the purpose of changing the public record to gain an approval without review is unethical." This particular issue surfaced again. A letter was sent to Mr. Richard Hunsaker, the owner of Hunsaker Engineering, on June 28, 2002. The text of the letter explains the problem as follows: "Subject: Revisions to Approved Plans (Change Orders) Dear Mr. Hunsaker: On numerous occasions we have informed you of the importance of protecting the public records, particularly in the process of making revisions to approved drawings in the Change Order process. In times prior to the use of computers for the drafting of improvement plans, all revisions to approved drawings were done entirely on the original, signed mylars by hand drafting. The mylars were only released to the Engineer of Record under the strictest of situations and then duplicate mylars were held as verification of the originals, so they could be compared to the \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R 2 D \1994 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 4 final revisions. Currently, a great number of engineering companies, as with yours, complete the drafting on computers by use of Computer Aided Drawing (CAD) and when the final design is completed, the drawings are plotted on mylars and are signed as originals. The result being, that revisions to approved drawings can be done more efficiently, since the "original" drawings are now in a CAD file. The problems arise, since CAD files can be easily revised in areas that are not easily detected and the underlying goal of this agency is to protect the original signed drawing since it exists as a legal document. Before we began accepting change orders from you, we explained the process and the expectations and reservations we had with keeping the original drawings intact. We would have preferred for you to make all approved revisions by means of hand drafting on the original approved mylars, as has been done for many years. But due to the fact that you anticipated not only numerous revisions to the approved drawings, but also extensive ones and the fact that you had developed the drawings in CAD, we have proceeded with making use of CAD drawing revisions over a "base" of a scanned original for plan check purposes. When the plan revisions reached a status of "ready for approval ", you submitted a replacement mylar for that original drawing. This was given final review confirming only the approved changes were revised on the original approved drawing. This new mylar was then resigned by the City Engineer and this replaced the "original" mylar. Both the original and the replacement are being kept for record. In the past, we have met with you and your engineers on numerous occasions to discuss our concerns that this was not being attained by your submittals. This was formalized in a letter to you dated January 22, 2002. Currently, in the review and plan checking process of your submitted Change Orders, we have again noted that you are making unauthorized or unidentified changes to the originals. You assured us on January 23, 2002, that you would police your submittals and assured us this would no longer occur. We do not have the resources to spend countless hours to quality control your drawings. Case in point is sheet number 17 of 61of the Tr. 4928 grading plan. This sheet shows a number of notes and numbers that have been omitted from the scanned approved "original ". In addition, it shows an attempt to revise the top of slope locations of lots 1 and 2. The original approved grading plan shows those lot lines at the top of slopes and evidently the grading on the site was not in conformance \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 5 with those approved plans. We feel there may be more locations where the scan of the original has been electronically altered. Therefore, We are returning all the unapproved change order submittals until you can assure us that all the submittals are in conformance with our requirements. If you do not feel that you can have the level of quality control necessary to accomplish this, we will need to revert back the hand drafting of the "original" mylars. Please make arrangements for picking up your submittals at your earliest convenience. I have attached a copy of the letter of January 22, 2002, for your review. Please revisit the minimum requirements as discussed therein." B. UNATHORIZED WORK 1. The developer authorized construction of approximately 500 feet of dual, 48 -inch diameter concrete cast in place pipe (CIPP) without plans, inspection or concept approval and in direct contravention of specific direction from me. Drawing 00- ML- 10618, approved on 10/31/00, shows a 90 -inch diameter, corrugated metal pipe (CMP) to be constructed, per separate plans, under the driving range. Hunsaker Engineering had not (and has not) provided satisfactory concept plans, construction plans or hydrologic or hydraulic calculations to support the