Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0621 CC REG ITEM 11GMOORPARK ITEM -. ELOISE BROWN Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tam CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Councilmemlow PAUL LAWRASON Councilmember 1COTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer TO: FROM: DATE: M E M O R A N D U M STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chef of Police The Honorable City Council Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development June 14, 1989 (CC Meeting of 6-21-89) SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (GPA-89-1/ZC-89-1) Backgrginu At the Council's May 17, 1989, meeting, staff was directed to contact all of the current applicants for the General Plan update to obtain .payment of the revised fair -share costs. The eleven applicants were given until .June 2, 1989, to deposit the additional funds. The additional money has been received from ten applicants. As identified on the attached letter, Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Gisler have decided to withdraw their application, because the revised fair -share cost (totaling $20,274.86) was not financially feasible for them at this time. Staff will be processing a refund of the Gisler's original deposit of $7,382.46 minus a deduction for staff time ($130). Discussion General Plan Update Costs: The total estimated General Plan Update costs including the P➢R contract and City staff costs is estimated to be $234,272.93. A total of $213,998.07 has been deposited by the ten current applicants. The latest estimate from PER (dated June 6) identifies that PBR's total cost for the General Plan Update would be $143,500.00. Subtracting $143,.500.00 from the money already on deposit ($213,998.07) would leave $70,498.07 available for staff costa. Since staff had originally identified to the Council that an added 50 percent should be provided for City Staff time plus administrative costs, and the $70,498.07 represents 49.1.3 percent, the current amount on deposit is considered adequate to initiate the General Plan Update process. Staff will monitor the amount of staff time spent on the update, and the applicants will be required to submit additional funds if the $70,498.07 is not adequate to pay staff costs. Staff mould recommend that additional funds be requested from the applicants when 80 percent of the $70,498.07 amount has been expended. 99 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 6296864 Page 2 June 14, 1989 On June S. 1989, the Council's Community Development Committee met with Ken Ryan of PBR to discuss why the cost only decreased slightly when the number of participants went down so much. PBR explained that a majority of the work still needed to be done even though a large number of applicants had dropped out. The Committee suggested contacting the runner-up consultant firm to see if they were interested in considering a decrease in their cost proposal inasmuch as the scope of work had changed. Staff contacted the firm of Cotton/Beland Associates. This firm identified that they were still interested and they would be willing to give the City a revised budget. Their only concern was the fact that they are unavailable until September of this year to start work. Their revised budget is $163,600 including the traffic model. While staff is recommending initiation of the contract with PBR using the funds already deposited by the ten applicants, there are several other options available to the Council which are identified below. 1. Terminate all general plan processing at this time and refund all monies deposited less staff costs spent on processing as of June 21, 1989. 2. Reject PBR's contract proposal and revised budget and direct staff to go back out for proposals. 3. Accept applicants' money and hire additional staff to accomplish the work in-house with the exception of the traffic model. 4. Accept PBR's contract and revised budget and direct staff to contact the current ten applicants to obtain additional funds to cover the $20,274.86 deficit prior to initiating the contract with PBR Application Revisions At the Council's May 17, 1989 meeting, staff was authorized to request specific location maps and acreages from the applicants for all requested land use designations. In addition, staff was directed to inform all applicants that the General Plan Update would analyze only the original requests of the applicants (as approved by the Council), upon which the PBR proposal was based, unless the revised proposal represented a decrease in development potential for the property. At that May 17 meeting, the Council did authorize a change to the Levy and Guny proposals, because the applicants had submitted revised land use proposals which would result in less overall site development (i.e., less trips). Staff has subsequently received requests from Moorpark Ranch and Milling and the Moorpark Unified School District for revisions to their original land use proposal. The requested changes are identified on the following page. Page 3 June 14, 1989 1. Moorpark Ranch and Milling: Staff has also received a request from Moorpark Ranch and Milling, Inc., to slightly modify their original land use request (letter attached). They are now proposing to change the configuration of the land uses on their property. The overall area for each of the land uses would not change. In other words, they would still have 17.19 acres of High Density Residential, 9.47 acres of Very High Residential, and 8.74 acres of General Commercial land uses; however, the location of these uses on their property may change. Staff confirmed with Mr. Nielsen of Moorpark Reach and Milling by telephone, today, that they will drop out of the process if they are not allowed to reconfigure their land use proposal as discussed. Staff does not see a problem with this proposal. 2. Moorpark Unified School District: In response to our request for a specific location map and acreages for the District's General Plan amendment application, Sege Institute, Inc., has submitted five different land use alternatives (letter attached). Staff recommends that these alternatives be rejected, because they are not consistent with the original land use concept the Council approved for consideration in the General Plan Update (which was for High Density Residential, Recreation/Park, and General Commercial land uses). Even the total acreage amount has been changed from 21.26 acres to 26.1 acres. To be consistent with the position that the City has taken with all of the other applicants, the City should not accept an alternative land use concept from the District, unless it represents a decrease in development potential for the property and would result in fewer trips. Staff has informed other applicants that they could submit revised land use proposals to the General Plan Update consultant (as in the case of Levy and Gary), if such a request involved a less intense development impact. The PBR proposal states that they will analyze two alternative land use concepts for each of the amendment requests, to include: an analysis of what the impacts and affects would be if the land use designation were to change to one General Plan land use designation higher than the current designation, and one General Plan land use designation lower than what has been requested. This is all the City can expect, unless the scope of work is amended. Changing the scope of work at this time is not recommended. Staff will send a letter to Sage Institute, Inc., which identifies why the submitted land use concepts are not acceptable, as discussed above. Reco®endat [an 1. That the City Council Initiate the PBR contract and direct staff to contact all remaining applicants to obtain additional funding for staff costs when 80 percent of the funds set aside for staff time and administrative costs have been expended. 