HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2002 1030 CC SPCr
NOTICE AND CALL OF A SPECIAL
MEETING OF THE MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Moorpark is hereby called to be held on
Wednesday, October 30, 2002, commencing at 6:30 p.m. Said
meeting will convene in the Moorpark Community Center located at
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
Said Special Meeting
considering the following:
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
shall be for the purpose of
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1�
5. PRESENTATION /ACTION /DISCUSSION:
A. Consider Design for New Police Services Center. Staff
Recommendation: Approve concept design and schematic
plans for new Police Services Center. (Staff: Hugh
Riley)
B. Consider Discussion of Potential Modifications to the
Circulation Element Roadway Network Adjacent to the
Planned State Route 118 Bypass and State Route 23
Freeway Extension. Staff Recommendation: Provide
direction to staff on Circulation Element Highway
Network issues. (Staff: Barry Hogan)
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE - Moorpark City Council
October 30, 2002
Page 2
C. Consider Agreement to Sell 6479 Penn Street Unit B to
the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. Staff
Recommendation: Approve agreement to sell 6479 Penn
Street, Unit B to the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency
and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement
and related documents. (Staff: Hugh Riley)
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Dated: October 28, 2002
Deborah S. Traffenstedt," City Clerk
Any member of the public may address the Council during the Public Comments portion of the
Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Presentation /Action /Discussion item. Speakers who wish
to address the Council concerning. a Public Hearing or Presentation/ Action/ Discussion item
must do so during the Public Hearing or Presentation /Action /Discussion portion of the Agenda for
that item. Speaker cards must be received by the City Clerk for Public Comment prior to the
beginning of the Public Comments portion of the meeting and for Presentation /Action /Discussion
items prior to the beginning of the first item of the Presentation /Action /Discussion portion of
the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing must be received prior to the beginning of the
Public Hearing. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and
Presentation /Action /Discussion item Ypeaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be
imposed upon each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in lieu
of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Presentation /Action /Discussion items. Copies of
each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available
for public review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the City Clerk at
517 -6223.
in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (805) 517 -6223. (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104
ADA Title II)
f
CITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
rmM. . om
CITY ofc noit cR LMORNIA
Mf tAi
ACTION: ccne $..e more 4,v,-wa d- "n
+ y,, _ -- 14 A
13Y.
a�_ �levw4ion5
_-
BY: —
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Hugh R. Riley, Assistant City Manager
DATE: October 24, 2002 (Special Meeting of 10/30/02)
SUBJECT: Consider Design for New Police Services Center
DISCUSSION:
The City Council has listed among the City's top ten
priority projects, the construction of a new police
services center. On November 7, 2001, the City Council
approved a Development and Financing Plan for new civic
facilities including City Hall, Police Services Center and
Public Works /Parks Corporation Yard. Sites for these new
facilities were identified in the plan and the City's
Redevelopment Agency has acquired the property at the
northeast corner of Spring Road and Flinn Avenue as the
designated site for the new Police Services Center.
On April 17, 2002 the City Council approved an agreement
for design services for the police building with WWC OT
Architects of Santa Monica. The architects and the City's
Design Development Committee have developed recommendations
for the conceptual design of the facility which are ready
for review and approval by the City Council. The
presentation will include an updated project cost estimate
based on the size of the facility as currently proposed.
BUILDING SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN
The conceptual design recommendations for the new building
which has been designed to meet the requirements for an
essential public facility include a site plan with a
realigned Flinn Avenue, a floor plan containing a gross
total area of 26,345 square feet including 4,569 square
City Council Agenda Report "
Concept Design - Police Services Center '
October 24, 2002
Page 2
feet to be leased to the California Highway Patrol (CHP), a
2,124 square foot multi - purpose training room that will
also serve as an Emergency Operations Center, a public
lobby serving both the CHP and City Police areas with 1,017
square feet. The remainder of the floor plan has been
designed to accommodate the present and future needs for
the Sheriff's Department operations serving Moorpark as
well as the expanded deployment of patrol services serving
a portion of the unincorporated area of east Ventura
County. (See City Manager's August 27, 2002 Memorandum to
the City Council attached).
The recommended floor plan does not include a holding
facility and Sally Port, however these features totaling
3,736 square feet could be added at the northeast corner of
the building and are shown on the attached floor plan. They
have not been included in view of the high construction
cost for type of heavily regulated facility and because of
the lack of resources available to operate such a facility
on a 24 -hour basis.
In order to accommodate the CHP's projected requirements a
separate 3,000 square foot 2 -bay fleet maintenance building
will be located on the northeast corner of the site along
with a vehicle washing facility. The car wash would be
utilized by both agencies.
SITE PLAN
The facility will be constructed on a 3.81 acre site at the
corner of Spring Road and realigned Flinn Avenue. The site
is currently owned by the Redevelopment Agency. The site
will provide public parking for 18 vehicles, landscaped
visitors entrance plaza, secured parking for 178 employee
and tactical vehicles, a trash enclosure, an emergency
power generator with fuel supply and a small grounds
maintenance storage shed. The site will be provided with
three, controlled motorized access gates at the non - public
driveways leading to the facility on Spring Road, Flinn
Avenue and Minor Street. The proposed site plan for the
facility is attached.
I }
City Council Agenda Report
Concept Design - Police Services Center
October 24, 2002
Page 3
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
The architect has prepared several alternative building
elevations for the City Council's review. These elevations
are presented along with the building schematic (floor
plan) and site plan in a separately -bound presentation
report.
OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
FUTURE EXPANSION - The site is large enough to accommodate
building expansion to the east if it becomes necessary. The
parking capacity is well in excess of current requirements
allowing future additions to the building. The alternative
of expanding to a second story would require a significant
change in the foundation and would have a significant
impact on the initial cost of the building's foundation and
structural elements. Therefore such the second story future
expansion alternative is not recommended and is not
included in the proposed design. The estimated cost for
this alternative will be provided at the meeting.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY - In order to fully evaluate design
features that will optimize' the energy efficiency of the
new building, the Project Design Committee examined the
LEED (Leadership in Energy Efficient Design) Building
Rating Certification Process. This process evaluates the
environmental performance from a "whole building"
perspective over a building's life cycle. The process is
described in the attached correspondence from the
Architect. Depending on the categories included, the design
alternatives may add as much as 10% to 12% to the cost of
the building or about $1,000,000. There are also additional
consulting costs normally associated with this elaborate
certification process. Staff obtained a proposal for this
work from one such consultant for a total of $105,000.
Staff believes that the City may not be able to recover the
cost associated with the LEEDS Certification process for
many years and perhaps never. Therefore,, given current
budget conditions, using ' the LEEDS process is not
recommended for this facility.
As an alternative to the formal LEEDS approach, the
architects are already utilizing currently recommended
energy efficient design concepts including building siting,
City Council Agenda Report
Concept Design - Police Services Center
October 24, 2002
Page 4
the use of natural light, automatic lighting and climate
control devices and various energy efficient building
systems and materials.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL - In the event the CHP elects not
to locate their operations in this facility, that portion
of the building can be deleted with some modifications to
the west elevation of the ,building. An example of this
modification is included in the Architect's bound exhibits.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The Civic Facilities Development and Financing Plan
approved by the City Council on November 7, 2001 included
the following cost estimates for design and construction:
Construction (includes profit /bond) $ 5,660,000
Design (100 of construction) $ 566,000
Admin and Inspection
(150 of construction) $ 849,000
Contingency $ 300,000
TOTAL $ 7,375,000
These costs were based on a 21,300 square foot facility
containing approximately 18,200 square feet for City police
operations and 3,100 square feet for the CHP Station. The
3,000 square foot vehicle maintenance facility was not
included in the original needs study. Current deployment
plans for the two police agencies indicate that 21,776
square feet and 4,569 square feet will be needed
respectively including an allowance for 10 to 15% staffing
growth. The increase in the size of the facility is
summarized below:
AGENCY
INITIAL
CURRENT
SQUARE FT.
PERCENT
STUDY
ESTIMATE
INCREASE
INCREASE
City Police
18,200
21,776
3,576
200
CHP
3,100
4,569
1,469
470
CHP Fleet
Maintenance
-0-
3,000
3,000
100%
TOTAL
21,300
29,345
8,045
38%
City Council Agenda Report
Concept Design- Police Services Center
October 24, 2002
Page 5
Based on the building design as presented above, the pre -
design opinion of construction cost and related design and
administrative costs are as follows:
Construction $ 5,705,531
Contractor fee and bonds $ 565,466
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 6,270,997
Design $ 605,000
Admin and Inspection
(10% of construction) $ 570,553
Contingency (15% of construction) $ 855,830
TOTAL $ 8,302,380
This amounts to an increase in building construction costs
of $610,997 including contractor profit and insurance. This
equates to an increase in cost of about 11 %.