installation of the 90- inch pipe. Additionally, the use of CMP requires soil testing to show that the soil properties will not cause accelerated corrosion of the pipe. Several weeks before the installation of the CIPP, I noted large diameter CMP stored on the site. Because of its large size and because no soil testing results for CMP had been provided for review, I asked Craig Messi and Harvey Fincher about the pipe. When they told me that the pipe was planned to be installed under the driving range, I pointed out that no plans had been approved for that installation and that before I would approve the use of CMP, that they would need to provide laboratory test results that showed that the CMP would have a satisfactory service life. I inquired weekly about the status of the soil test. After a few weeks, Craig Messi told me that they would not be using CMP because the test results were not satisfactory. At \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1999 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 6 that time, I reiterated my earlier instructions that no improvements were to be installed without approved plans. I also reminded them that, although we are not requiring the review and approval of small drain lines (12 -inch diameter and smaller) in the golf course, that significant drainage facilities must be reviewed and approved. Approximately two (2) to three (3) weeks later (exact time is uncertain because the site of the dual 48 -inch CIPP was not an active construction area at that time), Toll Brothers had the dual 49 -inch CIPP installed without approved plans and without calling for inspection. The developer has been directed, in writing, to remove the dual 48 -inch CIPP. 2. On November 16, 2001, Chaparral Construction, under the direction of Harvey Fincher, Toll Brothers off - site superintendent, began the installation of curbs and gutters. In this case the developer had not called for inspection nor had the developer's soils consultant had the time to perform soil compaction testing on all of the areas to be paved. The curb and gutter was to be poured on areas where the contractor had graded, immediately before the pour. Some of the areas had been too low before grading and loose soil had been spread in those locations. In the face of a great deal of argument from Mr. Fincher, the contractor's operation was stopped, measurements of the line and grade of the curb taken and soil compaction tests made. 3. On March 26, 2002, the developer ordered the installation of the southerly median curb on Championship Drive, by Chaparral Construction, immediately east of Grimes Canyon Road. The curb was apparently installed late in the afternoon, after our inspector had inspected the construction of curb and gutter on the south side of Championship Drive and left the project. At that time there were no preparations underway or any indication of the developer's intent to pour the median curb. Our inspector was not told that the curb was to be installed and did not have an opportunity to confirm the soil conditions under the curb. The developer was give written direction to remove the median curb. \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1999 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 7 4. On April 22, 2002, I flew over the Toll Brothers site on my flight home. I saw an encroachment into the Gabbert Wash, south of the most southerly golf cart bridge. I visited the site on April 23, 2002, and inspected the encroachment at close range. The encroachment consisted of a tractor and light vehicle crossing of Gabbert Wash. The vehicles had knocked the sit fence down and collapsed a portion of the vertical bank of the wash and pushed soil into the wash. I had been at the site on April 17, 2002. The encroachment did not exist at that time. Upon review of the California DFG permits for the project, including the golf course bridges, I am satisfied that the encroachment was not permitted. I discussed this issue with Craig Messi during a special meeting, after our weekly meeting. Craig, Jim Boyd, Key Turf's superintendent, Norm Peck, of our office and others attended the meeting. In that meeting, Key Turf's superintendent accepted immediate responsibility and pledged his commitment to repair the damage. Key Turf's superintendent was the individual who directly authorized the garbage pit at the southerly line of the project, which has since been emptied, and backfilled. 