2. That the City Council authorize staff to automatically seek additional funds from the remaining applicants should further withdrawals occur in the General Plan Update process. Page 4 June 14, 1989 Attachments: 1. Letter from Brian Kelly dated 5-31-89 2. Revised PBR proposal dated 6-6-89 3. Letter 4. Letter from from Sage Institute, Inc., dated 6-8-89 Moorpark Ranch and Milling dated 6-1-89 5. Draft PBR Contract PJR/DST MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Cpwmil Mestin9 LAW OFFICES or HANCOCK. ROTHERT 6, BUNSHOFT ` rouR EMBARCAOEPO CENTER IRAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 04I11-M166 C SGr T ELEPNpNE 14151 9613350 SPART"OIo LION eOx TELEX 970309 RKHMDpS[ DOLT FORRESPATRICKTA. iELECORv NI31933-239D CATHCMr cC OWING RAS x OILLISS PATRICIA SMDLER SCKIMBOR Ir R MATTHEWS OWI`D L. amDENOORT OSCA a ao.NIOENEMAM May 31, 1989 RuLE.R000HLuxO LAURNINWHENA IOBERT D. HEaoxm.EOx PETEIPJWHALEM ERxLT� emn�JRLINDA .TOMASIA A. COX. ANDREW xQGORDON MAUREEN CARDEN •o c PERAINo wrE ROBEroDr cull wETT C..n.'".. eENITEz NN9. CACOTT JOHN C FAOAx DANIELLE MOOESTCPEzzIM WILLIAM .BARON BOxN E L.O NIEII SUSAN ARDISSOM AN PMILOD.W$TTE NANCY L. OMRETSON Moorpark City Council 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 5 �a LOW 1. OHN P. AASSCOUNSCL To THE FIRM JOHN HANCOCK (I•II 1968) WL u•iROBS WALLACE e9e.I9)il WILI(a-Pa. 14.ae6) ONOON OFFICC HE MOUSE I:)I. MtTM9 STREET, FOURTH FLOOR LONDON EC3A SAY, ENGLAND TELEPHONE 04 22ew567 TELEX 016849 TELECORT 01 0.7e09 THEANE TAHOE OFFICE L1o1ITHOu3EWENTNCRR ego NORTH AM • 9 SUITE In P. O. BOX 7199 TAHOE CITY, CALIFORNIA 95130-7100 TELEPHONE (9161 583 7767 TELEX .9neeze TELECOPY (9161 SOP-3215 FEDERAL EXPRESS Attention: Mr. Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development PF - Re: Update to the Land Use and Circulation RECEIVED Elements of the City of Moorpark JUN 0 2 1989 General Plan Update Accessors Parcel No. 511-08-0635 CITY OF MOORPARK 635 Los Angeles Avenue Dear Mr. Richards and Honorable City Council Members: On behalf of my grandparents, Mr, and Mrs. Charles J. Gisler, I am writing to inform you that their application for entitlement to general plan amendment and zone change is hereby withdrawn. As you know, my grandparents are pioneer citizens of Moorpark, having resided in Moorpark for 64 years and at their present residence since 1929. My grandparents were motivated to apply for a zone change so that their property could eventually be developed consistent with the property's commercial location. However, the city council's decision, as stated in your May 19 letter to my grandparents (which they did not receive until May 26), to revise their fair share cost to $12,892.40 is not financially possible. It is unfortunate that the formula for allocation selected by the city council has led to several applicants withdrawing from consideration. However, as a result, my grandparents are left with no choice but to withdraw their application and to request the City of Moorpark to refund their March 29, 1989 deposit of $7,382.46. HANCOCK. ROTHERT 5 SUN5HOFT May 31, 19E9 Page 2 My grandparents strongly believe that the location of their property is ideally suited for development consistent with a C-2 General Commercial zoning. In fact, under the 1972-74 General Plan, the property was designated as Commercial. This zoning will allow the property to be utilized in a manner consistent with other parcels contiguous to Los Angeles Avenue and consistent with a uniform and more centralized commercial development scheme. In order to provide for the uniform and appropriate development of the City of Moorpark, all property, including my grandparents', should be evaluated consistent with this goal. Please keep me advised, on my grandparents' behalf, of all City Council activity in connection with this project so that my grandparents, as long standing and distinguished residents of Moorpark, can assure that their interests and concerns are presented to the members of the City Council. I appreciate your attention to this matter and if you have any questions or comments concerning my grandparents' withdrawal, I would appreciate it if you would direct any inquiries to me_ Very truly yours, HAWaOCK, ROTHERT & BCNSHOFT Br an A. Kelly BAK:cym (725:\AT\8AK\4322BAK.LTR) cc: Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Gisler P.O. Box 211 Moorpark, CA 93021 Mr. John W. Newton P.O. BOX 471 Moorpark, CA 93021 June7, 1989 Honorable Councilmembers Paul Lawrason and Clint Harper City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Moorpark General Plan Update Dear Councilmembers Harper and Lawrason: Thank you for meeting earlier this week with Ken Ryan of my staff to discuss the status of our refined budget for the Moorpark General Plan Update. We are very much aware of and in sympathy with the difficult financing chal- lenges your Council faces in order to initiate work on the General Plan up- date, particularly in light of the recent reduction of GPA study participants. With these considerations in mind, we have again re-evaluated our proposed budget (attached). All of the cost reductions discussed to date have been in- corporated into the attached refined budget, including: $3,500 reduction per GPA request reductions $3,000 reduction for combined General Plan Update/Specific Plan cost savings _ $2,000 reduction for eliminating 4th alternative in traffic study $5,000 reduction for eliminating additional traffic counts Given the current scope of work, we do not believe any further reductions to the budget can be made and still provide the City with the high quality product it desires. RECEIVED JUN 9 1989 Clty of Moorpa@ PLANNING • URBAN DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION • MARKET a FINANCIAL ANALYSIS • ENTITLEMENT 18012 SKY PARK CIR. • IRVINE, CA 92714 • 71N261-ee20 FAX: 71N261-2128 9 IRVINE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO 41 I hope the above information is helpful to you during your deliberations and we look forward to working with you on this challenging project. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me here at PBR. Sincerely, PHILL %S 6 T RE Ch Perisho helps Vice President CP:cw cc: Patrick Richards, Community Development Director Steve Kueny, City Manager Tasks PRASE I Existing COMitioraa Collect R Analyze Data PRASE II Identify Issues Develop Goals S Policies PRASE III Circulation Anus lysis Oevetop Atternative/Cmcept Plana Refine Preferred Alternative PRASE IV Develop CalpreNensive General Plan Lard Use Element Circulation Element/Circulatim Plan EIR PRASE V Develop Imptemerltatim Guidelines PRASE VI Public Hearings TOTAL CITY OF NOORPARK - GENERAL PLAN REVISION BUDGET 6/6/89 PER MR POR Austin - Labor Ioniabor Total Foust Total s6,000.m 51,000.00 s5,000.DD s10,000.00 sls,om.00 $8,000.00 $1,700.00 $9,700.DD $9,700.00 RA,000.00 s1,Om.00 SS,Om.00 $S,Om.00 M,000.00 s1,Om.M 15,000.00 s5,000.m S33,000.00 $33,000.00 w,000.00 sz,000.m s6,000.00 sa,00o.00 63,810.00 Si,400.00 S5,200.00 $5,200.00 R5,500.00 $1,000.00 56,SOO.00 sb500.00 96,000.00 111,300.00 s7,3DO.00 $26,000.00 $33:300.00 t10,000.00 $2,500.00 s12,5DO.00 s12,50D.00 s2,500.DO f500.00 $3.000.00 53,000.00 m,o00.00 s1,300m $7,300.00 $7,300.00 s59,ROO.00 $14,70D.OD $74,500.00 $69,000.00 S143,500.00 *Austin -Faust budget includes aodei set-up. s &) June 8, 1989 Mr. Patrick J. Richards Director of community Development city of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 10 - RECEIVED - JUN a 9 1989 CITY OF MOORPARK Re: Response to Request For Information, Update to City of Moorpark General Plan Dear Mr. Richards; The purpose of this letter is to respond, on behalf of the Moorpark Unified School District, to the City of Moorpark's recent request, dated May 23, 1989, for additional information regarding the District's application for a General Plan Amendment and zone change on the Casey Road School Site. The City's relatively short time frame for submittal of the required information