The City Council will be provided with staff's
recommendations for financing the new facility including
that portion to be leased to the CHP at a subsequent
meeting. In order to maintain the current development
schedule for the Police Services Center, staff is seeking
the City Council's approval of the concept design of the
facility.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the floor plan, site plan and elevations for a new
Police Services Center.
Attachments: 1. City Manager's 8/27/02 Report on
Expanded Deployment
2. Department Floor Areas
3. Site Plan
4. LEED Certification Correspondence
CITY OF MOORPARK
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager
DATE: August 27, 2002
SUBJECT: Expanded Deployment at Moorpark Police Station
As you know, the City has sought relocation of a portion of
the patrol services serving the unincorporated area of
eastern Ventura County to Moorpark. Currently, all of the
deputies serving the unincorporated area are deployed out
of the East County Station in Thousand Oaks. Moorpark was
the only one of the five cities contracting with the
Sheriff to not have a contingent of deputies serving
unincorporated areas to be deployed at the City's station.
With the expansion of the Moorpark station, Mayor Hunter
and I, along with Captain LeMay, met with Sheriff Brooks
about this proposal several months ago. Since then, the
Sheriff has evaluated the option of assigning a portion of
the east county unincorporated patrol to Moorpark. The
Sheriff has made plans to make such deployment effective
September 1, 2002, with related adjustments to the overhead
calculations of the contract rates.
The following additional staff will now work out of the
Moorpark station, which will also mean 24 -hour availability
of a Sergeant for supervision of field deputies:
A. 4 Sergeants (one had already been assigned to
Moorpark)
B. 14 Deputies (two positions are currently vacant)
C. 2 Senior Deputies
As part of this staffing plan, the cost for one -half of one
of the City's three (3) detectives and one -half of the
Captain's position will be shifted to the County. A
. S
Memo to City Council
Re: Expanded Deployment at Moorpark Police Station
Page 2 of 2
August 27, 2002
Records Clerk position will also be added later this fiscal
year.
Based on the changes to the overhead calculations for the
contract rates, the net cost to the City is estimated to be
about $43,000 per year. The added cost will not go into
effect until the 2003/04 FY.
On September 1, 2002, the patrol deputies will be shifted
to 12 -hour shifts. This also has some effect on the
overhead calculation referenced above. This change in
shift was an outcome of the recently concluded
negotiations. As part of the new labor contract, the
average salary /benefit increase for sworn personnel is
estimated to increase 6 1/2 percent, 4 percent and 3
percent from 2002/03 FY through 2004/05 FY. The contract
rates increased about 1.5 percent for 2001/02 FY.
Please let me know if you have any questions on this
matter.
SK:db
CC: Captain LeMay, Moorpark Police
toffiigh R. Riley, Assistant City Manager
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATOM /City Clerk
M: \citymgr \Mpk Police Deployment 0827 2002
J
�
I
Z
0
- - - -
------- - - - - -- _---------------
---- - - - - --
-OJT -17
i'LL'
U�TJ
_
L� TT-T F7
•
� �
LPL' ! - L1L1L_(LL �I c ❑'
,� I
II
? -
-L
- - -
- - - - - - — - --------------------
MINOR .STREET I
Moorpark Police Services Center
Moorpark, CA
I
I
z
n
A
v
D
[7
I
OT
EGG — 2124.8 SF —
BRIEFING — 531.6 SF
TOILETS — 341.3 SF
SOFT INTERVIEW — 146.9 SF
LOBBY — 1017.6 SF
POLICE SERVICES — 1409.2 SF
I
pllp BUILDING AREA WITH HOLDING FACILTY:
e GROSS BURRING AREA: 30.254.5 S.F.
❑ FLOOR ARE- 28,872.7 Sf.
BUILDING AREA WgHOV HOLDING FACILITY:
GROSS MG BUILD ARE- 26,345.2 S.F.
FLOOR AREA 25,821.4 S.F.
HIGHWAY - 4,569.3 SF
CIRCULATION :
:��r
' "
"��'Y� 1
1559 S
JL+�:I '
MENS LOCKER — 1131.1 SF SERGEANTS — 671.6 SF —� I
EXERCISE ROOM — 793.9 SF INVESTIGATIONS — 2068.8 SF JI
REPORT WRITING — 589.6 SF
1 MP
ST E — 575.1 SF
PROPERTY /EVIDENCE — 1174.6 IF
BREAK ROOM W/TOILETS — 468.9 SF
COMMUNICATIONS — 985.7 SF
SALLY PORT — 710.7 SF
DAYCARE — 448.4 SF
ADMINISTRATION — 1,790.1 SF
T3AFFIC — 789.4 SF
HOLDING — 3024.9 SF
Department Floor Areas Shn1 NO, 1
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER I... October 9, 2002
cal
Smla: No Se
Moorpark. CA Shea- 1
Dale: October 9, 2002
Project No: 02008.00
I
�I
w.
w1
rI
UI
�I
z
01
Ui
w.
�I
I
0
9
I
I
i
I
1
1
/
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
SOUTH SITE
^•^� 165,873.43 S.F.
(3.81 ACRES)
--- --- --------- — — — — ----- ------- — — ---
MINOR STREET
® — --
IF 02'5' le 32
0
I �
POLICE SERVICES
CENTER
ONE -STORY
26,345 S.F.
p
FUTURE
OlDING FFCIUTY
ONE -STORY
3,025 S.F.
I 1
i
e
2W' -2•r
NORTH SITE
NOT USED
109,777.63 S.F.
(2.52 ACRES)
Moorpark Police Services Center °cft°T22,�
Moorpark, CA
J�
D_
F
0
D
0
D
n
cn
WId= %W°Qkm
® ® -
l�
C7
I
�I
w.
wl
(Y '
I- I
UI
QI
Z
OI
U
w.
cI
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
i
i
i
I
i
i
e
e
POLICE SERVICES
CENTER
ONE -STORY
26,345 S.F.
erne
NO IN nwc vnciutt
ONE-STOW
S.°25 S.F.
1 =7—
SOUTH SITE
165,873.43 S.F.
13.81 ACRES)
________ ________ _____ _____ ww�w.c��.mwa
V_ L L LRU �:1 I i i] i i i JLLLLO
MINOR STREET
my 0
� � I
I
-' -2•x
NORTH SITE
NOT USED
109,777.63 S.F.
(2.52 ACRES)
Moorpark Police Services Center °�22.2=
Moorpark, CA
D_
O
D
D
n
wld_%W.c.,_
rn.ayu-
July 10, 2002
Mr. Hugh R. Riley
Assistant City Manager
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
RE: Moorpark Police Services Center
LEED Certification
WWCOT Project Number 02008.00
Dear Mr. Riley:
Here is a summary on the LEED (Leadership in Energy Efficient Design) Building Rating
Certification process as we discussed yesterday for your review.
LEED is administered and assessed by USGBC (United States. Green Building Council)
designed for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high -rise residential
Chester A. Widorn, FA /A
buildings. The latest version of LEED includes multiple buildings, core & shell, interiors,
Adrian 0. Cohen. FAIA
and residential buildings.
Andrea Cohen Gehring, AIA
It evaluates environmental performance from a "whole building" perspective over a
Rick Fivekiller
building's life cycle, providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a green building.
Pamela Touschner. AIA
Whole- building approach encourages and guides a collaborative, integrated design and
construction process and optimizes environmental and economic factors.
Edward K. Takahashi. FA /A
Rudolph Y'. DeChellis, FAIR
The benefits of green design can be summarized as follows:
Takashi shida, FAIR
Benjamin Levin. AIA
The local and global environment benefits from protecting air quality, water quality, and
Donald A. Wexler, ,AIA
overall biodiversity and ecosystem health.
Dean ✓. clahos, AIA
Economic benefits are experienced in building operations, asset value, worker productivity,
George Wein. AIA -E
and the local economy.
Arthur F. o Leary, FAIA -e
Toshikazu Terasaxa, FAAIA
Occupants benefit from health and safety features. This also relates to risk management and
(1923-1995)
its related economics.
T 310/828 -0040
Community and municipal benefits include lessened demand for large -scale infrastructure
F 310;453 -9432
such as landfills, water supply, storm water sewers, and their related development and
E info@wwcot.com
operational costs; and decreased transportation development and maintenance burden
31=0 Wilshire Blvd.
(roads) and increased economic performance of mass transit systems.
b0' Floor
Energy- and water - efficient buildings have been able to reduce their operating costs
significantly. Use can be cut to less than half than that of a traditional building by
Santa Monica, CA
employing aggressive and well - integrated green design concepts.
90403 -2349
WWW. W WCO[.COn1
W WCOT Project Number
IQ0709hr -reed Inland En p"'e
Palm Springs
Mexico City
Hugh Riley
July 10, 2002
Page 2
Healthy indoor environments can increase employee productivity according to an increasing
number of case studies. Since workers are by far the largest expense for most companies
(for offices, salaries are 72 times higher than energy costs, and they account for 92% of the
life -cycle cost of a building), this has a tremendous effect on overall costs (See Green
Development by the Rocky Mountain Institute for more information www.rmi.org).