5. The extent of allowable encroachment into Walnut Canyon Wash has been a debated issue between Toll Brothers and ourselves for the past several months. Toll has discovered that it will be difficult to retain the easterly banks of Walnut Canyon Wash and wants to extend their grading into the bottom of the wash. My review of the California DFG permit, convinces me that the proposed grading is not permitted. Craig Messi argues that his environmental specialist assures him that the encroachment was contemplated when the permit was issued. My response has been, that although there may have been discussion of additional encroachment, it did not get into the permit. Without the appropriate permit, we are not prepared to issue a permit or otherwise inspect or approve grading in a streambed. Yesterday, we discovered a D -9 Caterpillar dozer grading in the wash. The fencing required to delineate the protected area had been removed. I directed both the foreman with the excavation company, Ebenstiner Company, and with Harvey Fincher, Toll Brothers off -site \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1999 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 8 superintendent, to cease all operations on or adjacent to the protected areas until the fencing was restored. This morning it was clear that additional grading had been done adjacent to, and perhaps on, the protected areas. Because the fencing marked the protected area, we will not be certain until the location is resurveyed. 6. On July 2, 2002, Toll Brothers informed us that they had directed their paving contractor, Chaparral Construction, to pave Championship Drive from the then existing easterly terminus of pavement to the westerly right -of -way line of Walnut Canyon Road, a distance of approximately 1050 feet. During the paving operation, and while the inspector was at a different location, Chaparral Construction, at the direction of Toll Brothers, continued the pavement from the westerly right -of -way line of Walnut Canyon Road (SR -23) to the westerly edge of pavement of SR -23. The pavement, placed on native soil, has already failed structurally. Toll Brothers had previously been directed by me, to not perform any construction within the right -of -way of Walnut Canyon Road, a State highway, without the required encroachment permit from Caltrans and plans approved by the City. In response to my question as to why the pavement had been placed, Craig Messi of Toll Brothers, assured me that the only reason for the pavement was to keep the dust down. This rings hollow in light of the overly thick layer of asphalt for mere dust cover and because of his continuing failure to comply with our direction to control dust on the site by application of a dust pallitive. C. NON- COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES REQUIREMENTS 1. The developer has constructed and maintained fairly good, Best Management Practices (BMP) facilities, on the portions of the project site that are easily accessible. Areas that are more difficult to access have no BMPs or BMPs that have been acceptably maintained. The inadequacies in providing BMPs were not corrected until forcefully pointed out by my staff and me. The developer's staff and consultants have argued and taken actions that range fro,m denial that the project is subject to the provisions of the Clean \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev — doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 9 Water Act, to willing conformance to the NPDES permit requirements. 2. Specific examples of missing or poorly maintained BMPs that were not corrected until our staff and I threatened enforcement action include: a. Silt fencing along the interior wash was covered, pushed over and removed. Permanently graded slopes have not been permanently planted within thirty (30) days, as required by the conditions of approval. In a letter to Craig Messi, dated August 31, 2001, I wrote, "As I reminded you during our conversation, I have surfaced the issue of erosion control at each weekly meeting that I have attended. I have consistently reminded your firm that the conditions of approval for Tract 4928 require erosion control planting on any slope to be initiated within thirty (30) days of completion of that slope. I have repeatedly received Toll Brothers, Incorporated's assurances that the permanent planting plans were in review and expected to be approved within a short period and that permanent landscaping of the entire site would be completed on a crash basis, as soon as the landscaping plans were approved. After several such assurances, my response was that because permanent landscaping has not been installed, the site should be protected with temporary planting and other best management practices (BMP) . Your firm's NPDES compliance during the winter of 2000 -01 was less than satisfactory."'