was exacerbated by the fact that the District did not receive the letter until May 30, 1989. In addition, although the District's Consultant, Sage Institute, Inc., was copied on the letter, our copy was never received, probably due to an incorrectly referenced address. This further limited the time available for preparation of our response. The District's Land Use and Civil Engineer, Kent Gannfors, will be doing a detailed analysis of the precise land use potential for the subject site. The city's timing constraints, combined with the minimum 30 day time period required by Mr. Gannfors to complete his study, precludes the availability of the engineering analysis at this time. However, in a sincere effort to comply with the City's request, we are submitting herewith several preliminary land use concepts which are under consideration. These land use alternatives are depicted on the attached maps. The analysis of the Site's land use potential is a complex and sensitive undertaking, limited by the fact that the property is not raw land; rather, the site contains substantial school Sage Incorporated 2835 TOWNSCATE ROAD, SUITE 208 • WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIPORNIA 91361 • (818) 991-0646 0 (805) 497b557 I facility improvements. The disposition of the structures must be carefully studied and integrated into the overall site utilization plan. The information presented herein responds to the city's request for information regarding the extent and location of the proposed land uses, and as requested, identifies the boundaries and proposed land use designation areas in acres. The School District's supplemental fair share fee of $6,300.36 for the General Plan Update has already been forwarded to the City. I would like to arrange, at your earliest possible convenience, a meeting between you and the City's Land Use Consultant to discuss in further detail the School District's General Plan Update application. My office will be contacting you next week to schedule this meeting. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance or answer any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Irma Tucker, Associate Sage Institute, Inc. cc: Tom Duffy, Superintendent MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Attachments IT:js IZ Proposed Conceptual Land Use Designations 1. PARCEL A (7.34 AC) - PARCEL B (7.83 AC) "AS -IS" ------ PLUS C.U.P. Approximately 15.17 AC 2. PARCEL C (2.32 AC) RESIDENTIAL 3, PARCEL D (8.61 AC) MIXED -USE: BUSINESS PARK & RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE A PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 26.1 ACRES CASEY ROAD rmPAR2.3RESID PARCEL B 7.83 AC PLUS C.U.P. elv 15.17 ac 13 PAR CEL C 8.61 AC MIXED -USE: BUSINESS PARK RESIDENTIAL i HIGH CST, -I-I- H-I-I-H-I-I-I RAILROAD IL ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Conceptual Land Use Designations 1. PARCEL A (7.34 AC) AS -IS Plus C.U.P. 2. PARCEL B (7.83 AC) RESIDENTIAL: +/- 100 D.U. 3. PARCEL C (8.61 AC) MIXED USE: BUSINESS PARK & RESIDENTIAL 4. PARCEL D (2.32 AC) RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE B PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS E A S E M PARCEL D 2.32 AC RESIDENTIAL 26.1 ACRES PARCEL A PARCEL B 7.34 AC 7.83 AC IS plus C.U.P. RESIDENTIAL: +/- 100 D.U. PARCEL C 8.61 AC MIXED USE: BUSINESS PARK S RESIDENTIAL RAILROAD H ZGH ST. lb ALTERNATIVE C Proposed Conceptual Land Use Designations 1. PARCEL A (7.34 AC) YsIR=f-M4kipwomiA]1 2. PARCEL B (7.83 AC) RESIDENTIAL +/- 100 D.U. 3. PARCEL C (8.61 AC) PARK - Approximately 4.3 AC BUSINESS PARK - Approximately 4.3 AC 4. PARCEL D (2.32 AC) 19*3 4 DORY * 0.100 ALTERNATIVE C I? PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS E M E 26.1 ACRES PARCEL A PARCEL B 7.34 AC 1 7.03 AC AS -IS PLUS RESIDENTIAL C.U.P. +/- 100 D.U. PARCEL D 2.32 AC RESIDENTIAL PA RCEL C D.61 AC N PARK BUSINESS PARK (approx. 4.3 ac.) (approx. 4.3 ac.).l HIGH ST. ALTERNATIVE D Proposed Conceptual Land Use Designations 1. PARCEL A (7.34 AC) AS -IS PLUS C.U.P. 2. PARCEL B (7.83 AC) RESIDENTIAL +/- 180 D.U. 3. PARCEL C (8.61 AC) PARK 4. PARCEL D (2.32 AC) RESIDENTIAL lq ALTERNATIVE D 26.1 ACRES CASEY E A S N. PARCEL A .PARCEL B !!!! 7.34 AC 1 7.83 AC PARCEL D 2.32 AC RESIDENTIAL AS -IS PLUS t RESIDENTIAL C.U.P, h +/- 180 D.U. PARCEL C 8.61 AC PARK H IGfi ST. 0 ALTERNATIVE E Proposed Conceptual Land Use Designations 1. PARCEL A (7.34 AC) - PARCEL B (7.83 AC) RESIDENTIAL - (Approximately 15.17 AC) +/- 240 D.U. 2. PARCEL C (8.61 AC) �i 3. PARCEL D (2.32 AC) RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE E ZI 26.1 ACRES RAILROAD MOORPARK RANCH & MILLING, INC. 2 Z 1020 N. San Vicente Boulevard West Hollywood, California 90069 (213) 8546171 • Fax (213) 8546727 ` U. IS89 June 1, 1989 Federal Express CTf CZ ,!NV NARY% Ms. Deborah Traffenstedt Senior Planner City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City of Moorpark General Plan Dear Ms. Traffenstedt: We are pleased to enclose our check in the amount of $19,508.35, representing the additional amount of the revised fair share cost of our participation in the General Plan Update process. As discussed with you today by telephone, our original land use designation request has always been in the alternative for either all Commercial or a combination of Commercial, Very High Density Residential and High Density Residential. We have consistently stated our request to be in the alternative at public hearings and informal meetings over the last several years. Nevertheless, in order to expedite the funding of the General Plan Update process, we are acquiescing in the City's decision not to analyze our alternative request for all Commercial use on the express understanding from you that we will be given the opportunity to present information to the City's consultant in support of the all Commercial use. Further, we also understand from you that we will not be bound by the specific boundaries shown in our present land use request (as distinguished from the acreages in such request). In order to determine more accurately the proposed boundaries to be analyzed by the City's consultant, we will need until July 17, 1989 to submit the required location map. We anticipate that the proposed boundaries on such location map will be considerably different from those set forth in our present request, although similar in physical area. our continued participation in the General Plan Update process is necessarily conditioned upon the City's agreement to accept the submittal of our revised location map no later than July 17, 1989. We look forward to working with the City's Staff as the General Plan Update process moves forward. Thank you for the time you spent with Rad Sitnar and myself on the telephone today. Very truly yours, Y�Nfels� Executive Vice President cc: Mr. Radoslav L.Suntar z AGREEMENT FOR PREPRATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of _, 1989 by and between the City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation located in the County of Ventura, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and "PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC.", a California Corporation, here- inafter referred to as "PBR". W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, City has the need for the preparation of a General Plan Update; WHEREAS, City desires to contract for such services with a private consultant in anticipation that said private consultant can provide such services in a manner acceptable to the City; and WHEREAS, PBR is experienced in providing such services for municipal corporations and is able to provide personnel with the proper experience, certifications and background to carry out the duties involved; and WHEREAS, City wishes to retain PBR for the performance of said ser- vices; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, benefits and premises herein stated, the parties hereto agree as follows: City does hereby appoint PBR in a contractual capacity to perform the services in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A"; with the authorities and responsibilities ordinarily granted to this type of consultant work, I, Compensation to PBR The fees in full compensation to PER for the services rendered shall be as set forth in Exhibit "A". 