LEED is based on accepted energy and environmental principles and strikes a balance
between known effective practices and emerging concepts. The development of LEED was
instigated by the USGBC membership, representing all segments of the building industry,
and was developed using a transparent process open to the public.
The four -level rating system provides a framework to help move the U.S. building industry
to more sustainable practices. It responds to the U.S. marketplace and to budgets of U.S.
design practices. Reports from completed built examples, complying with LEED standards,
indicate an average of additional costs incurred to the construction budget. The four levels
and additional costs are as follows:
LEED Certified, 26 - 32 points (5 to 8% additional above base case)
Silver Level, 33 - 38 points (10 to 12% additional above base case)
Gold Level, 39 - 51 points (15 to 20% additional above base case)
Platinum Level, 52+ points, 69 possible (over 20% additional above base case)
Life cycle costs studies can determine what the economic payback for these initial costs will
be in terms of building energy used /conserved, and in addition, proponents would argue that
the healthier indoor environment affecting worker health and productivity, as outlined
above, would gain additional economic benefits.
The U.S. Green Building Council is the nation's foremost coalition of leaders from across
the building industry working to promote buildings that are environmentally responsible,
profitable, and healthy places to live and work. For additional information you can visit the
U. S. Green Building Council's website at www.usgbe.org.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any additional questions.
Very truly yours,
WWCOT
Larry Taniguchi
Architect/Sr. Associate
cc: Bob Lemay /Captain, Chief of Police, City of Moorpark
Ken Gilbert/Director of Public Works, City of Moorpark
LEED: Leadership in Energy - Environmental Design
L E E D
LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY A ENWRONMENTAL DESIGN
LEEDTm Green Building Rating System
Introductory PowerPoint Presentation, March 2002 Edition
(right -click on title to save presentation with speaker notes)
Provides a general overview of the Council, the benefits of green building, and a
primer on LEEDT"'. Use it to educate your colleagues and clients!
The LEED for Existing Buildings Pilot Program is underway!
Visit the LEED- EB_page for more information.
OVERVIEW_
CERTIFICATION PROCESS
. Prolect_Re9istration Form
. Credit Inquiries and- Rulings
RATING SYSTEM AND RESOURCES
• LEED TM Version 2.0 document
• Documentation Requirements
• Credit Checklist
. Reference Guide Description
. Reference Guide e -copy access
. Order. the Reference Package
. Amendments
. Development Archives
LEED TM Overview
LEEDTm CERTIFIED & REGISTERED
PROJECTS
TRAINING WORKSHOPS.
• Description
• Schedule and Registration Forms
ACC-R_EDITATION EXAM
• List of LEED Ac_credited Professionals
• Exam Description ------------- _- _- ____
• Registration Information
• Study Guide
The LEED Green Building Rating System TM is a priority program of the
US Green Building Council. It is a voluntary, consensus - based, market -
driven building rating system based on existing proven technology. It
evaluates environmental performance from a "whole building"
perspective over a building's life cycle, providing a definitive standard for
what constitutes a "green building ".
LEED TM is based on accepted energy and environmental principles and
strikes a balance between known effective practices and emerging
concepts. Unlike other rating systems currently in existence, the
Page 1 of 6
http:// www -.usgbc.org, /programsileed.htm 7, /10/02
LEED: Leadership in Energy - Environmental Design
development of LEED Green Building Rating SystemTM was instigated
by the US Green Council Membership, representing all segments of the
building industry. and has been open to public scrutiny.
LEED TM is a self - assessing system designed for rating new and existing
commercial, institutional, and high -rise residential buildings. It is a
feature - oriented system where credits are earned for satisfying each
criteria. Different levels of green building certification are awarded based
on the total credits earned. The system is designed to be
comprehensive in scope, yet simple in operation.
LEED Green Building Rating System TM
The LEED Green Building Rating SysternTM Version 2.0 lists the intent,
requirements, and basic technologies /strategies for each credit. It also
includes the LEED TM Checklist.
The Rating System is available through a free download.. To view this
file, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader Version 4 or
better.
LEEDT"" Documentation Requirements (Submittals Summary)
Documentation Requirements for LEED T"" 2.0. This is a HIGHLY
RECOMMENDED download for project teams considering LEED
certification.
LEED TM Credit Checklist
Credit Checklist for LEEDTm 2.0.
The Credit Checklist is an Excel spreadsheet file created to help users
estimate their performance under the LEED Rating System during the
design process.
LEED T"" Technical Resources
Reference Guide, June 2001 Edition
The June 2001 Edition of the LEED T"" Reference Guide is a 280 page
supporting document that provides detailed information, resources and
standards for the five environmental categories covered by the LEED
Green Building Rating SystemTM. Available in the LEEDTm Reference
Package (see below), it is intended to help applicants for LEED T"
certification understand the criteria and the benefits of compliance.
Compared to the August 2000 Edition, the June 2001 Edition offers new
and improved content including calculation instructions, tables,
http: / /www.usgbc.org /programs /leed.htm
Page 2 of 6
7/10/02
LEED: Leadership in Energy 9- Environmental Design
resources, and case studies, all in an easily navigable format.
For each credit the LEEDTm Reference Guide provides the following
information:
. Overview and points per credit
. Documentation required
. Importance
. Summary of reference standard (where applicable)
. Design strategies and technologies
. Potential design synergies and trade -offs
. Economics (when available)
. Resources and definitions
. Calculation methods and formulas
. Case study (when available)
On -line Access to the Reference Guide for Workshop Attendees
Access to the June 2001 Reference Guide is provided free of charge to
LEED'rm Workshop attendees. Note: Accessibility begins 10 days after the
Workshop date. Just click HERE and enter your username
(Firstname_Lastname) and passcode provided at the workshop.
On -line Access to the Reference Guide for Reference Package
Customers and Previous E -copy (August 2000 Edition) Purchasers:
Click HERE and enter your username and password.
LEEDTm Reference Package
The Reference Package includes the following:
. June 2001 Reference Guide (hardcopy)
. Immediate online access to the June 2001 Reference Guide, for
office or remote viewing
. LEEDTm Rating System and Checklist (hardcopy)
. Companion CD -ROM with the Rating System, Welcome Packet
(process and documentation details), Calculator (credit calculation
spreadsheets and the Scorecard), Application Template,
Slideshow Overview (educational tool on LEED and green
building), and the Accreditation Exam Study Guide
ORDER HERE!
Members: $250
Non- members: $400
Amendments to the LEED Reference Package:
. #2.0_- EAc1.- 133:_ LEED _ Energy &_Atmosphere_ Credit _1 Amendment,
Point Interpolations f o..r_ASHRAE.9.0.1- 1.999__a_nd California's Title 24
Page 3 of 6
http: / /ww�v.usgbc.org /programs /leed.htm 71i 10/02
LEED: Leadership in Energy x> Environmental Design
LEEDTm Training Workshops
Introductory Workshop (half -day): General overview of the LEED
Green Building Rating System and project Certification process
presented in a lecture format by an official USGBC LEED Faculty
member. This workshop is designed for audiences with little or no
knowledge of green building practices or the LEED Green Building
Rating System.
Intermediate Workshop (full -day): This workshop will cover an
introduction to green building design benefits and strategies, an
intermediate -level technical review of each point in the LEED Green
Building Rating System, green building resources to use in projects,
acquiring the tools and insights for leveraging green design and LEED
into practice, and gaining the knowledge needed for taking the LEED
Accreditation exam.
Advanced Workshop (full -day): Previous completion of the LEED
Intermediate Workshop or a strong knowledge of the LEED Rating
System and general green building practices and technologies is
strongly recommended. This full -day session is designed for project
team members looking to gain experience in LEED planning and
documentation for certification.
View our Event Calendar for LEEDIm Workshops in your area,
registration forms and pricing.
LEED TM Professional Accreditation Exam
News: USGBC has renewed its contract with Prometric for
delivering the Accreditation Exam. There will be no interruption in
service. The content of the exam has NOT changed.
The LEED Accredited Professional exam tests an individual's knowledge
of LEED and green building in order to recognize green building
specialists. LEED Accredited Professionals facilitate integrated design
and LEED Certification processes. This credential program helps meet
the supply and demand needs of the building industry. Our online
Accredited Professional list facilitates networking between clients and
service providers. Successful exam candidates will receive:
a LEEDTm Accredited Professional Certificate
recognition as a LEEDTm Accredited Professional on the USGBC
Web site listing, and
one point toward LEED TM Certification of green building projects (if
the Accredited Professional is on the project team).
Sample questions and a desciption of the exam's structure are provided
Page 4 of b
http: / /wtivw.usgbc.org /programs /leed.htm 7i 10/02
LEED: Leadership in Energy Environmental Design
in the LEED Accreditation __ Exam-Study Guide. The test consists of 100
questions, of which 75 are needed to pass.