.... and further, "During site inspections of the project on the 28th and 29th of this month I observed a great deal of landscape grading, installation of irrigation systems and planting on the golf course. I also observed some progress in the installation of temporary water lines that may be useful in irrigating the site. I saw only a token effort of slope erosion control measures, consisting of repair and weeding, on any other slopes on the project. In fact, the non -golf course slopes, where work was being performed, were slopes immediately above the golf course. It is clear to me that selection of the non -golf course slopes being worked on was based on the priority of protecting the golf course. While I understand the desire to build and protect the golf course, the continued lack of your firm's good faith efforts to conform to the conditions of approval of the discretionary approvals and the grading permit for the project is not acceptable. ", the letter concluded, "I regret to have the need to remind Toll Brothers, Incorporated that failure to provide effective best management practices on the project will constitute default of the subdivision agreement and of the \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R 2 D \1999 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 10 grading permit and constitute violation of the Ventura County Municipal Storm Water, NPDES Permit. Given the firm's past performance on this project, the current level of effort and the priorities selected by Toll Brothers, Incorporated I am highly doubtful that your firm can achieve the required BMP measures. You will note that copies of this letter have been directed to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Ventura County Flood Control District and to The Continental Insurance Company; the bonding company for the project. By this letter, I am seeking the assistance of each of these organizations in convincing Toll Brothers, Incorporated that it must fulfill the requirements of the grading permit which incorporates the requirements of NPDES Permit No. CAS004002, the Ventura County Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit." b. During the winters of 2000 -01, the developer discharged silt laden water onto the property of Mr. Dennis Swinburn, at 6685 Aspen Hills Drive. The discharge was due to a failure in the developer's design provisions, along the southerly border of the project. Although the developer took remedial action, the repairs were temporary and did not completely solve the situation, even in a temporary sense. The developer's engineer has prepared plans to provide permanent remedial action. The developer's delay in commissioning the plans and the time taken to prepare the plans has been excessive. The issue has been the subject of nearly weekly discussion with the developer. Action, albeit very slow action, has occurred only under threat of "stop work" notices. As of July 3, 2002, the repair and remediation work on Mr. Swinburn's property had still not been started. 3. A blatant violation of NPDES regulations occurred when Harvey Fincher, Toll Brothers off -site superintendent, began pumping silt laden water from the detention basin located to the northwest and discharging it into the wash within the project. This violation was not accidental, a mistake or the result of an oversight. It was a calculated and planned violation of the law. 4. An ongoing NPDES violation has been the developer's failure to maintain control of dust. Although the developer does direct that work roads be wetted, when \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 11 the issue is brought to its attention, it has not formulated an effective program to control dust from graded portions of the site that have not been planted or covered with erosion control matting. This issue has been repeatedly raised in weekly meetings with the developer. D. FAILURE TO MEET THE TIME CONSTRAINTS OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. In addition to the issues listed above, the developer has failed to perform various other tasks within the time constraints required by the conditions of approval. Some of them are: a. The developer has declined to fence the site, even though this is required by the conditions of approval, and being directed to do so over a year ago. I have not pressed this issue until recently, when it became apparent that off -road vehicles drivers were using the site for a recreational area. b. The conditions of approval require the developer to complete improvements to Championship Drive and its intersections with Grimes Canyon Road and Walnut Canyon Road, before issuance of the first permit of occupancy. Although the models have been completed to the stage where they may be used for sales purposes, we have not issued nor have we required a certificate of occupancy for what are arguably buildings used for commercial purposes. This item is an example of the City of Moorpark operating in consistency and good faith to smooth the land development process. Given the present status of intersection improvement plans and construction of Championship Drive, it appears inevitable that the developer will have houses completed and otherwise ready for occupancy before the completion of all of the circulation elements. The July 3, 2002, paving of the portion of the connection of Championship Drive to Walnut Canyon Drive (SR -23), appears to be an effort to circumvent the Caltrans denial of an encroachment permit to perform work within the SR -23 right -of -way. Caltrans has