1 A4 11. Termination This agreement may be terminated with or without cause by City at any time with no less than 30 days written notice of such termination. In the event of such termination, PBR shall be compensated for such ser- vices up to the date of termination. Such compensation for work in pro- gress shall be pro -rated as to the percentage of progress completed at the date of termination. This agreement may be terminated by PBR only by providing City with written notice no less than 30 days in advance of such termination. III. General Conditions A. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wage or other compensation to any person employed by PBR performing services hereunder for City. B. PBR is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its offi- cers, employees, servants or agents shall have control over the conduct of PER or any of PBR's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth herein. C. At the time of 1) termination of this agreement of 2) conclu- sion of all work; all original documents, designs, drawings, reports, diskettes, computer files, notes, and other related materials whether prepared by PBR or their subcontractor(s) or obtained in the course of providing the services to be per- formed pursuant to this agreement shall become the sole pro- perty of the City. D, PBR shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City and its officers, employees, servants and agents serving as indepen- dent contractors in the role of City Manager, Deputy City Mana- ger, Director of Community Development or City Attorney from 2 a25 any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense, for any damage whatsoever, including but not limited to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, resulting from misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions of PBR or any of its officers, employees or agents in the performance of this agreement, except such damage as is caused by the sole negligence of the City or any of its officers, employees, ser- vants or agents. The City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may have against PBR by reason of Paragraph E hereof, because of the acceptance by the City, or the deposit with the City, of any insurance policy or certifi- cate required pursuant to this agreement. This hold harmless and indemni- fication provision shall apply regardless of whether or not said insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, lia- bility, loss, cost or expense described in Paragraph E hereof. E. PBR shall secure from a good and responsible company or compan- ies doing insurance business in the State of California, pay for, and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this agreement that policies of insurance required by this paragraph and shall furnish to the City Clerk of the City cer- tificates of said insurance on or before the commencement of the term of this agreement. Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in any of said policies or any subsequent endorse- ment attached thereto, the protection offered by the policies shall: 1. Name the City and its officers, employees, servants and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Director of Community Development or City Attorney, as additiona insured with PBR. 2, Insure the City and its officers and employees, while acting in the scope of their duties under this agreement against all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, 3 costs or expenses arising from, or in any way connected with, the performance of this agreement by PBR or the City, 3. Bear an endorsement or have attached a rider whereby it is provided that, in the event of cancellation or amendment of such policy for any reason whatsoever, the City shall be notified by mail, postage prepaid, not less than thirty (30) days before the cancellation or amendment is effec- tive. PBR shall give City thirty (30) days written notice prior to the expiration of such policy. 4. Be written on an Occurrence Basis, F. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph E. PBR shall provide general public liability including automobile liabil- ity and property damage insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars (E1,000,000) per occurrence and annual aggregate. G. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph E, PBR shall pro- vide workers' compensation insurance as required by the Cali- fornia Labor Code. If any class of employees engaged by PBR in work under this agreement is not protected by the workers' compensation law, PBR shall provide adequate insurance for the protection of such employees to the satisfaction of the City. H. PBR shall not assign this agreement, or any of the rights, duties or obligations hereunder. It is understood and acknow- ledged by the parties that PBR is uniquely qualified to per- form the services provided for in this agreement. I. The City's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated September, 1988 and Response to said RFP are hereby incorporated into this agreement. Where said RFP and Response are modified by the agreement, the language contained in the agreement shall take precedence. 4 al J, Payment to PBR shall be made by the City within 45 days of receipt of invoice, except for those which are contested or questioned and returned by City, with written explanation within 30 days of receipt of invoice, PER shall provide to City a written response to any invoice contested or questioned and further, upon request of City, provide City with any and all documents related to any invoice, K. Any notice to be given pursuant to this agreement shall be in writing, and all such notices and any other document to be delivered shall be delivered by personal service or by deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended as follows: TO: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark CA 93021 Attention: City Manager To: PBR, Inc, 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine CA 92714 Attention: Cheri Perisho Phelps, Vice President L. Nothing contained in this agreement shall be deemed, con- strued, or represented by the City or PER or any third person to create the relationship of principal or agent, or of a part- nership, or of a joint venture, or of any other association of any kind or nature between the City and PBR. M. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and all prior agreements or understandings, oral or written, are hereby merged herein. This agreement shall not be amended in any way except by a writing expressly purporting to be such an amendment, signed and acknowledged by both of the parties hereto. 5 M N. Should interpretation of this agreement, or any portion thereof, be necessary, it is deemed that this agreement was prepared by the parties jointly and equally, and shall not be interpreted against either party on the ground that the party prepared the agreement or caused it to be prepared. 