There are no prerequisites for registering for the LEEDTm Accredited
Professional Examination, however, it is strongly recommended that
candidates have tenure in the building design and construction industry
and /or as a building business professional or a facilities staff or
executive. Areas of expertise and knowledge that will be required and
be demonstrated will include but not be limited to the following:
• familiarity with the LEED Green Building Rating System Version
2.0,
• understanding of the LEED project registration /technical
support/certification process,
. knowledge of the LEED certification documentation requirements,
. demonstrated knowledge of design and construction industry
standards and process,
. understanding of the general subject matter of the various
ASHRAE and Federal standards referenced in the LEED Green
Building Rating System,
. intermediate understanding of green and sustainable design
strategies and topics,
. demonstrated knowledge of the use and location of key green and
sustainable design resources and tools.
Call 1- 888 -215 -4154 to schedule a testing session appointment at any
of the 300 Prometric and Sylvan Learning sites around the United States
and Canada. Prometric is a third -party testing service contracted by
USGBC. Persons with disabilities or special conditions (i.e.,
medical equipment or needs) must first call USGBC at 202 -828-
7422, extension 208. Members should be prepared to provide their
USGBC Member username to receive the discounted registration fee.
Prometric personnel will let you know what else you are required to
bring, e.g., two pieces of identification with name as given AND
signature - one with photo. Ask about allowable identification. Be
prepared to empty all your pockets -- no extraneous items may be
brought into the testing room! The closed -book, electronic format exam
will be up to 2 hours in length. The cost of the exam is $250 for
members and $350 for non - members (subject to change).
To cancel or reschedule your exam appointment, notify Prometric
directly through 888 - 215 -4154 no later than noon, two (2) business
days prior to your test date to avoid forfeiting the full exam fee.
Speak with a customer service representative during the Prometric Call
Center's business hours (between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm Eastern
Standard Time, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on
Saturday). No voicemails or a -mails are accepted as notice of
cancellation. Phone lines may be busy, so call in advance. The least
busy days to call are: (1) Saturday, and (2) Friday. The busiest time is in
the evening, before their 8:00 pm closing time.
http://'w-v,,-w.usgbc.org/programs/leed.htm
Page 5 of 6
7/10/02
Moorpark Police Services Center
iTFTv1__,S A.
Conceptual Design Options
Moorpark, California
October 30, 2002
oz c
Moorpark Police Services Center Site Analysis October 30, zooz
Conceptual Design Options Moorpark, California 1
,
6
III
o;
z
I �I
w!
_�PR[N R A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q.�
Q = III
1 �
o--or
s
v
,a
-ij
Fu
•
I i � I
i a r
--- i
,
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER October 30, 2002
MOORPARK, CA
Scheme'A'
�l
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER
Moorpark, CA
o,e,
Scheme 'A' memafe witf m CHP
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER
Moorpark, CA
Scheme'A' aRematebricksdwe
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER
Moorpark, CA
mvc
OT
Scheme 'B'
Now-
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER
Moorpark, CA
Scheme'B' attemete brick scheme
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER
Moorpark, CA
�V C
Scheme 'C' aRem ie cow sch me
t - li,_
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER
Moorpark, CA
vINAv c
OT
Scheme 'C'
z i i "W
f
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER
Moorpark, CA
kNAVC
OT :_
_ _ SPfinGROPO
�N
y
' / .uu ssxnrESmnw
II-
MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER '�^
i
sraEEr IREES ' a TREES
III mnnn r rur�atixwos � wr.u�rm � „y - � ',.
WE—IPEES F—RNG TREES PING -TREES
i F L''�
_ MOORPARK POLICE SERVICES CENTER
�
dill
W
ITEM S• 1* MOM
C i }' Ci: yk1tL -1:,14
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL ACi is >'nsz"'su5 +o re�4urn ►� 3
P ssblz a i�nmer+t5 5R �l�
AGENDA REPORT
;Z 1 rne rU r e &r m Q 5 n& L +o SM1L
A u.N S
TO: Honorable City Council W" "__
+onnec+ Eo wGlnut Cyr Rd 4-0
►--os q�,q�tes q,re�.
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager
DATE: October 28, 2002 (CC Special Meeting of 10/30/02)
SUBJECT: Consider Discussion of Potential Modifications to the
Circulation Element Highway Network Adjacent to the
Planned State Route 118 Bypass and State Route 23 Freeway
Extension.
SUMMARY
The Community Development Department is scheduled to begin
preparation of a comprehensive revision to the Circulation Element
later this fiscal year. In the interim, staff is recommending
consideration be given to an evaluation of and possible amendment
to the Circulation Element highway network planned in the northern
part of the city. This would allow any possible amendments to be
made to the Circulation Element prior to the dedication and
development of highway improvements associated with recently
approved projects.
BACKGROUND
Several major projects along the Walnut Canyon corridor are close
to obtaining development permits or having development entitlements
considered by Council, including Moorpark Highlands (Pardee),
Westpointe Homes (Lyon), Vistas at Moorpark (SunCal), and Hitch
Ranch (Milligan Family). All of these projects involve the
improvement of segments of the highway network planned in the
Circulation Element of the General Plan, including an extension of
the State Route 23 Freeway and a bypass route for State Route 118.
In addition, Council set aside funds in the last two fiscal years
to obtain preliminary design and construction cost estimates for
the widening of Moorpark Avenue to provide two southbound through
lanes from Casey Road to Third Street.
Honorable City Council
Meeting of October 30, 2002
Page 2
On February 7, 2001, the City Council considered issues related to
the SR -118 bypass. The difficulty of a direct connection from the
SR -118 bypass to the SR- 118/23 horseshoe was noted due to the high
cost of bridging the SR- 118/23 freeways. Consensus was reached at
this meeting that the SR -118 bypass should be initially developed
as a parkway (referred to as the North Hills Parkway) within a 200 -
foot corridor as opposed to a grade- separated freeway, and parkway
improvements were to terminate on the east at Spring Road. On
February 6, 2002, the City Council also directed staff to study the
potential connection of the extension of State Route 23 through the
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan to Los Angeles Avenue via Crawford
Canyon.
In response to Council direction, staff authorized a contract with
Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. to prepare a conceptual alignment
and construction cost estimate for the SR -23 Extension /Los Angeles
Avenue connection. The alignment study showed that a connection
was possible through Crawford Canyon, at a total cost of about
$23.4 million (copy attached) . At the present time staff is
seeking further direction for study of issues related to street
improvements in the highway network plan.
DISCUSSION
The highway network plan of the 1992 Circulation Element was last
amended in 1999 to include improvements related to Specific Plan 2
(Moorpark Highlands). A copy of this plan is included as Attachment
1. It includes a six -lane arterial SR -118 bypass extending west
from the existing freeway to Gabbert Road, turning into a four -lane
arterial that is planned to connect to Los Angeles Avenue west of
Buttercreek Road. It also includes a four -lane arterial extension
of the State Route 23 Freeway on the eastern edge of Specific Plan
2 to ultimately connect to Broadway north of the City's municipal
boundaries. Both of these segments of the highway network were
originally included in the 1992 Circulation Element. An amendment
to the network as part of Specific Plan 2 included a northerly
extension of Spring Road to connect to Walnut Canyon Road.
Conditions placed on the Specific Plan 2 subdivision included the
posting of signs on this road to preclude truck through traffic.
Truck traffic on surface streets through Moorpark remains one of
the major local circulation issues. At present, heavy truck traffic
accounts for about 150 of the vehicle traffic on Walnut Canyon
Road, and 200 on Los Angeles Avenue. In addition, the County is
processing for consideration three amendments to mining permits
that collectively could add over 1,100 daily truck trips, many of
which would use Walnut Canyon Road (SR -23) to access the SR- 118/23
freeways via Los Angeles Avenue (SR -118). The planned SR -118 bypass
S: \Community Development \G P Elements \CCO21030 Circulation Element.doc
I f
Honorable City Council
Meeting of October 30, 2002
Page 3
and the SR -23 extension in the Circulation Element highway network
would substantially alleviate truck traffic on Los Angeles Avenue
and Walnut Canyon Road, however completion of these segments is a
long -term process at best. Short to medium term alternatives to
address both truck traffic and local development traffic should be
considered as the roadway plans are being finalized for the
development projects in the Walnut Canyon corridor.
Three issues have been identified for Council discussion related to
potential roadway improvements. These include:
1) Should the main access road in the Westpointe project
(Tract No. 5187) be developed to connect the North Hills
Parkway from Hitch Ranch to Walnut Canyon Road?
2) Should a portion of the Spring Road Extension be used
instead of Walnut Canyon Road for trucks driving between
Fillmore and the State Route 118/23 freeways?