refused to \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1999 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 12 grant an encroachment permit to Toll Brothers because of their failure to address the location of Championship Drive versus the driveway that serves the D. Wayne Jones property on the east side of SR -23. This issue has been raised to Toll Brothers by city staff for more than a year. Their response to the issue has heretofore been dismissive, with comments indicating that they would be able to make the problem go away. The present attitude seems to be that they will succeed in appealing the denial of permits. They appear to have no fall -back position. Recent comments lead me to conclude that Toll Brothers plans to use the substandard paving, at the road connection, as leverage to enlist the homeowner's aid in petitioning the City Council to approve occupancy of the homes without the traffic circulation system in place, that will provide for the public's safety. D. FAILURE TO MEET MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS REQUIREMENTS 1. During the last two (2) months, the developer brought large quantities of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) onto the project site that was defective. Out of the RCP brought onto the site during this period, in excess of ninety (90) percent was rejected. Upon rejection, the developer was directed to remove the defective RCP from the project. The developer procrastinated removal, until issued an ultimatum. 2. On numerous occasions, the developer's contractors were discovered backfilling trenches in layers, whose thickness far exceed the criteria in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (the "Greenbook "). The contractors have been required to remove excess material and compact the trenches to the specified compaction. 3. The developer has frequently demanded that our inspector be onsite on a regular basis. Although the concept has merit, it results in an inspector visiting the site when there is no work requiring inspection. We have pointed out to the developer that Section 2 -11 of the Greenbook requires the contractor to call for \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R 2 D \1999 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 13 inspections before noon of the day, preceding the day of the requested inspection. On several occasions, when caught covering work without inspection, the developer's off -site superintendent claimed he, or the contractor, had called for an inspection. Extensive polling of office and field staff revealed no such calls. We have suggested to the off -site superintendent, that if he would fax the requests to us, we would respond with a confirming fax to give him the assurance that we acknowledged the request (and not unimportantly to remove the excuse from his repertory). E. ILLEGAL WORK On March 12, 2002, I discovered a large pit measuring approximately 15 -feet wide, 30 -feet long and 15 -feet deep near the southerly boundary of the project, on a line extending approximately south of the golf clubhouse. The pit had been dug through rocky material. The material presented a difficulty in excavation that would demand a large, tracked, excavator on the order of a Caterpillar 235 or 330, similar to excavators on Toll Brothers project. The dirt road to the pit had sufficient traffic from the Toll Brothers site, that the surface was loose and powdered. I checked a dirt road that came to the site from the south. There had been very little traffic on that road. The pit contained grass cuttings, fertilizer bags, pesticide containers and construction rubble. The materials in the pit were consistent with materials used in the construction and maintenance of Toll Brothers golf course. This garbage pit had been neither reviewed nor permitted by the City. When confronted with the issue, Harvey Fincher, Toll Brothers off -site superintendent, did not seem surprised but was quick to say that the matter would be taken care of. I directed Mr. Fincher, both verbally and in writing, that the pit was to be completely emptied and the removed trash was to be hauled to a proper landfill, or if the materials were toxic, to a disposal site that is licensed to accept the toxic materials. I further directed him that upon completion of the cleanout, the pit was to be reviewed by Geolabs (Toll Brothers soils consultant) to confirm that no toxics remained and that no adverse geotechnical consequences would result from the pit excavation. Additionally, both verbally and in writing, I \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1994 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 14 directed Mr. Fincher to call for inspection when the pit was emptied and ready for backfill. \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \R P D \1999 -01 \Toll Violations Memo rev..doc '•r ..Y,r •' f • ..• •• (403N3H 1IY13Q .98' ! Z tg aa so w •to � rs • , � n • 5?