0. No waiver of any provision of this agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute a con- tinuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision. No waiver shall be binding, unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. P. In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or the declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this agreement or as a result of any alleged breach of any provision of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, from the losing party, and any judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof. Q. Cases involving a dispute between the City and PBR may be decided by an arbitrator if both sides agree in writing, with costs proportional to the judgment of the arbitrator. R. This agreement is made, entered into, executed in Ventura County, California, and any action filed in any court or for arbitration for the interpretation, enforcement or other action of the terms, conditions or covenants referred to herein shall be filed in the applicable court in Ventura County, California. S. The captions and headings of the various Articles and Para- graphs of this agreement are for convenience and identifica- tion only and shall not be deemed to limit or define the con- tent of the respective Articles and Paragraphs hereof. 0 aq IV. Responsible Individual The individual directly responsible for PBR's overall performance of the contract provisions herein above set forth and to serve as principal liaison between PBR and City shall be Cheri Perisho Phelps. Upon mutual written agreement of the parties, other individuals may be substituted in the above capacities as responsible indivi- duals. V. Implementation The City shall provide PBR with written notice in advance of the date at which these services are to be implemented if different than the date of the agreement. CITY OF MOORPARK PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC. Eloise Brown, Mayor Cheri Perisho Phelps, Vice President 7 PM EXHIBIT 'A' PHASE 1: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STRATEGY REFINEIENT/DATA COLLECTION TASK 1: REFINE PROJECT SCHEDULE/COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROGRAM OBJECTIVE: Develop a refined project schedule including the timing for citizen participation in the general plan process. METHOD: Public participation for the General plan update will involve a series of publicly noticed informational workshops sponsored by the Plan- ning Commission on non -hearing dates. Public input acquired through the workshop process will be transmitted to the City Council for specific direction on subsequent work tasks. Work on the project will not continue until the City Council has established this direction. This task will involve the preparation of an overall project schedule as well as a definitive workshop schedule, in collaboration with city staff, to ensure that public participation is maximized throughout the process, Workshops could be held at the following suggested milestones: Review of Alternative Plans, Draft Goals and Objectives Review of Preliminary Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements and EIR PRODUCT: Timetable and description of preliminary meeting topics for com- munity participation in the General Plan revision process. TASK 2: PREPARE BASE MAP OBJECTIVE: Ensure utilization of accurate base maps of the existing condi- tions upon which to base each element of the general plan to be updated. METHOD: Consultant review of existing county base maps and city maps; com- parative analysis with aerial photographs and field surveys as required to prepare base maps. 1 3► PRODUCT: Up-to-date, definitive base maps for use throughout the general plan update process, TASK 3: REVIEW AND EVALUATE EXISTING DATA/DEVELOP PLANNING DATA BASE OBJECTIVE: Compile all existing information necessary for preparation of the general plan update; organize a comprehensive planning data base; and identify missing or incomplete data prior to initiation of planning studies. METHOD: Each member of the project team will prepare a checklist of the types of data needed to prepare the general plan update. These lists will be compiled by PBR and used to coordinate a centralized effort to acquire necessary existing data. Each member of the consultant team will review existing data, sort out that which is valid, and identify data gaps. From the base data review and analysis, existing community conditions and trends will be identified. A lot -by -lot inventory will also be conducted as part of this effort. Basic community needs/problems, opportunities and constraints affecting the city's evolution to the year 2010 will also be identified as related to the Land Use Element and Circulation Element. PRODUCT: A baseline data report containing text and graphics depicting existing base data conditions, trends, needs, opportunities and con- straints. The baseline data report will be organized to reflect both the Land Use and Circulation Elements. - TASK 4: TRAFFIC FORECAST/CIRCULATION ANALYSIS OBJECTIVE: To compile all existing information on the current circulation system, to identify the potential impacts on the existing system, to determine current and future traffic generation and distribution, volume and capacity, prior to developing concept alternatives. METHOD:- This task will involve using land use data to produce long-range traffic forecasts. Of importance in forecasting is the separation of local and regional traffic components. The former will be based on countywide traffic analysis data, while the latter will be derived from land use forecasts within the city and its sphere of influence. 2 3J- In addition, a comprehensive modeling analysis of the city's circulation system will be made. Specific issues to be covered include the following: Potential impacts of the 118/23 freeway connection, as quantified by street and intersection levels of service. The primary circulation element scenario will be general plan buildout with all amendments approved, with a second scenario based on all development preceding the freeway connection. Estimate volumes of "pass through" traffic, ie., that traffic with both trip ends outside of the city. These estimates shall include the pass through traffic on Route 118 as well as the pass through traffic on Route 23, potential land use changes, circulation or growth induce- ment. The effects of extending New Los Angeles Avenue to Collins Avenue. Potential downgrading of the Los Angeles Avenue width requirements through the Virginia Colony area. The effects of the extension of High Street westerly from its existing terminus to Gabbert Road north of the railroad. Potential transportation corridors for Route 23 and Route 118, including required right-of-way and Route 118 freeway ramps. The effect of extending Spring Road northerly from High Street to Broadway. PRODUCT: Baseline traffic analysis and modeling of existing conditions as well as alternative circulation scenarios. q 33 PHASE II - IDENTIFY MAJOR ISSUES FORMULATE GOALS AND POLICIES TASK 1: IDENTIFY ISSUES OBJECTIVE: Focus the general plan program on areas of special interest and concern, to establish an overall issue framework for developing vari- ous plan alternatives for the city of Moorpark. METHOD: Identification of issues will be based on discussions with the city, review of existing data and the baseline data report. PRODUCT: A priority list of key issues and problems, constraints and opportunities to be addressed in the general plan for the city of Moorpark. TASK 2: DEVELOP GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OBJECTIVE: Identify goals and policies which have been adopted by the city council and regional agencies. Establish broad policies in the form of goals and objectives which can be used in developing and testing alter- natives for the general plan update. METHOD: Existing city goals, objectives and policies for the city of Moor- park as well as required programs will be reviewed. Meetings with city staff will be held to develop a list of potential goals and objectives which address major planning issues currently confronting Moorpark, as well as those issues that may confront the community over the next twenty years and beyond. These issues will include general as well as specific items. In addition to the more standard goals, objectives and policies developed during this process, the following specific topics will be addressed, Create goals and policies related to single family and multifamily housing desires and consistency