3) Should Crawford Canyon be used to connect State Route 23 to
Los Angeles Avenue?
Diagrams of alternative highway plans (Attachment 2) are provided
to illustrate these issues.
1. Should the Westpointe access road be developed to connect the
North Hills Parkway from Hitch Ranch to Walnut Canyon Road?
(Alternatives 1 -4)
The Westpointe access road, as approved, would tie in to the North
Hills Parkway on the Hitch Ranch property. Over 800 houses would
be built as part of these two projects if the Hitch Ranch Specific
Plan is approved, and this road could also provide a convenient
connection between the industrial area on the west side of Moorpark
and Walnut Canyon Road. The planned North Hills Parkway calls for
no connection to Walnut Canyon Road with a bridge spanning the
canyon. The cost of such a bridge, spanning over 400 feet of
canyon, would make its construction not foreseeable in the near
term.
2. Should truck traffic travelling south on Walnut Canyon Road be
encouraged to use a portion of the Spring Road extension instead of
continue on Walnut Canyon Road? (Use of the Spring Road extension
from Walnut Canyon Road to the existing northerly terminus of
Spring Road by trucks was rejected when Specific Plan No. 2 was
approved.)
A reversal of the "T" intersection at the Walnut Canyon Road /Spring
Road intersection would encourage the use of Spring Road. As a
four -lane roadway, it could accommodate the traffic better than
Walnut Canyon Road. Caltrans rejected a proposal for Walnut Canyon
S: \Community Development \G P Elements \CCO21030 Circulation Element.doc
Honorable City Council
Meeting of October 30, 2002
Page 4
Road south of this junction to "T" in to a Spring Road extension
when considering the Specific Plan 2 project connection to Walnut
Canyon Road. The response from Caltrans might be different if the
Spring Road extension is designated as the State Route 23. However,
two tract conditions prohibit through truck traffic on this
roadway. These were placed to address concerns about truck traffic
from residents along Charles Street at Spring Road. A connection to
the existing Spring Road terminus (Alternative 2) would involve the
least cost, but it would transfer the impacts of truck traffic from
one neighborhood to another, unless satisfactory mitigation could
be developed. An arterial extension directly to the SR -118 freeway
(Alternative 5) would minimize impacts on existing neighborhoods,
but would likely be too expensive to feasibly build, given the
bridges that would be necessary to make a two -way connection. A
connection to Los Angeles Avenue at Crawford Canyon (Alternatives
3 and 4) was studied in response to Council direction and is
addressed separately below.
3. If the northerly portion of the extension of Spring Road is
preferred to Walnut Canyon Road as a truck route, should it connect
to Los Angeles Avenue at Crawford Canyon?
The Crawford Canyon option is less expensive than a direct freeway
connection since it does not require bridges. Full development of
this route, from Broadway to Los Angeles Avenue was estimated by
Charles Abbott Associates to cost about $23.4 million. It too,
like the Spring Road connection, could result in neighborhood
impacts unless mitigated. Two potential routes could be used for
this connection. The first, illustrated by Alternative 3, shows a
connection of Los Angeles Avenue to the future SR -23 extension in
the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan. Until this extension is
fully developed to Broadway, truck traffic in this alternative
would connect to Walnut Canyon Road via C Street and Spring Road.
Another approach (Alternative 4) is to connect Los Angeles Avenue
to the area for the SR -118 reservation, linking this to Spring Road
and Walnut Canyon Road. This approach would provide a more direct
connection between Los Angeles Avenue and Walnut Canyon Road than
Alternative 3.
STAFF RECOM4ENDATION
Provide direction to staff on Circulation Element Highway Network
issues.
S: \Community Development \G P Elements \CCO21030 Circulation Element.doc
Honorable City Council
Meeting of October 30, 2002
Page 5
Attachments:
1. General Plan Circulation Element Highway Network
2. Alternative Highway Network Plans
3. Conceptual Alignment and Construction Cost Estimate - SR 23
Bypass and Widening of Los Angeles Avenue
S: \Community Development \G P Elements \CCO21030 Circulation Element.doc
4 3= + e
LEnIIM
FRIMAT
a
sactAMI Aea ARTERIAL
ZRJAL
ICtIN CAME ARllRw.
-R RURAL CKLBCMR
1.ocAl coLLecroR
■ aatiALr» xrusac,+ow
S ATdRADS RR CROUM
GRAD! fDARA12L RR GROOM
�•�•�•�•« CRT LDAT W1DmART
..R N 6 2 M O R• SR-11S FREEWAY CORRIDOR
Tl-
+�. �. r .r r OM • �r.� rrt
FXYLM 2
CrN OF MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Maa+wm PEMM
soph iba tm
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
ATTACHMENT 1
Alternative I
Roadway Network Under Circulation Element
Note: Westpointe Access is rrit a part of Circutation Fiement roadway r*twcck,
ATTACHMENT 2
Alternative
Walnut Canyon Road/ Spry Road Connealon
am WO ww Oft +Ka
Alternative 3
Walnut Canyon Rd./ Spring Rd./
Future SR -23 Ext./ Los Angeles Ave.
Connection
Broadway
Alternative 4
Walnut Canyon /Spring Road /Los Angeles Avenue Connection
Broadway
Championshi
Alternative 5
Walnut Canyon Road /Spring Road/ SR -11 S Bypass
Broadway
Championship Drive
es"
- O360101,_,_ ( -O
ee� In
c
c
1
fi
w w
J
4
E
2 n y
n �
N
APge`es
�fl4
Nigh Street
u
w
SR -118
c
c
n
a
�
0
3
v
Q.
1
ee� In
c
c
1
fi
w w
J
4
E
2 n y
n �
N
APge`es
�fl4
Nigh Street
u
w
SR -118
CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SR 23 Bypass (From Los Angeles Avenue to Broadway)
and
Widening
of
Los Angeles Avenue (From SR 23 Bypass to Kavlico Property)
r
City of Moorpark
Prepared by
Charles Abbott Associates, Inc.
June 2002
Revised July 2002
CC ATTACHMENT 3
Table of Contents
I. Project Description
1. Introduction
2. Scope of Work
3. Criteria and Assumptions
4. Accompanying Plans and Appendices
II. Cost Estimate
1. Summary Cost Estimate
2. Quantities and Details - SR -23 Bypass (Los Angeles Avenue to
Broadway Road)
A. General
B. Earthwork
C. Structural Section
D. Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk
E. Drainage
F. Traffic Items
G. Miscellaneous Items
H. Right -of -Way
3. Quantities and Details - Los Angeles Avenue (300' West of SR -23
Bypass to Kavlico Property)
A. General
B. Earthwork
C. Structural Section
D. Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk
E. Drainage
F. Traffic Items
G. Miscellaneous Items
H. Right -of -Way
III. Figures and Appendices
1. Figure 1 Project Location Map
2. Figure 2 Typical Section
3. Appendix A Alignment Plan
4. Appendix B Profile and Cross Sections
5. Appendix C Earthwork Calculations
I. Project Description
1. Introduction
In accordance with the City of Moorpark Additional Services
Authorization No. 01 -07 and attachments, we have prepared a
Conceptual Alignment and Cost Estimate for:
• SR -23 Bypass from Los Angeles Avenue to Broadway
• Widening of Los Angeles Avenue from SR -23 Bypass to
Kavlico Property in the City of Moorpark, California.
2. Scope of Work
Our services were performed in general accordance with our
proposal attached to the City of Moorpark Additional Services
Authorization No. 01 -07. Our scope of this project included the
following tasks:
• Scope meeting
• Research and analyze existing data
• Aerial topography
Y^ Roadway alignment
• Prepare cost estimate
• Present cost estimate to City
As detailed in our proposal, this cost estimate will be approximate
and within 50% error.
The proposed developments along the conceptual alignment were
not considered in this study.
3. Criteria and Assumptions
The location of the project was based upon an approximate
alignment provided by the City (an alignment sketched on a
1" =2400' scale Thomas Bros. Guide Map page); see Figure 1 for
project location.
An aerial topography and a contour map at 1" =100' scale, 2 foot
contour intervals were prepared. An alignment drawn on the
contour map was submitted to the City and reviewed. Based on the
comments of the City, we prepared additional contours and a
revised alignment. A construction cost estimate was then prepared
using this revised alignment.
The SR23 Bypass is classified as a Controlled Access Secondary
Road by the Ventura County Public Works Agency Road Standards
Plate B -2 -13, with modified 10' parkways and a total right of way
width of 98'. A typical section is shown in Figure 2.
The following design standards were used for this conceptual
alignment and cost estimate project:
Horizontal Alignment Ventura County Road Standards Plate
B2 -B
Vertical Curves Ventura County Road Standards Plate
D -1
Gradient Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Section 204.3
Curb and Gutter American Public Works Association
Standards
Street Light Ventura County Road Standards Plate
F -9
Structural Section Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Section 608.4
Others Ventura County Road Standards
American Public Works Association
Standards
-' Caltrans Standards
Earthwork quantities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil Design
2000 version software based on the aerial topography and cross
sections generated at 50 -foot intervals. Due to the limitations of the
software, only a 2:1 excavation and embankment was considered,
and no terraces were included in the earthwork calculation,
additional quantities for the terraces were added to the estimate.
The Ventura County Road Standards allow a maximum gradient of
5 %; based on this gradient the excavation quantity was calculated
to be 3 million cubic yards. Using the Caltrans allowable 7%
maximum gradient for mountainous rural highways, the excavation
quantity was reduced to 2.73 million cubic yards. In order to
balance the excavation, the profile was adjusted to generate
approximately the same quantity of embankment. Due to this large
quantity of embankment, slopes of over 180' wide (measured
horizontally) in places encroached into backyards existing homes,
building structure, and -golf course fairways. The alignment was
then shifted to avoid such encroachment, and the cost estimate
revised accordingly. This shifted alignment resulted in a 2.07 million
cubic yards excavation.
No soils report was prepared for this project, a 10% factor was
included in the calculation to allow for shrinkage. Keyways,
benching, and subdrains for embankment were not quantified; a
higher unit cost for embankment was used to account for these
items.
Pavement structural section was calculated based on a traffic index
of 8 as required by the Ventura County Public Works Agency Road
Standards Plate B -2 -B, and an assumed median subgrade R -value
of 25. This resulted in a structural section of 6" AC over 13" CAB.
Right of way cost included in the estimate was based on a search
of the assessed values of the parcels along the alignment, and an
assumed mix of different land use categories.
Adjusted unit prices of Ventura County Public Works Agency and
Caltrans cost data were used for the estimate. All dollar values are
2002 values; adjustments must be made to obtain future dollar
value. The cost estimate included construction and right of way
costs only, no other costs were included.
4. Accompanying Plans and Appendices
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Typical Section
Appendix A Alignment Plan
Appendix B Profile and Cross Sections
Appendix C Earthwork Calculations
3
FIGURE
BROADWAY ROAD
�N
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2
:a TYPICAL SECTION
SR23 BY —PASS
(VENTURA COUNTY STD. B -2 MODIFIED)
1 CURB AND GUTTER PER APWA STD 120 TYPE A2- 200(8), W =18 ".
2 CURB ONLY PER APWA STD 120 TYPE A1- 200(8).
3 4" THICK PCC SIDEWALK.
4O 6" AC ON 13" CAB.
5 METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING PER CALTRANS STD A77A, WHERE OCCURS.
6 STREET LIGHT, 16,000 LUMEN, 200' SPACING.
7 STREET TREE, 20' SPACING.
II. Cost Estimate
1. Summary Cost Estimate
SR -23Bypass Cost Estimate Summary -
l.- -- 'Roadway Items
1. Earthwork
$ __
7,223,105
2"-
3. Curb, gutter, & sidewalk
3.
$
995,988
------569,592 '
5. Traffic items - - -_ __ ____
._- .$..__ -
- - - -_- ___710,629
MisceCfaneous it ems . -_._. —w
-$v
—3 0 4 653
-- 'Subtotal construction: __. .. _.__ _____
, $___..
- -- 14,876,315
719;0.79.7
Total construction:
$
18,595,394
11 -72Tg- t- oti•wa-y
_ Right of way __
$
3,015,628
_ _— -25% contingency ___....._ ._ _ ____..__.
$__._.
__ -__ - 753,907
Total SR 23 Bypass: _ ____ . _ ___._. _.., ,_____ _. __
___.__, _$ ._._.
___- 22,364,929
Los Angetes Avenue Cost Estimate 5umma'ry
..ice oadway Items_ -_
1. Structural section � � _ _____
__$____ _
. - - - -- 262,876 '
- 2. Curb, gutter & sidewalk
$
219,200
—. —_ -.3: Drainage -- __ .. -
-- ....$-
- - - -- 1-92,420
- `4. Traffic items ____ -_ ___. _..__.._....
$____
6,435
__.5.__..Miscellaneous- ifie"'m -___
___� .__.__.._
_ — .72;555
Subtotal�co6 truction -� -- -- � -
__ ..__$____ ____
-__— .853;486
o contingency:
$__-
X3,371
construction:
i oral Los Angeles Avenue: :5 9,066,857
Total Project Cost: $ 23,431,786
2
SR23Bypass
Unit Unit Price
Cost
23,714
LF_ $ 12.00 $
284,568
23,714._
I. Roadway Items
237,140
118,570
SF_ $ 4.00 $
474,280
Total Curb, Gutter&
Sidewalk:
1 Earthwork
g
EA
$
..... 4,500.00 $ ._..
40,500 '
8
Item.
Qty
Unit
__28;000 !.
Unit Price
_
Cost
Clear & grub _
__ - 71..45
Ac
$
. _1,250.00
$
89,313
Excavation
2,195,251
CY
$
1.50
; $
3,292,877
Embankment
2,194,809
CY
$
1.75
$
3,840,916
120,000
Total Earthwork:
Total Miscellaneous
__ _ _
2 Structural Section:
................ _
Item
Qty
Unit
Unit Price
Cost _
Finish grade & prime coat
723,277
SF
$
0.13
_$
94,026
Fo seal coat __._
9
..
_..__ __ ...___- 723.277_.
SF _
$
. __. -0.42
$
723,277
SF
$
1.62
$
1,171,709
13" AB _
723,277
SF
$
1.41 ,
$
.1,01 9,821
- Total Structural Section: m
$
2,372,349
3_Curli, GutteeA'SIdewaIk..._
Item _
Curb and gutter (Type AA2)
Median curb
Sidewalk (4" Thick)
Qty
Unit Unit Price
Cost
23,714
LF_ $ 12.00 $
284,568
23,714._
LF $ 10:00. $
237,140
118,570
SF_ $ 4.00 $
474,280
Total Curb, Gutter&
Sidewalk:
,
Qty
Unit
�+
Unit Price
Cost
_ 3,400 ;
LF
$
70.00: $
238,000
560
LF
$
42.00 _ $
___23,520
g
EA
$
..... 4,500.00 $ ._..
40,500 '
8
EA _
. $
3;500.00 ,_$_...
__28;000 !.
_ 1,650 '
LF .._
. $
_....__ 90.00. $ .._
._148,500
2,846 `
.. -LF* _
$
...... 32.00 • $
"9;6-00_..
Total Drainage:
- _
� 1,142 _
-- $
569 592
Street light ...
_.Y
60
�+
- - --
host
210,000
EA
_ ' _ _ffem - . - --
Qty --
Unit
SF
Unif Price-
1:50. $
391,281
_ Traffic signal.. _- _ _. - -
__Metalbeam'guard
- --
- 2 -
-
EA
$
200,000.00
$
- 400, -000 -'
railing (wood post)
-
- 13,106 "'
LF
4,500 00 ' $
201,555
Erosion control blanket
2fi2, -000-
_ Traffic sign`
_- 48___
EA_._
_$
-__ 200:00
$_
"9;6-00_..
P� 9 ( ) _.__
Thermoplastic traffic�stri m 4'
- _
� 1,142 _
LF ___
$.
_._. -0:50
$ __-
35;57f
Pavement marker - ___
988
EA _ .
$
-_. 3_.50
$
10,000:00 " $
120,000
__Total Traffic1tems -
Total Miscellaneous
--
Street light ...
_.Y
60
�+
vnn race
3,500.00: $
host
210,000
EA
$
Landscape & irrigation (median & parkway)
260,854
SF
$
1:50. $
391,281
...... Street tree (15 gallon)
1,779
EA
$
85:00: $
151,215
Slope prep & seeding (no irrigation)
44.79
SF
$
4,500 00 ' $
201,555
Erosion control blanket
216,777
SY
_ . $
2....00 , $
_ .433;554 ;
Terrace drain _
46,900
LF
$
28:00 ! $
11313,200
Down drain
Relocate exist power pole
6,566
LF
$
28.00 $
183,848
12
EA
$
10,000:00 " $
120,000
Total Miscellaneous
Items:
II. iRii ht ef'Wav-
Rem y Unit -- Unit Price- -most
QT --
Ri' ht-ofWay- "26 c $ 32,400.00. $ 864;432
se 512 -0 -160 -300 Chaide - arcel" ., -
P 1 EA $ 700;000:00.'$ 700;000
2ighf`of Way--- ` - 44.79 A -- °$�3 "2 400 -00 $ - 1;45i; i96"
- Total Right of Way
Los Angeles Avenue
1 - -LS
$�5 000:00
$ - -500 `
____. _ ___
I: — Roadway Items
,
�'_ 4�Traffic Items.
1 Structural Section:
._ Unif- �:—
Unit-Pnce _- �
Item
Qty _
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
`Finish grade & prime coat
80,145
SF
$ 0.13 $
10,419 '.
- -- --------- �- "-Fog
$ 0.50
$ . 2,740 1
_.___114 ; _EA
$ 3.50
80,145 .. _...
-S F _...
$ 1:62 .. $..
1 X9,835
13 AB
_ ...80.,145,
-SF-
. $ -- - -1.41
_._
Total Structural Section:
,
—`2 Curb, Gutter'& Sidewalk:
Item
._.Qty _.____
Unif
Uinlf Pnce-_---
Cosf --
_ Curti and gutter (Type A2)
5,480 ;
LF
$ 12.00' $
65,760
`Median curb
_.
5,480
LF
$ 10:00 $
54,800
Sidewalk (4" Thick)
24,660
SF _
. $ ----- -4 00 ' $
98,640
Total Curti, Gutter & Sidewalk:
,
� 31)ranage --
_ ... _
Item
_.._
_Qty
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
___'361v RCP mainline —
2,000
LF
_. $ _- 70.00'. $
140,000
8" RCP connector pipe
26
- ;
42:00 $
_. __. 0 920 '
-- —IVfanhoie
—
$ 4 5 00- 00$__._22 800
Connect to existing_
1 - -LS
$�5 000:00
$ - -500 `
____. _ ___
:Total Drainage.
,
�'_ 4�Traffic Items.
._ Unif- �:—
Unit-Pnce _- �
—Cos�-
- Remove traffic striping
_.._.__.__.5,480LS _...,.$._.
_ 0.20
$_ 1;096_.
_Traffic sign
11 EA
$ 200.00
" $ 21200',
.Thermoplastic traffic striping (4 ")
5,480 _ EA
$ 0.50
$ . 2,740 1
Pa�emenfmarker __._.__._ _.____
_.___114 ; _EA
$ 3.50
___$__ —._ 399-
___
TotalTraffic Iteriis:-
-
,
SWiscellaneous items:
Item........ __. __.____.�-- _�_. —. -- Qty -- ___._Unit •__ _..Unit- PiiceW_ -`— _Cos- t - - - --.
__— Street light_ 14 SA $ 3,500.00` $ 49,000
5awcut & remove exist Hu z;,wou , or 40 1.VW ; .v �,y�••
;Remove exist sidewalk, curb, and gutter 9 CS $ 3,000.00 ' $ 3;000
__ .._. £Remove exist retaining wall 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $5000
Total- Miscellaneous: ,
0
2. Quantities and Details — SR23 Bypass (Los Angeles Avenue to
Boardway Road
A. General
1. Project Limit
2. Length and Width
Roadway type:4 lane Controlled Access Secondary
(County Std. B -2 -B modified; see typical
section)
Length: 11,857 ft
Width (R/W to RNV): 98 ft
3. Gradient
Minimum: 1% (County Standard 13-2 -B)
Maximum: 7% (Caltrans Highway Design Manual,
Table 204.3)
4. Alignment and Profile
See attached alignment and profile in Appendice.
B. Earthwork
1. Cross Sections
Cross sections are based on 98 ft RNV and 2:1 slope at
both sides of the roadway. Cross sections are cut at 50 ft
intervals; see cross sections in Appendix. Due to the
limitations of the software, only a 2:1 excavation and
embankment slopes are shown without terraces.
2. Quantities
Excavation and embankment quantities are calculated
using AutoCAD Civil Design version 2000 software. A
10% factor is included in the calculation to allow for
shrinkage. Keyways, benching, and subdrains for
embankment are not quantified; a higher unit cost for
embankment is used to account for these items.
Additional quantities for terraces are added to the
estimate.
7
6 ft wide terraces: 130,288 CY
(for excavation, use same for embankment)
Excavation: 2,064,963 + 130,288 = 2,195,251 CY
Embankment: 2,064,521 + 130,288 = 2,194,809 CY
C. Structural Section
1. Pavement Section
Pavement section is calculated based on a T.I. of 8 as
required by the Ventura County Road Standards Plate 13-
2 -13, and an assumed median subgrade R -value of 25.
Asphalt concrete: 6 in thick
Crushed agg base: 13 in thick
2. Pavement Area
Length: 11,857 ft
Pavement Width: 61 ft
Area: 11,857 ft x 61 ft = 723,277 SF
D. Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk.
1. General
Assume: A.P.W.A. Standard 120 Type A2 -200 (8)
curb and gutter, W =18"
4 in thick concrete sidewalk, 5 ft wide
A.P.W.A. Standard 120 Type Al -200 (8)
median curb
2. Quantities
Curb and gutter
Length:
11,857 ft x 2 = 23,714 LF
Median curb
Length:
11,857 ft x 2 = 23,714 LF
Sidewalk
Length:
11,857 ft
Width:
5 ft
Area:
11,857 ft x 5 ft x 2= 118,570 SF
E. Drainage
1. Major Culvert
No major culverts identified.
2. Storm drain
Assume: 36" RCP mainline and 18" RCP connector
pipe
From LA Ave to Sta 44 +00: 3,400 LF
Manhole at 400' spacing: 9 EA
Catch basin at 1,000 spacing: 4 x 2 = 8 EA
Connector pipe: 70 ft x 8 = 560 LF
3. Cross Drain
Assume: 24" CMP
Sta 50 +50: 600 LF
Sta 57 +50: 600 LF
Sta 118 +50: 250 LF
Sta 121+25: 200 LF
Total: 1,650 LF
4. Overside Drain
Assume: 12" CMP at 500 ft spacing
60 ft average length
Quantity: 11,857 ft x 60 ft x 2= 2,846 LF
500 ft
F. Traffic Items
1. Traffic Signal
Location Size
Broadway/Walnut Canyon Road 44
Los Angeles Avenue /SR -23 Bypass 44
2. Guardrail
Sta 44 +50 to 110 +00: 6,550 x 2 = 13,100 LF
3. Signing
Assume: 500 ft spacing average
Total: 11,857 ft x 2 = 48 EA
500 ft
0
4. Striping
Left edge line: 11,857 ft x 2 = 23,714 LF
Lane line: 11,857 ft x 2 = 23,714 LF
Bike lane: 11,857 ft x 2 = 23,714 LF
Total: 71,142 LF
5. Pavement markers
Use: 48 ft spacing per Caltrans
Total: 11,857 ft x 4 = 988 EA
48 ft
G. Miscellaneous Items
1. Street Light
Assume: 200 ft spacing average in median per
Ventura County Std. F -9
Total: 11,857 ft = 60 EA
200 ft
2. Landscaping
Assume: 20 ft spacing 15 gallon trees in median
and parkways
13 ft wide landscape in median
4.5 ft wide landscape in parkway
(each side)
1,950,995 SF slope seeding with
no irrigation
Quantity:
Trees: 11,857 ft x 3 = 1,779 EA
20 ft
Landscape & irrigation: 11,857 ft x 22 ft = 260,854 SF
Slope seeding: 1,950,995 SF = 44.79 Ac (all slopes)
3. Erosion control blanket
Assume: Placed on all cut and fill slopes
Total: 1,950,995 SF /9 = 216,777 SY
10
4. Terrace drain
Assume: 25 ft spacing (vertical height) on slopes per UBC
Total: 46,900 ft
5. Down drain
Assume: 400 ft spacing at terrace drains
56 ft length (distance along slope between terrace
drains)
Total: 46,900 ft x 56 ft = 6,566 LF
400 ft
6. Relocate power pole
Total: 12 EA
H. Right -of -Way
1. General
Street right -of -way: 98 ft x 11,857 ft
Slopes (2:1): 1,950,995 SF
Land cost:
Assume:
Mix Unit Price Cost
10% residential $180,000 $18,000
90% agricultural $16,000 $14,400
Total cost per acre: $32,400
2. Quantities
Street R/W: 11, 857 ft x 98 ft = 1,161, 986 S F = 26.68 Ac
P Slope RAN: 1,950,995SF = 44.79 Ac
Total Area: = 71.47 Ac
11
�]
3. Quantities and Details - Los Angeles Avenue (300' West of SR-
23 Bypass to Kavlico Property)
A. General
1. Project Limit
2. Length and Width
i. Length: 2,740 ft
ii. Width (R/W to R/W): 88 ft
B. Earthwork
1. General
Earthwork quantities have been included in other projects
and are not part of this cost estimate.
C. Structural Section
1. Pavement Section
Assume: 6 in thick AC
13 in thick CAB
2. Pavement Area
Length: 2,740 ft
Width: 8.5 ft
Area: 2,740 ft x 18.5 ft x2 = 101,380 SF
Add left turn lane: 300 ft x 12 ft = 3,600 SF
Total = 80,145 SF
D. Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk
1. General
Assume: A.P.W.A. Standard 120 Type A2 -200 (8) curb
and gutter, W =18"
4 in thick concrete sidewalk, 5 ft wide
A.P.W.A. Standard 120 Type Al -200
(8) median curb
12
2. Quantities
Curb and gutter
Length: 2,740 ft x 2 = 5,480 LF
Median curb
Length: 2,740 ft x 2 = 5,480 LF
Sidewalk
Length: 2,740 ft
Width: 4.5 ft
Area: 2,740 ft x 4.5 ft x 2= 24,660 SF
E. Drainage
1. Storm Drain
Assume: 36" RCP from SR23 to Happy Camp Drain
Quantity: Mainline: 2,000 LF
Manhole: 5 EA
Catch basin: 4 EA
Connector pipe: 65 LF x 4 = 260 LF
Connect to exist:1 EA
F. Traffic Items
1. Signing
Assume: 500 ft spacing average
Total: 2,740 ft x 2 = 11 EA
500 ft
2. Striping
Lane line: 2,740 ft x 2 = 5,480 LF
Remove existing right edge line: 2,740 ft x 2 = 5,480 LF
3. Pavement markers
Use: 48 ft spacing per Caltrans
Total: 2,740 ft x 2 = 114 EA
48 ft
13
G. Miscellaneous Items
1. Street Light
Assume: 200' spacing average in median per Ventura
County Std. F -9
Total: 2,740 ft = 14 EA
200 ft
2. Landscaping
Assume: 20 ft spacing for trees
13 ft wide landscape in median (no parkway)
Quantity:
Trees: 2,740 ft x 1 = 137 EA
20 ft
Landscape: 2,740 ft x 13 ft = 35,620 SF
3. Remove Existing
Sawcut and remove AC: 2,740 ft x 1 ft x 2 = 5,480 SF
Remove sidewalk: 1 LS
Remove retaining wall: 1 LS
H. Right -of -Way
1. General
Right -of -way quantities have been included in other projects
and are not part of this cost estimate.
14
ITEM S• Ce
CITY OF - %400RPARK. CALIFORNIA
Citv CminCil Meeting
of /0 -30 -0
ACTION: n '"
5e11 4 'RDA 0,A-cL 4x4Aj^.r-- C-+14u
�Y•aP . YI ie-L� l� _ N.Si
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK By; e d 1 A , V
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Hugh R. Riley, Assistant City Manage
DATE: October 25, 2002(Special City Council meeting of
October 30, 2002)
SUBJECT: Consider Agreement To Sell 6479 Penn Street Unit B
to the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency
DISCUSSION:
On February 27, 2002 the City Council authorized the purchase
of 6479 Penn Street, Unit B with Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Funds. On October 8, 2002 the City Council
authorized the sale of the property to a third party.
In order to be in compliance with CDBG regulations as
interpreted by Ventura County the City needs to sell the
property to the Redevelopment Agency at the market price of
$250,000 and the agency can then sell the property to the
third party. The Redevelopment Agency will assume the
obligations of the City as provided in the sale agreement
with the third party. The proceeds of the sale will be placed
in the City's CDBG Program Fund and utilized for affordable
Housing Activities or other allowable purpose if approved by
the City Council.
RECOMbJENDATION:
Approve agreement to sell 6479 Penn Street, Unit B to the
Moorpark Redevelopment Agency and authorize the City Manager
to sign the agreement and related documents.
Attachment: Agreement
k
PURCHASE AND SALE AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
This Purchase and Sale and Assignment Agreement (the
"Agreement ") is made as of October 30, 2002, by and between the
City of Moorpark (the "City ") and the Moorpark Redevelopment
Agency (the "Agency ") who agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with reference to the
following facts and circumstances:
(a) The City is the
in the County of Ventura,
6479 Penn Street, Unit
description of which real
"A ". That real property,
thereon, is referred to in
owner of certain real property located
State of California, commonly known as
B, Moorpark, California, a legal
property is attached hereto as Exhibit
together with all improvements located
this Agreement as the "Property ".
(b) The City is currently in escrow to sell the Property
to Tony and Cheryl Palacio (the "Buyers ") pursuant to a
Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions
(and Receipt for Deposit), dated September 27, 2002 (the
"Purchase Agreement ").
(c) The Agency desires to acquire the Property and the
City's rights and obligations under the Purchase Agreement from
the City and thereafter to sell the Property to the Buyers
pursuant to the Purchase Agreement.
(c) The City is willing to sell the Property and to assign
its rights and obligations under the Purchase Agreement to the
Agency on and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in
this Agreement.
2. Purchase and Sale; Assignment. Upon full execution of this
Agreement by the parties, the City agrees to deliver to the
Agency a grant deed (the "Deed ") in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit "B" conveying the Property to the Agency. The City also
hereby assigns all of its right, title and interest in and to
the Purchase Agreement to the Agency, and the Agency hereby
accepts that assignment and assumes and agrees to perform all of
the City's obligations under the Purchase Agreement. Upon
delivery of the Deed to the Agency, the Agency agrees to
immediately deliver the Deed to the escrow holder under the
Purchase Agreement with instructions that the Deed be recorded
in the Official Records of Ventura County, California
3. Consideration. In consideration for
conveyance and assignment, and upon full ex,
Agreement by the parties, the Agency agrees to
the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and
($250,000), which sum the City agrees to accept
for such conveyance and assignment.
the foregoing
scution of this
pay to the City
No /100 Dollars
in full payment
4. Further Assurances. The City and the Agency agree to
cooperate with one another in taking such further actions and in
executing and delivering such further documents as are
reasonably necessary or advisable in connection with the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement
or by the Purchase Agreement.
5. General Provisions.
(a) This Agreement is governed by and is to be construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
(b) No term or provision of this Agreement can be amended,
modified or waived orally or by a course of conduct, but only by
an instrument in writing signed by the City and the Agency.
This Agreement has been executed as of the date first set
forth above.
CITY OF MOORPARK MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JIM
Steven Kueny
City Manager
ATTEST:
Steven Kueny
Executive Director
ATTEST:
By: By:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
City Clerk
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
Agency Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description of Property
Real property in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State
of California, described as follows:
Lot 277 of Tract 2726 -3, in the City of Moorpark, County of
Ventura, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 80
Pages 84 to 87 inclusive of Maps, in the office of the county
recorder of said county.
Except all coal, lignite, coal oil, petroleum, naphtha, asphalt,
naltha, brea, natural gas, all kindred or similar minerals or
mineral substances, water and other rights reserved by Simi Land
and Water Company in deed recorded November 16, 1989 in Book 29
Page 314 of Deeds, and granted to Union Oil Company of
California, in the instrument recorded November 26, 1965 in Book
2902 Page 450, Official Records; without, however the right to
enter upon and use said land above a depth of 500 feet.
APN: 514 -0- 093 -155
EXHIBIT "B"
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Attn.: Secretary
Exempt Recording Per
Government
Code Sections 6103 and 27383
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
GRANT DEED
A. P. NO.:
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR DECLARES THAT THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IS ACQUIRING TITLE AND IS
E=4PT FROM DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX PURSUANT TO REVENUE 6 TAXATION CODE SECTION 11922
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the CITY OF MOORPARK ( "Grantor "), hereby grants to the
MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ( "Grantee "), all that certain real
property located in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of
California, described in Exhibit 111" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Property ").
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Grant Deed
on this day of 2002, to be effective upon its
recordation in the Official Records of Ventura County, California.
GRANTOR:
CITY OF MOORPARK
By:
Its:
EXHIBIT "1" TO GRANT DEED
Legal Description of Property
Real property in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State
of California, described as follows:
Lot 277 of Tract 2726 -3, in the City of Moorpark, County of
Ventura, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 80
Pages 84 to 87 inclusive of Maps, in the office of the county
recorder of said county.
Except all coal, lignite, coal oil, petroleum, naphtha, asphalt,
naltha, brea, natural gas, all kindred or similar minerals or
mineral substances, water and other rights reserved by Simi Land
and Water Company in deed recorded November 16, 1989 in Book 29
Page 314 of Deeds, and granted to Union Oil Company of
California, in the instrument recorded November 26, 1965 in Book
2902 Page 450, Official Records; without, however the right to
enter upon and use said land above a depth of 500 feet.
APN: 514 -0- 093 -155
EXHIBIT "1" TO GRANT DEED
Legal Description of Property
Real property in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State
of California, described as follows:
Lot 277 of Tract 2726 -3, in the City of Moorpark, County of
Ventura, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 80
Pages 84 to 87 inclusive of Maps, in the office of the county
recorder of said county.
Except all coal, lignite, coal oil, petroleum, naphtha, asphalt,
naltha, brea, natural gas, all kindred or similar minerals or
mineral substances, water and other rights reserved by Simi Land
and Water Company in deed recorded November 16, 1989 in Book 29
Page 314 of Deeds, and granted to Union Oil Company of
California, in the instrument recorded November 26, 1965 in Book
2902 Page 450, Official Records; without, however the right to
enter upon and use said land above a depth of 500 feet.
APN: 514 -0- 093 -155