�c�oy� 2 I� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ZC # 01 -401 CASE NO. TR 4928 ADDRESS Tract 4928 Lot # 1 SUBJECT single family house APPLICANT Toll Bros. OWNER "Toll Bros APPLIED 11/20/01 APPROVED 11/20/01 _01 -402 TR 492_8_ 4928 2 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 _01- _ _ TR 4928 _Tract _ Tract 4928 3 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 01 -404 _ TR 4928 Tract 4928 4 _ single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 _ 11/20/01 01 -405 TR 4928 11125 Lopez Ct. 5 _ single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 01 -406 TR 4928 11109 Lopez Ct _ 6 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 01 -441 TR 4928 11142 Lopez Ct. 7 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 12/06/01 12/06/01 01 -407 TR 4928 1115_8 Lopez Ct 8 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01_ 01 -408 TR 492 _8 pez Ct. 11142 Lo ______9 family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 01 -409 — TR 4928 11190 Lopez Ct. - __single 10 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 01 -41_0 TR 4928 11087 Vare Ct. 11 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01_' 01 -411 TR 4928 11050 Vare Ct. 13 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 01-412 TR 4928 11084 Vare Ct. 14 single family house Bros. _ Toll Bros 11/20/01 01 -413 TR 4928 11076 Vare ct. 15 single family house _Toll Toll Bros. Toll Bros _11/20/01 _1 1/20/01 —02 -405 TR 4928 11051 Mann Ct. _ 16 single family house Toll Bros Toll Bros _11/20/01 06/12/02 01 -442 TR 4928 6891 Hogan St. 21 single family house_ _ Toll Bros. Toll Bros 12/06/01 12/06/01 01 -443 498 TR 2 6895 Hogan _ St 23 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros_ 12/06/01 12/06/01_' 02 -114 _ — _ TR 4928 -- 6775 Trevino Dr. - — 25 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 02/15/02 02/20/02 01 -414 TR 4928 _ 6809 Trevino Dr._ 26 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 02 -061 TR 4928 6791 Trevino Dr. 27 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 01/16/02 01/16/02 02 -113 TR 4928 6743 Trevino Dr. 30 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 02/15/02 02/20/02 01 -415 01 -416 TR 4928 — — TR 4928 6742 Trevino Dr. - - - 6758 Trevino Dr. - 31 32 single family house single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros. Toll Bros Toll Bros 11/20/01 -- 11/20/01 11/20/01 11/20/01 01 -444 TR 4928 6774 Trevino Dr. 33 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 12/06/01 12/06/01 01 -417 TR 4928 6790 Trevino Dr. 34 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 02 -115 TR 4928 6808 Trevino Dr. 35 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 02/15/02_' 02/20/02 01 -418 TR 4928 6824 Trevino Dr. 36 single family house T Bros. 011 _ Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 01 -445 TR 4928 6842 Trevino Dr. 37 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 12/06/01 12/06/01 02-407 TR 4928 6858 Trevino Dr. 38 single family house Toll Bros Toll Bros 06/12/02 01 -419 TR 4928 11284 Jacobsen PL 50 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 01-420 TR 4928 _ 11283 Jacobsen PI. 51 single family house _ Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 _11/20/01_'' 11/20/01 02 -237 - TR 4928 11251 Jacobsen Pl. 52 _ single_family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 01/16/02 01/16/02_' 02 -200 TR 4928 6908 Hogan St. 77 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 03/13/02 04/26/02 02 -201 TR 4928 — 7032 Hogan St. 80 _ single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 03/13/02 04/26/02 02 -406 TR 4928 7012 Hogan St. 82 single family house Toll Bros Toll Bros 06/12/02 01 -447 TR 4928 6974 Hogan St_ 85 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 12/06/01 12/06/01 01 -446 TR 4928 6958 Hogan St. 86 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 12/06/01 12/06/01 01421_ TR 4928 6924 Hogan St. 88 single family house Toll Bros. Toll Bros 11/20/01 11/20/01 01 -422 01 -004 TR 4928 TR 4928 6908 Hogan St. LOTS 1 -4 89 single family house ,g, le (amf� y m.., odel Homes sin Toll Bros. Toll Bros. v Toll Bros Toll Bros 11/20/01 01/08/01 11/20/01 01/08/01 MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: The Honorable City Council imM 109c* ;_ .F '+ OORPARK, CA1,1FORMN t i;y f'nnnsil Nfeetinc 2-CXD2- Sta f -� ►�.on -, n, e, -�dGfi�� FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services DATE: July 2, 2002 (CC Meeting of July 17, 2002) SUBJECT: Consider AVCP Phase II Draft Construction Plan and Scope of Work SUMMARY The City Council is being asked to approve the draft construction plan (Attachment A) and scope of work for Arroyo Vista Community Park Phase II. Presented with the draft plan is a corresponding budget estimate that will identify the anticipated cost to construct and complete the scope of work for this portion of Phase II. The goal is to complete the work by June 1, 2003. BACKGROUND On September 6, 2000, the City Council approved the conceptual design for AVCP Phase II. In the undeveloped eastern portion of the Park, the approved design includes soccer fields, a restroom /concession /storage facility, a play lot, a large picnic area and pavilion, an undefined water feature, and parking lots. Within the developed portion of the Park the design incorporated an aquatics facility, a fourth softball field, relocation of soccer fields, a football practice field, bocci ball and shuffle board courts, and the completion of improved parking lots. Attachment A of this report identifies the approved plan. On October 3, 2001, the City Council authorized staff to secure the services of a project manager for the AVCP Phase II project. Additionally, the Council appropriated $6,000 toward the project budget for project management services. M: \MLindley \PARKS \Park Projects \AVCP Phase II \AVCP II draft design ccagd.doc Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 2 On November 7, 2001, the City Council approved an agreement with Community Works Design Group (the Architect that designed AVCP Phase I) to prepare construction plans and specifications for Phase II. The Council also appropriated an additional $31,000 toward the project for a total budget of $37,000. DISCUSSION Based on the initial conceptual plan approved in September 2000, budget constraints, and a general understanding of which amenities are in greatest demand, a draft construction plan has been developed. This draft plan does not include everything that was identified in the approved conceptual plan. However, it does include amenities most critical at this time and will provide for expanded park use. The objective is to construct the remaining amenities as time and budget permits. As discussed in the October 3, 2001, Agenda Report, the amenities in the final draft plan for AVCP Phase II include: a fourth softball field, which will require modifications to the adjacent unimproved parking lot; hydroseeding and irrigating approximately 11 acres for multi - purpose fields (primarily soccer) ; construction of a playground with equipment; installation of a large picnic pavilion; grading of a new parking lot east of the football field; minimal hardscape improvements (concrete walkways) ; minimal security lighting; and miscellaneous site furniture such as picnic tables and trashcans. Not included in the plan is the restroom /storage /concession facility that is currently under construction; the aquatic facility, which the Council previously postponed for consideration in FY 2003/04; and the water feature and small parking lot identified at the east end of the park. Additionally, the draft plan proposes leaving the football practice field in its present location, rather than moving it to the east of the football game field as shown on the approved conceptual plan. Additionally, the plan proposes the installation of electrical conduit at the fourth softball field that will accommodate lights for the softball field, as well as the potential for lights for an adjacent multi - purpose field (soccer). Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 3 Prior to completing the draft plan being presented to the City Council, staff met with representatives of the youth sports organizations that would be impacted by, and benefit from, the completion of AVCP Phase II (AYSO, Girls Softball, and Packer Football); although, Packer Football was unable to attend. The meeting provided the organizations with an opportunity to provide comments on the proposed design. The represented organizations identified the need for electrical outlets, future lighted sports fields, water hose bibs, and storage. They also provided input on the layout and placement of the future sports fields. Those comments were then incorporated into the final draft. In addition to the aforementioned improvements, staff is proposing that the existing above ground electrical utility line be underground. The line serves the irrigation water wells, the football practice field lights, and the new restroom facility. It originates on the north side of the Arroyo Simi and runs approximately 900 feet into the park. The estimated cost to underground the line to a point just south of the paved access road, based on discussions with Edison, is $120,000. This includes a new electrical transformer. Edison is not able to provide a firm cost at this time. They indicated that they would need to perform preliminary engineering work first, which would cost the City $2,000. If the City elected to proceed with the under - grounding work, the $2,000 would be applied to the total project cost. The total estimated cost of the plan improvements being presented to the City Council is $1.5 million, including the electrical under - grounding. A project budget has been attached to this Agenda Report (Attachment B). Undergrounding the overhead electrical lines at the east end of the park has been a long- standing goal. The proposed work in Phase II offers the City the most efficient opportunity to perform the work. The under - grounding work will never be less expensive, and performing the work with Phase II will be significantly less disruptive. Honorable City Council July 17, 2002 Page 4 With the City Council's approval of the draft plan, including the electrical under - grounding, staff will direct the landscape architect to proceed with construction drawings and specifications. This will allow us to prepare project plans and specifications, and proceed with the construction bid process. STAFF RECODMNDATION Approve the draft plan and scope of work as presented in the Agenda Report, including under - grounding of the electrical utility power line. �Vti Lrs/5 ARROYO VISTA COMMUNITY PARK - DRAFT PLAN ATTACHMENT A PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN ARROYO VISTA PARK CITY OF MOORPARK 0 0' e�anro so ca \ — D Q hew mno® ORA E ^S R4U as 0 FHD EXBTNO PR4CTlCE .. RELD O 0 F001HA11 R30 !r O_ EXIWM$0CCBIFF3D CavcnoTFRAMC FPED ^QOOOQOOO � �`✓i/O� 8lC(VAGiE CCNTAlBt i \o — TAABi' .: PARIMAWA �.: _ A JOOOOOO© � ! 9foAAOE OCW(Af6+AlEA ©�p O� -• / — COV9ED P" - 0 - EX6Tpq GALE) 8Y B_TEfl Afl61 CPBI A/EA P(AY - O I FCQiBALL i ' 'tPBd PXXYC AFEA1 EXBM3 BI CP PR'l/C A/EA BASEBALL _ O O � � \ T07 PLAY AIEA ` FAD V O .. \\` rj CHLDPLAYAW -A l - - © !EXOMM90CCBVRE D .... v . 7 r , J PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN ARROYO VISTA PARK CITY OF MOORPARK AVCP Phase II Draft Plan Page 5 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT PROJECT BUDGET AVCP PHASE II AVCP PHASE II DRAFT PROJECT BUDGET Landscape Architect $ 35,000 Project Manager $ 15,000 Construction $1,200,000 Permits and Fees $ 10,000 Electrical Undergrounding $ 120,000 Contingency (9a) $ 120,000 Total $1,500,000 f- , reA A DRAFT CONSTRUCTION BUDGET ATTACHMENT B COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN GROUP Pagel PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE DATE: 06/18/02 ESTIMATE BY: KAY KITE PROJECT: ARROYO VISTA PARK PROJECT # 011154 UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST COST DEMOLITION AND CLEARING 1158 C.Y. $30.00 $34,740 CLEAR AND GRUB 246771 S.F. $0.15 $37,016 EARTHWORK 1 L.S. $17,000.00 $17,000 CONSTRUCTION 3770 S.F. $5.50 $20,735 PLAY GROUND PLAY EQUIPMENT 1 L.S. $80,000.00 $80,000 RUBBER MATTING 2780 S.F. $15.00 $41,700 3" CONCRETE BASE 2780 S.F. $2.50 $6,950 BASEBALUSOFTBALL FIELD BACKSTOP 1 EACH $8,000.00 $8,000 BASES (SET OF 3) 1 EACH $350.00 $350 BAT RACK 2 EACH $200.00 $400 BRICKDUST 141 C.Y. $8.00 $1,128 DUGOUT FENCE (6') 96 L.F. $18.50 $1,776 HOMEPLATE 1 EACH $150.00 $150 PITCHING RUBBER 1 EACH $155.00 $155 PLAYERS BENCH- 15' 2 EACH $800.00 $1,600 SIDELINE FENCE (8') 180 L.F. $23.00 $4,140 ALUMINUM BLEACHERS 80 L.F. $75.00 $6,000 SITE FEATURES BBQ GRILL 5 EACH $350.00 $1,750 BENCH W /BACK - METAL (6') 2 EACH $725.00 $1,450 DRINKING FOUNTAIN 2 EACH $2,500.00 $5,000 DRINKING FOUNTAIN SUMP 2 EACH $750.00 $1,500 PICNIC TABLE - 6' (H.C. ACCESS) 42 EACH $950.00 $39,900 TRASH RECEPTACLE 15 EACH $700.00 $10,500 TRASH ENCLOSURE & GATES 1 EACH $20,000.00 $20,000 TREE GRATE (4') -CONC W /GALV FRAME 13 EACH $800.00 $10,400 TREE WELL 13 EACH $150.00 $1,950 PICNIC SHELTER W /BLOCK POST 1 EACH $75,000.00 $75,000 WALLS /FENCES 6' BLOCK WALL 220 L.F. $90.00 $19,800 WOOD RAIL FENCE 2838 L.F. $15.00 $42,570 HARDSCAPE AGGREGATE PARKING - 4" 1158 C.Y. $30.00 $34,740 CONCRETE PAVING - 4" 23631 S.F. $3.75 $88,616 6" CONCRETE CURB 800 L.F. $15.00 $12,000 CONCRETE PAVING - 6" 3770 S.F. $5.50 $20,735 DATE: 06/18/02 PROJECT: ARROYO VISTA PARK PROJECT # 011154 ESTIMATE BY: KAY KITE Page:2 UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST COST LANDSCAPING SOIL PREP /FINE GRADING WEED ABATEMENT 90 DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD GROUNDCOVER (12" O.C.) SHRUBS (1 GAL) SHRUBS (5 GAL) TREES (36" BOX) TREES (24" BOX) TREES (15 GAL.) TURF HYDROSEED IRRIGATION/ WATER/ SEWER AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM LARGE AREAS SMALL AREAS CONTROLLER LIGHTING/ ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR & MISC. ITEMS PARKING LOT LIGHTS SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING MISCELLANEOUS H.C. SIGN STRIPING - SINGLE LINE STALLS STRIPING (H.C.)- EMBLEM & SIGN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES * *' SUBTOTAL * *' 10.00% CONTINGENCY 229350 S.F. $0.25 $57,338 229350 S.F. $0.05 $11,468 229350 S.F. $0.06 $13,761 348 S.F. $0.35 $122 60 EACH $7.00 $420 40 EACH $15.00 $600 21 EACH $600.00 $12,600 42 EACH $250.00 $10,500 128 EACH $85.00 $10,880 229002 S.F. $0.10 $22,900 222792 S.F. $0.75 $167,094 6558 S.F. $1.50 $9,837 2 EACH $5,000.00 $10,000 1 ALLOW $15,000.00 $15,000 10 EACH $2,500.00 $25,000 1 L.S. $25,000.00 $25,000 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000 8 EACH $150.00 $1,200 8 EACH $20.00 $160 8 EACH $200.00 $1,600 1 L.S. $100,000.00 $100,000 $1,097,755 $109,775 * *' GRAND TOTAL $1,207,530