with RHNA numbers* obtaining an overall mix of units based upon community 4 311 Create goals and policies related to minimum parcel sizes in open space and areas over 20 percent slope. Create goals and polices to preserve and protect features of cultural and historical significance to the community and identify such by site. Create goals and policies to save and protect mature trees within the community. Create goals and policies related to the need to adopt guidelines to mitigate the impact of exterior lighting and noise on and from adjoin- ing parcels and adjacent public right-of-way. Create goals and policies regarding future hillside development. Goals and policies should promote open space and agricultural uses in those areas over 20 percent slope. Also, such goals and policies will relate to the identification and preservation of major ridgelines and scenic viewsheds. Create goals and policies related to the need.to protect the visual freeway corridor (118/23 freeway connector). Create goals and policies which will ensure that site planning and design of development respects the predominantly low profile suburban environment of Moorpark and enhances as well as respects the surround- ing natural features. Create goals and policies which promote appropriate residential densi- ties in outlying canyon areas. Create goals and policies regarding the extension of public services in areas which provide significant natural constraints to development. PRODUCT: A preliminary report compiling potential goals and policies organized around the general plan element framework. This document will 5 35 form the basis to develop further discussion and to discern attitudes toward specific policies for the city as a whole. PHASE III - DEVELOP/SELECT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT PLANS PRODUCT: Baseline traffic analysis and modeling of existing conditions as well as alternative circulation scenarios. TASK 1: DEVELOP CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES OBJECTIVE: To establish realistic measurements of physical and socioecon- omic trends for use in structuring goals, policies and strategies. To develop concept alternatives for the future of the community based on goals and objectives. These alternatives will be based on circulation improvements needed to relieve stress on the existing circulation system and improvements needed for future development. One development scenario will be based on development preceding the 118/23 freeway connection. METHOD: Based on reviews of past trends in the county and city and needed circulation improvements, the consultant team will prepare potential scen- arios for future growth and change in Moorpark. These forecasts will be used primarily to assist in establishing realistic strategies for the city to adopt. Projections will be made to the year 2010 in selected areas. Long-range factors, such as the following, will be considered in preparing the scenarios: Population characteristics and needs Economic base/market analyses City revenues and expenditures Changes in the way cities are built (transportation, energy, etc.) Potential annexations These scenarios will also analyze all current general plan amendment applications and provide recommendations regarding each. An additional analysis involving each application entails a review at a lower land use designation as well as the next higher intensity over the current designa- tion. C 3(AV Individual topics of concern that will he analyzed during the preparation of alternative plans include: Areas south of Los Angeles Avenue from Spring Road to Liberty Bell Road. Potential multiple family residential land uses south of Majestic Court and west of Moorpark Avenue. A commercial office designation for the southwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road, The Stratthern Ranch property with an emphasis of potential growth impacts to the city. Freeway Business Center (Science Drive) ensuring that this area is appropriately indicated in the new land use element. Happy Camp Canyon Park illustrating precise boundaries. North side of Los Angeles Avenue between the Edison substation and American Products building. Natural features within and adjacent to the community that requires protective measures. Consider both the growth and non -growth areas of the Countywide Plan- ning Program (CPP) and the city's need to provide buffers or transi- tional zones. Based on these potential scenarios, the consultant will develop alterna- tives for land use patterns, including required infrastructure and rela- tionship to other specific elements of the general plan. Three alterna- tive concepts will be completed for review. PRODUCT: Three alternative concept plans based on different fundamental assumptions relating to future growth and development in the city of Moor- park. 7 31 TASK 2: EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT PLANS OBJECTIVE: Evaluate alternative concept plans and alternatives to reflect the circulation and land use analysis and select a preferred alternative on which the general plan elements will be based. METHOD: An initial technical evaluation of alternatives will be made in relation to physical, social, economic, environmental resources of the com- munity and the results of the circulation analysis. Alternatives will be weighed in relation to potential environmental impacts as well as their responsiveness to the needs and objectives of Moorpark. Clear delineation of the technical evaluation will be important in the decision -making pro- cess of selecting an alternative. PRODUCT: A final selected planning alternative and land use map will be refined in preparation of the general plan elements. This selected alter- native may be a composite of components from the three separate alterna- tives studied, but it will be a consensus plan which establishes the direc- tion for the more detailed planning efforts in later tasks. PHASE IV - PREPARE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS AND EIR TASK 1: DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS OBJECTIVE: Development of a clear, concise summary of policies and gene- ral plan processes for use as a continuing implementation tool. To pre- pare each draft element for public review and evaluation in a program EIR. To revise the draft elements to reflect comments received and to prepare final plan elements for adoption. MEMO: A modular notebook will be the basic organizational device for the two elements of the general plan. The plan will detail elements/to- pics mandated by state laws, plus additional topics unique to the needs of the City of Moorpark, including a discussion of historical resources, air quality and energy conservation, natural resource preservation, protection of visual corridors and the maintenance of a low profile suburban environ- ment. Loa] 91 A basic objective in the preparation of the general plan is to focus the land uses around the ability to provide adequate circulation and infra- structure improvements. Flexibility to accommodate minor refinements in community needs will make the plan a more viable document for continuing use. Each element of the general plan will contain a summary of data and analysis, adopted policies, and implementation strategies related to that element. General plan elements will be prepared based upon information obtained in prior tasks. Draft general plan elements will be reviewed by city staff. The draft general plan will be prepared in conjunction with the EIR. All comments received on the draft plan elements will be compiled by the con- sultant team and documented in writing. Responses to each comment will be prepared and submitted to the city for review. Copies of the draft final plan elements will then be submitted to the city for final public review. The plan elements will be formatted to assure integration and consistency among all general plan elements and will be presented in a loose-leaf binder to facilitate revisions. Specific recommendations for changes to other elements of the general plan to make them internally consistent will also be provided. Maintenance procedures for the document involving possi- ble computer applications will be recommended. The plan elements will also be written in a concise format, with goal statements and policies separate from the main body of each element for ease of reference. PRODUCT: As described in subtasks below, one hundred (100) copies (maxi- mum) of the draft plan elements will be prepared for city staff and public review and for evaluation in the EIR. One hundred (100) copies (maximum) final versions of the plan elements will be compiled into 3-ring note binders; element divider tabs will be prepared. The document will be reproduced and delivered to the city. In addition to final general plan elements, an executive summary will be produced for broad community dissemination. This executive summary will concisely describe the general plan update and accompanying environmental process in both a narrative and graphic context, discuss each mandatory element included in the general plan. Seven hundred fifty (750) copies of E e WiJ the executive summary will be produced. Four final colored general plan maps at a scale of 1" = 500' will be submitted to city staff following the adoption of the general plan elements in addition to five standard blackiines. SUDTASK IA: REVISE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVE: To revise the circulation element and map based on the Circula- tion Analysis and work in close liaison with the city, county and Caltrans. METHOD: Specific elements of work included in the preparation of the circulation element involve the following: Develop right-of-way and number of lanes (including parking) and street section recommendations for arterials, secondaries and collec- tor streets, Provide specific street plan recommendations for the area bounded by Los Angeles Avenue, Arroyo Simi, Maureen Lane and Liberty Bell Road. Locate all future traffic signals on major arterials. Develop bicycle/pedestrian/equestrian trail plans with detailed cross - sections and standards. Identify policies for driveway placement, stop sign installation, park. ing restrictions, intersection sight distance, meandering sidewalk, unobstructed sidewalk, etc. Estimate major intersection levels of service under each of the follow- ing scenarios: Existing Cumulative Ultimate Revise standard roadway intersection plates. 10 Ee . Review, and revise, as necessary county bikeway plates. Develop a specific street plan (circulation) layout for the area bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad, Highway 118, the Southern California Edison substation and DP-302. Provide recommendations relative to an east -west arterial or collector from Broadway to the eastern city limits. Identify potential grade separation locations for railroad crossings. Prepare alternative alignments for Lassen Avenue to connect to Moorpark Avenue. Provide freeway corridor visual design standards. The results of these work tasks will be reviewed and incorporated into a comprehensive circulation element which is compatible with the goals and objectives established in Phase II, the circulation analysis in Phase III and the land use elements. Options or alternatives for system improve- ments will be highlighted. The recommended element and any alternatives will be evaluated by the consultant team and will be reviewed with city staff. A complete draft circulation element will then be prepared. PRODUCT: A draft circulation element one hundred (100) copies (maximum) with proposed system improvements and classifications will be prepared for review by city staff and the public. Following public review, one hundred (100) copies (maximum) of a circulation element will be prepared for city adoption. SUBTASK 1B: REVISE LARD USE ELEMENT OBJECTIVE: To revise the element to reflect current and future condi- tions, including circulation conditions, land use policies, and land use designations which are consistent with the best interests of the community and market constraints and opportunities. 11 41 METHOD: A detailed land use plan will be prepared, based upon review of the preferred alternative concept plan prepared in previous phases. Elements of this plan include: Delineation of boundaries and calculation of acreage. Assignment of specific land uses, intensities, and other site charac- teristics. Statistical analysis which tabulates and summarizes land uses, acreages, and square footages. In addition to identified goals, policies and objectives, the land use ele- ment will include the following special items: Identify areas subject to specific plan approval plus list in general terms land uses permitted within. Identify residential, commercial, and industrial reserve areas in outlying areas. Studies of the existing or future population density patterns within the city. Emphasis must be placed on those areas either designated for potential redevelopment or high -growth area or within the city's sphere of influence. Preparation of a report providing projections of those elements, such as population, income, and employment which will forecast the land required, public facilities needed and future distribution of land uses through the year 2010. Establish city gateways and identify land uses to promote a desired identity as defined by goals and policies. Create standards for recreation uses needed for development of a park- land dedication ordinance. 12 Create commercial design overlay areas with specific goals and poli- cies related to development. Review land use designations in light of service capacity of various infrastructure systems (sewer, waste, streets, storm drains, flood con- trol, etc.). Incorporate goals and policies of the downtown plan into the land use element of the plan. Make certain that the Moorpark Land Use Element is consistent with and takes into account any other applicable county plans. Identify areas for potential annexation to the city based upon the results of the sphere of influence study. . Identify publicly owned land and produce a list of permitted uses. Create a document that can be used as an effective tool to update the city's zoning ordinance. Additional changes to the existing land use element for incorporation into the new element, including the following: Land use element, page 41, neighborhood commercial center - change to eliminate the requirement for a "convenience market*" Land use element, page 429 revise section on commercial/industrial mix. . Land use element, page 42. revise growth table population projections. Land use element, page 57 - Table 9 revise zoning comparability matrix (use same design for general plan and zoning). 13 �f 3 PRODUCT: A draft land use element one hundred (100) copies (maximum) with proposed system improvements and classifications will be prepared for review by city staff and the public. Legal review of the documents will certify that they meet state law. Following public review, one hundred (100) copies (maximum) of a final land use element will be prepared for city adoption. TASK 2: PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OBJECTIVE: To prepare an environmental impact report in compliance with state law. Environmental factors are taken into consideration when review- ing alternatives and determining land use and density designations, result- ing in the incorporation of environmental information throughout the docu- ment. The EIR will contain measures adequate for the mitigation of adverse impacts, and will provide the legal basis for consideration and action upon the general plan. METHOD: EIR preparation for a general plan must reflect a broad policy or issue orientation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15146). Further, this EIR can best be utilized when it is closely integrated with the general plan itself. An initial study for the Moorpark General Plan land use and circulation element updates will first be prepared. The consultant team will assist city staff in the preparation and distribution of the Notice of Prepara- tion for the general plan. Following collection of pertinent data and the preparation of necessary technological studies, a screencheck EIR for the Moorpark General Plan land use and circulation element updates will be prepared which describes those general plan elements, documents the existing environmental setting, documents environmental impacts and recommends mitigation measures. The following subjects will be addressed: a. Landform/topography b. Geology and soils c. Hydrology/flood control d. Biology 14 44 e. Cultural resources f. Existing and planned land uses g. Traffic/circulation/parking In, Socioeconomic conditions i. Public services and utilities J. Noise k. Air quality/climate 1. Energy consumption m. Visual character and aesthetics n. Housing o. Population/socioeconomic characteristics p. Cumulative impacts of approved and filed projects Special attention will be given to: 1. Traffic/circulation 2. Community services a. Solid waste collection b. Fire protection c. Police protection d. Library services e. Parks/recreation services f. Health and emergency services g. School facilities 3. Hillsides and open space 4. Visual impacts 5. Public utilities a. Water facilities b. Sewer facilities c. Telephone service d. Electricity e. Natural gas f. Flood control 6. Growth -inducing impacts 7. Mitigation measures 15 14T Based on review of the screencheck EIR by city staff, a draft EIR will be prepared. The consultant team will assist the city in distribution of the draft EIR, and a Notice of Completion will be prepared. Comments received through the public review process will be responded to in the final EIR. After public hearings on the final EIR and certifica- tion of the final EIR by the City Council, a Notice of Determination will be prepared for the State Clearinghouse, PRODUCT: A general plan land use and circulation element update EIR which reflects the policy -level orientation of the two general plan elements and provides a framework for decision -makers to identify the more detailed environmental consequences of general plan implementation. All notices for processing the EIR will be completed. Fifteen (15) copies of a screen - check EIR will be completed for review. Comments received on the screen. check EIR will be incorporated in the draft EIR fifty (50) copies. After public review, hearings and certification, twenty five (25) copies of the final EIR will be prepared, and incorporated into the general plan docu- ment. The final EIR will include response to comments including responses to public comments, staff reports and final EIR certification. PHASE V: DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS OBJECTIVE: Develop suggested specific measures for alternative methods of implementating each general plan element (circulation and land use) to reflect the goals, objectives and policies defined in Phase II. METHOD: Alternative implementation programs will be suggested for evalua- tion by the city. Alternatives will be analyzed in terms of goal/policy achievement, workability, and viable financing mechanisms. Recommenda- tions for the maintenance of the documents will be included. PRODUCT: Suggested specific measures for implementation of the general plan circulation and land use elements, including update and review proce- dures, for ultimate insertion into the general plan. 16 46 PHASE VI: COMPLETE PUBLIC REVIEW, GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION, AND EIR CERTIFI- CATION OBJECTIVE: Submittal of final draft general plan, implementation programs and related EIR for public hearing and ultimate adoption. METHOD: The public review process has been described in the PRODUCT sec- tion of each element of the comprehensive general plan program, and is depicted in the work schedule. Submittal of a final draft comprehensive general plan, EIR and associated implementation plan to city staff, public review for formal public hearing, approval and adoption of general plan, implementation programs and certification of EIR. PRODUCT: Adopted revised general plan, implementation programs and certi- fied EIR. 17 Tasks PRASE 1 Existing Conditions' Collect S Analyze Data Traffic Forecasts PRASE 11 Identify Issues Develop Goals S Policies PRASE III Circulation Analysis" Develop Alternative/Concept Plans Refine Preferred Alternative PRASE IV Develop Comprehensive General Plan Land Use Eterent Circulation El anent/Circulation Plan" EIR PRASE V CITY OF MOORPARK - GENERAL PUN REVISION BUDGET 4/7/89 PBR PBR PBR Austin - Labor Non -Labor Total Faust Total S6,OW.00 $1,000.DD $5,000.00 S16,OW.00 $21,000.00 58,000.00 $1,700.00 $9,700.00 $9, 700.00 S7,OW.00 S7,000.00 S41000.00 S1,DOO oo S5,DOO.00 S5,WO.00 S4,000.00 $1,000.00 L5,DDD.00 SS,Wo.00 $35,000.00 S35,Wo.00 S7,500.W $2,000.00 $91500.00 $9,500.00 $4,300.D0 $1,400.00 S5,700.00 SS,700.00 S7,000.W $1,000.00 SB,000.00 SB,W0.00 $6,000.00 $1, 300.00 $7,300.00 $18, 100.W $25,400.00 $11,000.00 $2,500.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 Develop Implementation Guidelines 32,SOD.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 0,W0.00 PHASE VI 16,000.00 51,300.00 $7,300.00 $7,300.00 TOTAL S64,300.00 S14,700.00 $79,000.00 $76,100.00 S155,100.00 •Austin -Foust budget includes additional traffic Counts and model set-up. "Austin-Foust's additional traffic modal costs are distributed over Phase& III and IV. i April 26, 1989 Mr. Pat Richards Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93201 Subject: Moorpark General Plan Update Dear Pat, We are pleased that we are nearing resolution of the scope of work and budget for the General Plan Update. As we discussed, the elimination of a portion of the original General Plan Amendment applications from consideration in this update will represent a reduction in the anticipated level of effort necessary to complete the project by PBR. The attached letter from Austin -Foust indicates a cost savings only if the number of land use alternatives to be prepared and analyzed is reduced Austin Foust's actual cost for running each land use alternative are not reduced even though some land use assumptions are common to each alternative. However, my understanding is that your desire is that we continue to assume that three land use alternatives will be appropriate. PBR costs may be reduced to reflect the reduction of GPA requests. The budgets for "Phase III Develop/Select Alternative Concept Plans" and "Phase IV - Develop Comprehensive General Plan" will be reduced by $3500 as shown on the attached revised budget schedule. This reduction assumes that properties involved in those GPA requests which were not formalized in the "northwest quadrant" of the City will maintain their present General Plan designations for each land use alternative and the final land use plan addressed in this General Plan update. In addition recom- mendations for arterial road improvements in the City, and in the northwest quadrant in particular, will reflect a buildout condition which assumes that those properties referenced above will retain their current land use designa- tion. If these assumptions are not correct or if you have any questions please call me at your convenience. This letter and attached budget revisions are in- tended as an amendment to our proposal. Again we look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, RECEIVE O PHI P NDT REDDfG MAY 3 1989 ' '�':v of MooroaC4 i Perisho Pfrelps vice President PLANNING • URBAN DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION • MARKET a FINANCIAL ANALYSIS • ENTITLEMENT 18012 SKY PARK CIR. • IRVINE. CA 92714 • T14261-8820 FAX: 71tl261-2128 • IRVINE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO