HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2003 0507 CC REGResolution No. 2003 -2077
Ordinance No. 294
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003
6:30 P.M.
Moorpark Communitv Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS:
799 Moorpark Avenue
A. Certificate of Recognition to Ventura County Sheriff's
Department K -9 Handler Team for the Year 2002.
B. Certificate of Recognition to the 2003 Moorpark Rotary
Club Officer of the Year.
C. Certificate of Recognition to California Young Mother
of the Year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Presentations /Action /Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or
Presentations /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 speaker. 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.
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
May 7, 2003
Page 2
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS: (Continued)
D. Proclamation Acknowledging May 2003 as Veteran
Appreciation Month.
E. Proclamation Acknowledging May 2003 as Arthritis
Month.
F. Proclamation Acknowledging May 2003 as "Stay and Play
in Ventura County" Month.
G. Proclamation Acknowledging May 18th to May 24th as
National Public Works Week.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, THE COUNCIL WILL CONVENE
THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING, UNLESS CANCELED.)
6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
(Pursuant to Council Rules of Procedure Section 2.8, Items
to be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar shall be
identified at this time.)
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Consider Minor Modification No. 2 to Commercial
Planned Development (CPD) No. 2001 -01 for Approval of
Site Plan and Building Elevations for a 3,220 Square
Foot In -N -Out Burger Drive - Through Restaurant on Pad 3
of CPD No. 2001 -01 (Moorpark Marketplace) Located
South of New Los Angeles Avenue, East of Miller
Parkway and West of the SR -23 Freeway on the
Application of In -N -Out Burger. Staff Recommendation:
1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony
and close the public hearing; 2) Direct staff to
prepare a letter approving the Minor Modification No 2
to CPD 2001 -01 approving the revised site plan and
building elevations. (Staff: Barry Hogan)
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
May 7, 2003
Page 3
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued)
B. Consider Approval of Site Plan and Building Elevations
for a 2,260 Square Foot Del Taco Drive - Through Fast
Food Restaurant on Pad 2 of Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) No. 2001 -01 (Moorpark Marketplace)
Located South of New Los Angeles Avenue, East of
Miller Parkway and West of the SR -23 Freeway on the
Application of Del Taco. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open
the public hearing, accept public testimony, and close
the public hearing; 2) Direct staff to prepare a
letter approving the Minor Modification No 1 to CPD
2001 -01 approving the revised site plan and building
elevations. (Staff: Barry Hogan)
9. PRESENTATION /ACTION /DISCUSSION:
A. Consider the 2003 Legislative Program. (Continued
from April 16, 2003) Staff Recommendation: Adopt the
2003 Legislative Program. (Staff: Kim Chudoba)
B. Consider Revising Terms of CalHome Mobilehome
Rehabilitation Loan Program. Staff Recommendation:
1) Authorize a revision to the Promissory Note to
provide 0% interest to low and very low income
borrowers and forgiveness of the loan at the end of
the term, providing the mobilehome is still occupied
by the original owner; and 2) Extend these terms to
mobilehome residents who have already signed loan
documents for this program by substituting a New
Promissory Note for their original Note. (Staff:
Nancy Burns)
C. Consider Establishment of the Speed Law Outreach
Workeffort (SLOW) Program. Staff Recommendation:
Approve the implementation of the SLOW program, as
described in the program description contained in the
agenda report. (Staff: Kenneth Gilbert)
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
May 7, 2003
Page 4
9. PRESENTATION /ACTION /DISCUSSION: (Continued)
D. Consider Possible Action to Change the Name of Certain
City Street Segments (Los Angeles Avenue east of High
Street, New Los Angeles Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue
east of Collins Drive). Staff Recommendation: 1)
Direct staff to schedule a public meeting to consider
changing the names for street Segment C (Los Angeles
Avenue east of High Street), and to mail a notice of
such meeting to all affected properties, emergency
response agencies and utilities; and 2) Direct staff
to meet with officials of the City of Simi Valley to
discuss a coordinated effort to change the name of
Segment E as defined in the agenda report. (Staff:
Kenneth Gilbert)
E. Consider Resolution Renaming Paul E. Griffin Park and
Approve the Park Naming Policy Revisions. Staff
Recommendation: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2003- ,
renaming Paul E. Griffin Park to College View Park;
and 2) Approve the revised Park Naming Policy, and
direct staff to add the newly approved policy to the
Council Policies. (Staff: Mary Lindley)
10. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Consider Approval of Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of
January 23, 2002.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes.
B. Consider Approval of Warrant Register for Fiscal Year
2002 -2003 - Mav 7, 2003.
Manual Warrants
Voided Warrant
Payroll Liability
Warrants
112509 - 112511
112181 & 112303 &
112508 & 112623 &
112626
112 611 - 112 615
$ 363,898.17
$ (944.00)
$ 2,552.49
Regular Warrants 112512 - 112610 & $ 83,184.18
112616 - 112722 $ 712,460.11
Staff Recommendation: Approve the warrant register.
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
May 7, 2003
Page 5
10. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Continued)
C. Consider Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
Statement No. 34 Implementation Proposals. Staff
Recommendation: 1) Adopt the recommended
infrastructure capitalization threshold of $100,000
and fixed asset (equipment) capitalization threshold
of $5,000 effective July 1, 2002; 2) Approve the use
of the standard depreciation reporting method for the
entire infrastructure of the City upon adoption of the
New Report Model; 3) Authorize the City Manager to
execute a professional services agreement with Harris
& Associates subject to final language approval by the
City Attorney and City Manager not to exceed $24,990;
4) Accept the proposal from Vavrinek, Trine, Day &
Co., LLP, for assistance in implementation of GASB 34
in accordance with their current hourly rates not to
exceed $20,000; and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 2003 -
amending the Fiscal Year 2002/2003 Budget to revise
the amount of funding for this project per the agenda
report. ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED (Staff: Cynthia
Borchard)
D. Consider Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration Prepared on Behalf of Project No. 8026:
Spring Road Widening Between Flinn Avenue and New Los
Angeles Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Adopt
Resolution No. 2003- 1 adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Project No. 8026: Spring
Road Widening. (Staff: Kenneth Gilbert)
E. Consider Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report
for the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance
Assessment Districts for Fiscal Year 2003/2004. Staff
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2003- ,
approving the Engineer's Report and setting June 4,
2003, as the date of a public hearing to consider the
levy of assessments for FY 2003/04. (Staff: Kenneth
Gilbert)
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
May 7, 2003
Page 6
10. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Continued)
F. Consider Award of Contract for the Construction of the
Flinn Avenue Realignment Project (Project 8037) and
Adoption of a Resolution Amending Fiscal Year
2002/2003 Budget to Revise the Funding for Said
Project. Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve the award
of a contract to Nativ Engineering, Inc. for the
construction of the subject project; and 2) Adopt
Resolution No. 2003- ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED
(Staff: Kenneth Gilbert) .
G. Consider Resolution Amending Fiscal Year 2002/2003
Budget for the 2003 Asphalt Overlay Project (Project
8011) and Approval of the Award of a Contract for the
Construction of Said Project. Staff Recommendation:
1) Approve the award of a construction contract to
Ruiz Engineer Company; and 2) Adopt Resolution No.
2003- ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED (Staff: Kenneth
Gilbert)
H. Consider Bond Reduction and Bond Exoneration for
Parcel Map 5242 (Moorpark Partners, LLC), Located at
the Intersection of Mountain Trail Street and Tierra
Rejada Road. Staff Recommendation: 1) Authorize the
City Clerk to reduce surety #127307 to 100, for a
total of $3,684; 2) Authorize the City Clerk to
exonerate Grading Security Deposit in the amount of
$3,085.06; and 3) Authorize the City Clerk to fully
exonerate surety #127307 for Parcel Map 5242 one year
after this approval of the reduction of surety bond,
and upon written confirmation from the City Engineer
that no warranty work is required. (Staff: Walter
Brown)
I. Consider Rejection of Claim: Amanda Zopfi. Staff
Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct staff to
send a standard rejection letter to the claimant.
(Staff: Deborah Traffenstedt)
J. Consider Initiation of Amendment to California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) Contract.
Staff Recommendation: Direct Staff to schedule City
Council consideration of adoption of a CalPERS
contract amendment consistent with the requirements of
Government Code Section 20903. (Staff: Deborah
Traffenstedt)
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
May 7, 2003
Page 7
10. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Continued)
K. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the
Submittal of a Ventura County Area Agency on Aging
Grant Application for Older Americans Act and Older
Californians Act Funds and Authorizing City Manager to
Sign All Related Agreements. Staff Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2003- (Staff: John
Hartnett)
L. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the
Submittal of a Ventura County Area Agency on Aging
Grant Application for Older Americans Act Title III B
Funds for Senior Center Support and Authorizing City
Manager to Sign All Related Agreements. Staff
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2003 -
(Staff: John Hartnett)
M. Consider the Setting of a Special Joint City Council/
Planning Commission /Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting to Tour the North Park Specific Plan Project
Site (General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific
Plan No. 2001 -01 and Zone Change No. 2001 -02 and the
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan Project Site (General
Plan Amendment No. 1999 -01, Zone Change No. 1999 -01,
Specific Plan No. 1995 -02, , Residential Planned
Development No. 2002 -01, Tentative Tract Map No.
5045). Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to
schedule a Special Joint City Council /Planning
Commission /Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to
tour the North Park Specific Plan project site and the
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan project site for
Saturday, May 17, 2003, to begin at 9:00 a.m. at City
Hall. (Staff: Barry Hogan)
11. ORDINANCES:
None.
12. CLOSED SESSION:
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government
Code: (Number of cases to be discussed - 4)
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
May 7, 2003
Page 8
12. CLOSED SESSION: (Continued)
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Subdivision (c)
of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: (Number of
cases to be discussed - 4)
C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: Administrative Services Director, Assistant
City Manager, Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk,
Chief of Police, City Attorney, City Engineer, City
Manager, Community Development Director, Community
Services Director, and Public Works Director.
D. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Designated Representative: Steven Kueny
Employee Organization: Service Employees International
Union, AFL -CIO, CLC, Local 998
E. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Designated Representative: Steven Kueny
Unrepresented employees: Accountant I, Administrative
Services Director, Assistant City Manager, Assistant
to City Manager /City Clerk, Budget and Finance
Manager, Community Development Director, Community
Services Director, Information Systems Manager,
Planning Manager, Principal Planner, Public Works
Director, Recreation Manager, and Senior Management
Analyst.
13. ADJOURNMENT:
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. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting
will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility
to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102 - 35.104; ADA Title II).
ITEM _9 - A.
11
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
ic AGENDA REPORT
(cvc `t p i v "'�
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal Planner
DATE: April 15, 2003 (CC Meeting of 5/7/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Minor Modification No. 2 to CPD No. 2001 -01
for Approval of Site Plan and Building Elevations for
a 3,220 Square Foot In -N -Out Burger Drive - Through
Restaurant on Pad 3 of Commercial Planned Development
No. 2001 -01 (Moorpark Marketplace) Located South of
New Los Angeles Avenue, East of Miller Parkway and
West of the SR -23 Freeway on the Application of In -N-
Out Burger
BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-
1952 approving Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5321, on the application of
Zelman Retail Partners, Inc., for a 357,671 square foot
commercial center and subdivision of approximately twenty -nine
(29) net acres into eight (8) lots for a project site located
south of New Los Angeles Avenue and east of Miller Parkway. The
building elevations of all but the pad buildings were approved
as part of the Development Permit. Since the specific use, but
not the specific business was identified at the time of approval
of the project, a condition was added requiring that a
modification to the CPD be submitted for review and approval of
the building elevations for the pad buildings.
On April 7, 2003, the applicant submitted Minor Modification No.
2 to CPD No. 2001 -01 for approval of the specific site plan and
building elevations for the In -N -Out Burger Restaurant, which is
to be located on Pad 3 of the approved site plan. The
application was determined complete on April 14, 2003.
\ \mor _pri_sery \City Share\Community Development \DEV PMTS \C P D \2001 -01 Zelman \Minor Mod 03 -02 In-
N -Out Burger \CC 030507 In -N -Out Burger.doc
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page No. 2
DISCUSSION
The building elevations and site plan for the In -N -Out Burger
Restaurant have been reviewed by the architectural firm for the
Moorpark Marketplace (Perkowitz and Ruth) and City staff for
consistency with the approved architectural concept of the
commercial center.
The In -N -Out Burger building, which is adjacent to New Los
Angeles Avenue, is significantly lower than street level. The
building entrance is oriented to the east side of the building,
and patio /outdoor seating open to the shopping center along the
south side of the building. This orientation facilitates easy
entry to the restaurant for pedestrians walking from the parking
lot and shopping area. The outdoor eating area is located away
from the drive - through queue and avoids queuing conflicts with
the main circulation aisle to Kohl's Department Store.
The building is 3,220 square feet and includes a dining area of
approximately 1,400 square feet. Total seating is for ninety -
eight (98) people (70 seats inside and seven (7) tables for up
to twenty -eight (28) people outside). There are two entrances
to the dining area on the south and east sides of the building.
A drive - through lane runs along the north and west side of the
building.
The proposed building is designed to integrate into the overall
Mediterranean theme of the Moorpark Marketplace and includes two
architectural towers to break -up the overall massing of the
building and provide visual relief. Both towers have tile roofs
with a similar pitch as the towers on Kohls and Target stores.
Additional decorative design features of the building include a
stone skirt approximately three (3) feet in height along all
sides of the building, a decorative trellis above the drive -
through lane and along the east side of the building, and a
cornice at the top of all walls which do not have a tiled roof.
A trash enclosure is situated northwesterly of the restaurant
and is designed to match the architecture of the In -N -Out
building. The trash enclosure will contain a tile roof to
prevent trash from being thrown over a fence into the enclosure,
and will provide consistency with the architecture of the
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page No. 3
building. Additional landscaping will be incorporated at the
entrance of the building and along the drive - through lane.
The site plan approved as part of the CPD showed the drive -
through entry oriented to the main circulation aisle with
limited stacking area, which would have interfered with the main
circulation from the New Los Angeles Avenue entry to the Kohl's
Department Store. Upon staff's request, the applicant modified
the drive - through entry so stacking would take place from the
rear of the site adjacent to New Los Angeles Avenue decreasing
potential internal circulation problems and presenting a better
architectural image to the interior of the center.
A element of the design is In -N -Out's signature crossed palm
trees (Washingtonia Robusta) near the exit of the drive - through
lane. The City has prohibited the use of palm trees in recently
approved commercial projects. However, the applicant have
indicated that the two crossed palm trees are an element that is
included at all In -N -Out locations and have become recognized as
a symbol of the company. Considering the crossed palm trees
have been used as a signature of the company, staff supports the
use of the two crossed palm trees in this case. An example can
be seen at the Camarillo location, which would be similar to
this proposal. In -N -Out has indicated that the crossed palm
trees are also used at the Newberry and Simi Valley site. Staff
will verify this assertion prior to the Council meeting. The
use of crossed palm trees, unless otherwise prohibited by the
Council, would be permitted at this site.
No modifications to the shopping center Conditions of Approval
are necessary, unless the Council wishes to prohibit the use of
palm trees.
STAFF RECObMNDATION
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close
the public hearing.
2. Direct staff to prepare a letter approving the Minor
Modification No 2 to CPD 2001 -01 approving the revised site
plan and building elevations.
Attachments:
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page No. 4
1.
Sheet
A -4
Site Plan
2.
Sheet
A -5
Floor Plan
3.
Sheet
A -8
South and East Building Elevations
4.
Sheet
A -9
North and West Building Elevations
5.
Sheet
L -1
Conceptual Landscape Plan
6.
Overall Site Plan for Moorpark Marketplace
Lt 1 =!
N V d 3 1 S
,
161
jA-
-.416
W44 15NV9 01
Mi 150:1VVIf-, --Y-9
':04G,9 9 �W;N -d
'IVA/dIg f
GM;I/C6 e Z^97
- 1201 CrZ-9,
fall
7IG
N V d 3 1 S
rA
LO
A
AI
jA-
rA
LO
A
AI
49
F
CC
ATTACHMENT 2
tz ri-W IX- 3a tom". WOCZ0 4 ,' 1F..
if.xxs cx 83&
V� =,
€ATE
a Mel
LL
tJii`/A:.S;xft
' ' �i.a cC.FtdfiGM^.ais. .i M,samvt
TsY?4?1nv
—
rte -"r- rte -
D U TI" L.EVA '—'jjO N
KEY TES
�•
9TW saw_
!?�1 W4s56Yr4
fbYz?i xF1a':'W C$TER&Wa.S!oIY akZa
A &LOS
5 ei�a #iYS4'ft�?.�•+7Lv"I�LrCR'iX:.E-
�.N�. a`�ffd51k.'3dd.�`
SP'.-iiSLW?4
& 8`1xm. xi4i tA lilat* a^;a X -Me US &di
' Hfdfli
4 ;kSF=1%.Vkiffi5= FnCa. B
Cx4g:4z £u?..vF..C" iJlr?ffR44EFd4w' 'm-
x1 w M«4 WA In
7 �.k?•?i C6'�et8;38 Slot' �< °a7%(�`�- .3'£a ^P:�'t»"GY.dF�. C�6'S
�d ;5'3' "fi3 A Li if,'YA.37.0�^Ca'd4'i.Y'.t1:Z'sk
+rJ:1AN&.R ^4Cfi.%t7;. «f'X�XE w -Tv --Xb3M°. Sw:.
EAST E E V A T
CC ATTACHMENT 3
S3
l
I
N 0 R T 1-1 ELEVATION
I ---- I
<
t I
0
gig
WEST E LEV AT I ON
CC ATTACHMENT 4
Vlr,Mol 7
zll�
tlx ="--
A--9
KEY W)la
Mh rl;wm Raw wr*w,%v"m=
xve_- i$u
.=I
He,.
VU9 I PAIN
*za3=A#=
?W=Wl,r
I ---- I
<
t I
0
gig
WEST E LEV AT I ON
CC ATTACHMENT 4
Vlr,Mol 7
zll�
tlx ="--
A--9
s
ATTACHMENT 5
ALL 't l.Mii=L ABCA. TCa Ery P 14VeV !a-U A 5- [-.-W a.f,Y_R .Y' .5XJnU7:. -rG VJY4;OP
DARK.
ALI R.PIWED Alrzxi: 10 BE fi7J"si t*SiiCoael t.'* #F3"ii. -TCG^ yr-zvr
s
v
Sk1
W
u
3-
x �
ill�poi'!!�
L
��ryy wx
xx3 �n3�ai3
�r
- ..,.,a
stow
4:
4
., K MK-r AL .............
All sr`,
•".E 'iK.:i 6' i'°# -'* y:. ':i:S v).9`
GALAva F; f 4 :1-V
wvx 41A, f","; PA;"4
nF .N 4•i8 f2 r
S•i��4,4c`7.'.4..Li�s iiYZ+'�"LC3s
RAT 4
LiL°.Ti°,;:: ICfeE -»
s=4' 1"$•a?iY i. x.'.•
r r, sa ,tease r
VAROSaTMP awn i s ms s€
�agrat>k a��-ra
rrzascasa�r��r3t�€3n
a',..: "� �•GiN�'xt"'
kith's .a�: -1:Lk
ATTACHMENT 5
ALL 't l.Mii=L ABCA. TCa Ery P 14VeV !a-U A 5- [-.-W a.f,Y_R .Y' .5XJnU7:. -rG VJY4;OP
DARK.
ALI R.PIWED Alrzxi: 10 BE fi7J"si t*SiiCoael t.'* #F3"ii. -TCG^ yr-zvr
s
v
Sk1
W
u
3-
x �
ill�poi'!!�
L
��ryy wx
xx3 �n3�ai3
�r
- ..,.,a
stow
4:
4
SUMMARY T A,r OlARWFlE f5 SUMMARY
W'MMW n 26GlF SP 5 i 76 #3 Waxes
KET C A4Q AMA LrrS?�s5 n^ fiur�ri.. 29 rte- �;~i V1114) :� _
'LLr4t 3A.„�a+4Sid�CUr 6 t4.£F.i#ltEf6'R i '�ii`it.: 385 <P' bi. NG AREA a""
2# r"NCF:JNNG gA743 2usY'
PAPIWA PRIOV € ii • 4429 STAA i.5 �a
Fl^K4tG WtO # fla PAR-MA
rs s ac u nalw.eur.2� xraR � MUM
R. si:tx, C.viatE€r'� t`fiNiEEl !i3i':Na!sss F�A'tp'icr. riA:'it4?vidr g'fLWktk:. •.SEL ° MG" iM1AY..O3%Go"�A. f;gm, �EiG 4 P7Slw r
n.
, � w
F.dYWv,1Y:
wrraa. }'as ate'%" _ ... ,- 4YE T'a•MziarSU.+irN't .,. _
Xv
A 4rE'+ (J£�
I - T szrxnvw#xr� mz suea xz xifiTHSf,e»y ze �s xY ,�� p � : .�•
< j iwww rm >a x sw��Y as z."aa. SP h3'r..ro I'(1 �, ..� ', ,• ,
-
i wco-'xrc aareca aTa*.r s•n.a �nx: xf ssxxa,;. 9. .s.':rxua ar;. a-y m'. ,?,. �� ...
�. xS5 'k YEN�X
S
. >• as a � _. ,,,,,
Zg ,: �,
€q,«..+(i Y tP" . �i i + b t� { , d Yti'l# lg
t' i�•..J1> -+ z.<i`# ^^- -.- w.: ps :y r`1� ±4 iiy z i:.,i� ,. f7- ,'Y"";• !£ it 3 fi3:F.?z- fYi "a'i+:£iG
'`. .3 �, y `� } • '
h
..., ntd .� •..:,,� -� t _:.: .,. ._., -.,,7 ? �. v%e>xekae rii , A4o(?RN7 >!
.
f:
�sc.�'s 5,a � i :.q -
}r t; Cd
}, � ,.. .� r,q3 �" uaes z' 3' �� � •� �" ar kcres' ''� �r. � � {" # _ _ --
{ Y.x 4 }'
r'.? i .:.::;a.w .- -...:: „° _... .., __ N f?. ,•"S vz i .rui.,,.., r�:b {3,�n A. ,,{`�
6 a r a 7 e4 3�i RA i60
i u aleck
>3 # ry _ ii'•
s>«ea. „; s x. s� -' -'” { .::,11 �r7.,....}sw.�t�'i }.:.' ! { 16�%. -.- 'R�.iM -fir,.
'�q:.. >,a�'i of _ �"_ �:., �tf, L I ,� �!s ,..
' x :. L - { �;': '� E :Ir ri:;. to i3. I:T
i ...... hF
' N' 3 S ? z .. f L S €.... M.P. < f , A
i..
x
s w ,: a �; � r J'R � � let `.^
7
D t I 94984 SF
r>
w
P,
�2
%.s7 RAJ x y 1
T�n ��
i
27 S
6 $ • -. a.....i N tY:71,i§ S74S<;<ta3ta. 'd` :..
2"492
16,11a wr
! ( ,a »Y++c i 6i^s 'k'! a and Y - ,.
F
3 v
9 y { go, I l 1i# ika�r h.
% <
t
t i )
# y Ey �
t«� €. '�FJC� w ax # Ls ,•d5 ''. -z: '` I vax Gdv
{ j 1 A' s `rsa yu z _ ,� taals:-i
i iM,# Y4 �,•r: Pxa •s _.,..» -'°r.. �-^" ir`' wa <s.. 1 t _ ^z axnra
1 i ✓ � F�* .E s S a � as^n � -- " i` � ' € 'r I � <Y( d-i. a, i I x`..:'� i { .x tSA�", -�wa
I j' r i
i :..i C
^
LU, .n 1: r..�4iz -3:.3 t J -m-rc,€ ' 1 i' #_ .. _....._`
_ ra r ^k
W.
,rt.�-
->w 5
,. {'
� Z
r €
SITE PLAN
mna a; ezx Kress rvru+acawA rx.,afraNt 9Y2
SITE r CC ATTACHMENT 6
7", T
(4,
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direc or
Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal Planner
DATE: April 15, 2003 (CC Meeting of 5/7/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Site Plan and Building Elevations
for a 2,260 Square Foot Del Taco Drive - Through Fast
Food Restaurant on Pad 2 of Commercial Planned
Development No. 2001 -01 (Moorpark Marketplace) Located
South of New Los Angeles Avenue, East of Miller
Parkway and West of the SR -23 Freeway on the
Application of Del Taco
BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-
1952 approving Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5321, on the application of
Zelman Retail Partners, Inc., for a 357,671 square foot
commercial center and subdivision of approximately twenty -nine
(29) net acres into eight (8) lots for a project site located
south of New Los Angeles Avenue and east of Miller Parkway. The
building elevations of all but the pad buildings were approved
as part of the Development Permit. Since the specific use, but
not the specific business was identified at the time of approval
of the project, a condition was added requiring that a
modification to the CPD be submitted for review and approval of
the building elevations for the pad buildings.
On January 28, 2003, the applicant submitted Minor Modification
No. 1 to CPD No. 2001 -01 for approval of the specific site plan
and building elevations for the Del Taco Restaurant, which is to
be located on Pad 2 of the approved site plan. The application
was determined complete on March 19, 2003.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C P D \2001 -01 Zelman \MinorMod 03 -01 Del
Taco \cc03O5O7.doc
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page No. 2
DISCUSSION
The building elevations for the Del Taco Restaurant have been
reviewed by the architectural firm for the Moorpark Marketplace
(Perkowitz and Ruth) and City staff for consistency with the
approved architectural concept of the commercial center.
The Del Taco building, which is adjacent to New Los Angeles
Avenue, is significantly lower than street level. The building
is oriented with the entrance and patio /outdoor seating open to
the shopping center on the south side of the building. This
orientation facilitates entry to the restaurant for pedestrians
walking from the parking lot and shopping area. The outdoor
eating area is located away from the drive - through queue and
avoids queuing conflicts with the main circulation aisle to
Kohl's Department Store.
Consistent with other building elevations throughout the center,
the restaurant will utilize cultured stone along the base of all
building elevations. Sufficient articulation has been utilized
around the building to provide visual interest and provide a
human scale to the building. The secondary roof line utilizes
rafter tails. Cornices are also included on the building
elevations, consistent with other building elevations within the
shopping center. Building materials and colors are consistent
with those approved for the center.
The site plan approved as part of the CPD showed the drive -
through entry oriented to the main circulation aisle with
limited stacking area, which would have interfered with the main
circulation from the New Los Angeles Avenue entry to the Kohl's
Department store. Upon staff's request, the applicant modified
the drive - through entry so stacking would take place from the
rear of the site adjacent to New Los Angeles Avenue, decreasing
potential internal circulation problems and presenting a better
architectural image to the interior of the center.
A trash enclosure is situated at the northeast portion of the
restaurant. The design will be reviewed at the time
construction drawings are received for review. Trash enclosures
for all buildings at the center are required to match the
architecture of the building and required to have a roof. The
��1 ►.�
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page No. 3
trash enclosure will contain a roof to prevent trash from being
thrown over a fence into the enclosure, and the design will be
required to provide consistency with the architecture of the
building.
No modifications to the shopping center Conditions of Approval
are necessary.
STAFF RECOMMNDATION
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close
the public hearing.
2. Direct staff to prepare a letter approving the Minor
Modification No 1 to CPD 2001 -01 approving the revised site
plan and building elevations.
Attachments:
1. Sheet A -1.1 Site Plan
2. Sheet A -3.1 Building Elevations
3. Sheet A -3.2 Building Elevations
4. Overall Site Plan for Moorpark Marketplace
1 .i 1
CC ATTACHMENT 1
1
CC ATTACHMENT 2
i
3 ;
1
r
............
. . ....... . ... . ... . .
SR YutNiiA
xz as
. ........... _. _ .............
.............................. . . . . ...............
.t'f'5
� 3
-
xxz fE x
d
... i ........ .......... _..4if' �.Y 4t9.' v .......... »- s.- .....u...4r_
_°•9 .ass ..�'..
wr
C
R1B .ab.S%k£ 1 UN YA !
w (
I •i Y £ £ i
1
naax
r
• 77
3 v?
.M
W! R[Y
£ � z j 3 .,.,. � +!f .
u+
-.rz : ¢ x z'•.ummuxzrn
mx.*x� aaaa,�s - tn. aQxaT
An�xs aW
K.za M'q
's?ib 35aSiC.�^' ..
fit
�.- KSr`u*,fy ji&ik dtk fiMZ -:
rr
ewQ �`bR3tp <.z t'x 1.
#Ydro0. rT
£( '" ..
��yy
v .. a
S
4"
....d,,.. _.....
d'+ ik6 Nb'MXC
' iiA
wcE na ttR'a.aava
3$3$
FAST MAWN
pal
Y
a
..
..... . .......
� ....
d,..
,.,,,;.,,, st• :........_,zx�a rase....... _..,*
tj
t �: ...-. K �a..s ° �.
v ................. %nWrwK
#
..._.'k ......
\;' y
... . . ..........
.. . . ................... .
At!' .X42.i.
.. aaaas <ess""�
rrvsa � s3 <SX lx,xAt
1 & y
K
................««........ ... w... .-.w„„
a:
svx -a i }C5f8. �xq � axa
'.
Yw W!.?'r¢!: NZ>u4.+M<4Ki8::F'wneMM'a#
u..wrauuu..uw.w...xuwwww.w�u�uw
wm MAIN
CC ATTACHMENT 2
CC ATTACHMENT 3
♦sfr. Y� e49a :n�n��
i U�� {
k
�
�N
- .. K `��'�'^'"sm`u..i;
(}"g
�y{
�3YWRt'`�uvxra+etv'+'s M+sxuaenmra5l a�w
p, S 3 £
••, :..' ", •,,, ...����� _
__ i
EG $W PAY KW W07H 4
won
q
j
M�#;i
t11- .�-... .- .ate..,..««,..... .....«w..W,.-
a<.a
WEST E AT
m
Tls
��++ms. xza.:waw<s
�. ��( � X -Tafl(< i .i yep a-,yk .,« ik. .......�..
i{ 3 3 Dom' N i. �a:+'4.. � 1, $
� 5
��.
�. lit
.
. ............
.
at'xxaw{
3 �YF iY3A5 ^E S �.�'
..................
ry `
} .............
n �
ZIP
M4tAL 9 4`... &
n
^�„ .,.,,.. .ay .wr
I&V
{{ i
A m � +� \ ,; f 4 't""<YV°a F'Y-��:. � ��`�• �
qx
,rt!w
ommau
If
t F 3
Ya•i'4 .:a
- &BtMit374.
£
��(, IFC�&xWkna�x?r�`3
k.Tn F>u tna
7tnz
: CLxs1 - y ' NM
CC ATTACHMENT 3
t gUMK)i \T a 4 Sj � j"j CITY i LY $E 4wtvTE
"iE'$�A�87'?1Ek�•:iA�R�T? a.�L.1�i�$i
me i.A'30 AMA �,��i6 i=.^ GkpFjoi , 129 AV i, „<r UNIX) AFZ,h S$fi+P.i'F*.-
Lr414ygSiit,9`. #40 s?ic Ow Q6.9$D' i.r�.i` -ratYi- $j.'pok,, f9 j) 2,�u'ar'f''
rAFl3�a lrR"?i<'L11;'�? • t4"1.998PdiSi ee+r*�'ecxmrF
?lai;Y3Y u 1't,�`4aI;iECa ird.. ;g =b,1.;. .....�
pAR+SiT1G iiili ' d,r,`. +A7pid' : r�Ak'f;tiW A „CS.utiG ' 1„a48 SiRi.4” (£F1eT5ai
c< i s a c c n rx a� rn ccs.xa
- ��na: a. trasa€ +�r.�„+r�sa,rra;^a!'�kxs•rra-sc c' =�twmr�.*.a °tx ,,,cv.,x:rc�..,ccaa,'; firma <,t�c�tzs�a;cvt:nrt�ru��ra _ az
ffiiGt MIX RCK”
'�L3�t' s
w a aaa arm xa
� p4E __ r
7,. g 23YS8 :Y'4�X*Se.s+5'A.ti>- >�atki4i. &'S4c.Wdv - YtT.Fx+a' kr&f < -,.,•• _. ,,< ..� .. .. -
.:..,...,
<
..
�a .m �El F 7 #���.
swv
IPNERV
W r. Is
zx rs ¢4 3t Y ; .fF A!E"it- e2i.FCr8s3�"t
r't'r-,`w" ,,'ttA-� .,�,x:.:.3;,; fi;, ._.,da
3 {...i 1 '� j .5: `7" `.s�� �' *ii.4 ',,.; &`.
i .°..r,€',,..`::'£,! >3 a�x'": s t 1
i.�i s�
I ryrye# . €� w 1
30800
n_
.4 .. -t �._. .. _ ? to zrb
r- i,.._ - 3 : <� '' w--'".;..::. ��'.Y ?" _ a..:. •-a 7Ri£. �, _
L....'x3 < $ Asa a, f
>�_ - hrpd'i's
..
j t
`}, i °:i' '• It
z
} avka y a . s e i �C}ia �sa.iR{ i3 p Oil &+ ,3 4
'' .. i I �', l a dlr axtck.a4�, t 3 ..•_.-
r.......
j .... .. ,.; ..., ls•+. ,,a j, i s. .. r -: < P s -} i g�2j• ta`ae" f'�b ;,�,.' �e �'�:� W t� � �
..
a€3
S a t g i d 4 SF
1
b
I
d
yy
ry}��y}}`�� •F, iRI. ftin0.A -k tas St T� 1i3...9'f�:.:. rI j^ a` 'aTIX.W:3'iQ!a?<5 $
x3U13V3<r' s3"k s9.'a SP
_.�» c 234$ +d cr Sssir 8 .it t i ' «� ✓ #' �SAFtz��
rr� 27000 G nT C cry ' 4�
aa.R+c - nI« X G.M PIT .'�'
s 1 2 s #n ' 1 �?" i : c..'"'f i, x 3+ 1 VA a t Y j;ik fit ika�,m' n'c'
`'_' L �✓.>'�i �.laa...e. - , ` r z t .,...., - «.:. >__
_ ... "
w as '+< r _ }� .•— s�'_ _.",u}}-�I:... ".hy.._..e,�...... r,p , . . £ j,.
.r ..., ds'.:j ii ! f.. �, ii _ .......�
x
�
j..
p� •, ;i �a �;�.�., `, L..�,. i :..z:"...,, -_ _.._ — ...°°"'.."* ' ��'"�'""'_" k� t aCii�
� .., �`� �,, 4✓ r°� �l \ � r. : m�.1�- 4„<-- '......._...&e,. ...s cyA4.F: 'i' SS?' -7°
{{
a,
ha
SITE PLAN
a�n szxaar ae'4 �`rs�:u K?unrr ,ux;•AV p Sig �A:U' �i4' '� ��
SITE�`` PLAN CC ATTACHMENT 4.
p-.,�j «w.tg.LCa YT. f.•i4+Q«
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.,.
AGENDA REPORT BY-
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Kim C. Chudoba, Senior Management Analyst �C G
DATE: April 23, 2003 (CC Meeting of 5/7/03)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER THE 2003 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Continued from CC Meeting of 4/16/03)
BACKGROUND
To guide the City's response to state and federal legislation, the
City Council adopts an annual Legislative Program with platform
statements outlining the City's position on key municipal issues.
If a measure is consistent with the platform statements, the Mayor
is authorized to send a letter indicating the City's position. If
a measure is not covered by the platform statements, or a staff
recommendation differs from the platform statements, the Budget and
Finance Committee will review the measure and recommend a position
for City Council consideration.
DISCUSSION
The City Council considered the Legislative Program on April 16,
2003 and directed staff to return on May 7, 2003 with
recommendations from staff and Councilmembers Harper and Mikos.
Staff met with Councilmembers Harper and Mikos on April 23, 2003
and recommends the following change to the Legislative Program to
address emergent issues:
3. Transportation
C. Support legislation that provides greater
flexibility for the use of local transportation
funds for both public transit and street maintenance
and construction purposes.
This modification is consistent with the City Council's previous
actions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the 2003 Legislative Program.
Attachment 1: 2003 Legislative Program
0 00 G 1-4
ATTACHMENT
CITY OF MOORPARK
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
2002 2003
The following Legislative Program was developed to allow the City
to respond to state and federal legislation in a proactive manner.
The Mayor (or Mayor Pro Tem in the Mayor's absence) is authorized
to sign correspondence expressing the City's position on pending
legislation consistent with the Legislative Program and /or other
positions approved by the City Council. The Budget and Finance
Committee will also periodically review legislation for
recommendation to the City Council.
Staff will monitor the League of California Cities' Priority Focus
and other sources to identify pending legislation that may impact
the City. Letters expressing the City's position will be drafted
for the Mayor's signature, and copies will be distributed to each
Councilmember. Pending legislation not addressed by the
Legislative Program, or staff recommendations that deviate from the
Legislative Program, will be agendized for Budget and Finance
Committee review and City Council consideration.
PLATFORM STATEMENTS
1. Local Government Finance
A. Support legislation that limits cities' contributions to
the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and
directs the repayment of past contributions.
B. Oppose legislation that eliminates or restricts the
taxing authority of cities over development; weakens
existing Government Code Section 66000 fee authority; and
redefines any development tax, condition, or other
monetary charge as development fees.
C. Support legislation requiring the state and federal
governments to provide full cost reimbursement to cities
for all mandated programs and for all programs resulting
in revenue losses.
D. Support legislation that safeguards existing City revenue
sources from preemption or seizure by the state or
county.
E. Oppose any change in revenue allocations that would
negatively affect the City of Moorpark, including but not
limited to the redistribution of sales tax, property tax,
transient occupancy tax, and vehicle in -lieu fee.
000020
Page 1 of 7
F. Oppose legislation that restricts or limits a city's
ability to use tax - exempt debt for the purchase or
construction of public purpose improvements.
G. Support measures that provide greater fiscal independence
to cities and result in greater stability and
predictability in local government budgeting.
H. Support efforts that provide greater accountability on
the part of counties for the distribution of funds back
to municipalities, including, but not limited to, fines
and forfeitures.
I. Oppose any measure that makes local agencies more
dependent on the state for financial stability and policy
direction.
J. Support efforts to reduce the fiscal impact of
Proposition 218 on cities.
K. Support the establishment of a constitutionally - protected
funding structure for local government.
L. Support legislation that closes the loophole that allows
companies currently doing business in California to
create dot -com subsidiaries to avoid collection of sales
taxes on Internet commerce.
M. Support legislation that authorizes a statewide ballot
measure to restore the requirement for a simple majority
of voters in a city or county to approve an increase in
taxes or issue general obligation bonds.
Labor Relations
A. Oppose legislation that would restrict a city's ability
to use its own employees on public works projects when
such projects have previously been advertised for bid.
B. Oppose legislation that requires the use of city
employees rather than contracting out.
C. Oppose any legislation that would grant employee benefits
that should be decided at the local bargaining table.
D. Oppose legislation that removes or reduces management
rights, such as deciding staffing or service levels,
either by direct action or increased liability.
E. Support legislation that would reform the Workers'
Compensation system to reduce employer cost through the
reduction of system abuse.
Page 2 of 7
3.
F. Support legislation that limits the ability of employees
to receive Workers' Compensation benefits for
occupational injuries /illnesses that result from stress,
disciplinary action, or performance evaluation
consultations.
G. Oppose legislation that expands or extends any
presumptions of occupational injury or illness.
H. Oppose any measure that imposes compulsory and binding
interest arbitration.
I. Oppose efforts that reduce local control over public
employee disputes or impose regulations of an outside
agency on such disputes.
J. Oppose a mandatory Social Security tax for public
employers and public employees.
Transportation
A. Oppose legislation that redirects local transportation
funds away from cities.
B. Support legislation that would provide additional
resources to cities to finance local transportation
systems, facilities, and improvements.
C. Support legislation that provides greater flexibility for
the use of local transportation funds for both public
transit and street maintenance and construction purposes.
D. Support legislation that will help reduce non -local
commercial vehicle traffic on SR -118 through the City.
E. Oppose legislation that limits and /or decreases the
existing amount of retention proceeds withheld from any
payment by a public entity to the contractor on a public
project.
4. Environment
A. Support legislation that streamlines the state's
environmental review process and maintains public
participation.
B. Support legislation that would eliminate unfunded
mandates such as the water course pollution prevention
programs.
C. Support legislation that reduces or eliminates local
government's owner /operator Superfund liability.
Page 3 of 7
D. Support legislation to either consolidate or streamline
the federal and state Clean Air Acts without reducing air
quality standards.
E. Support air quality efforts that emphasize use of
advanced technologies and market incentives, including
use of alternative fuels and development of an
infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles.
F. Support legislation that reimburses cities for revenue
losses stemming from environmental decisions made without
city participation.
G. Support legislation that provides money to local
governments for energy conservation programs.
5. Waste Management
A. Support legislation that provides cities with financial
assistance for programs designed to provide for the safe
disposal of solid, hazardous, and special waste.
B. Support legislation that strengthens cities' ability to
direct municipal solid waste flow to designated solid
waste facilities.
C. Support legislation that streamlines AB 939 tracking and
reporting requirements.
D. Support legislation that would make grants available to
local agencies for programs that encourage the
recycling /reclaiming of resources.
E. Support legislation that promotes source reduction
measures without creating an unfunded mandate.
F. Oppose legislation that would restrict or limit local
government's ability to franchise refuse and recycling
collection services, to direct municipal solid waste flow
(flow control), or to contractually require haulers to
guarantee achievement of AB 939 goals.
G. Support legislation that promotes recycling and expands
the market for recycled materials.
H. Support new resource recovery and conversion
technologies, such as bio- diesel from organic waste.
I. Support legislation that implements the concept of
extended manufacturer responsibility for electronic waste
and other material types requiring incentives for
recycling.
Page 4 of 7 000023
6. General Government
A. Support legislation that ensures cities receive a
proportionate share of property taxes upon withdrawal
from a county library services district.
B. Support legislation that provides financial assistance
for local public libraries without the imposition of new
taxes.
C. Support legislation that reinstates effective local
regulation of the cable television industry and other
deregulated utilities, including financial reimbursement
for use of pubic right -of -ways.
D. Oppose legislation that restricts or weakens a city's
ability to regulate smoking areas.
E. Support legislation limiting a city's liability
associated with hazardous recreational activities, such
as skateboarding and in -line skating.
F. Oppose legislation that increases local government's
exposure to litigation.
G. Support maximum local flexibility in contracting for
services.
H. Oppose efforts to cut funding for Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) programs.
I. Support legislation to give non - entitlement cities the
same rights as entitlement cities in CDBG program
administration.
J. Support legislation that makes funds available to
refurbish and improve parks.
K. Support legislation that promotes low -cost or no -cost
spay and neuter programs.
L. Support legislation that holds animal owners accountable
for injuries or property damage caused by animals under
their care or control.
7. Public Safety
A. Support legislation that would provide cities with a
greater share of fines and forfeitures.
B. Support legislation that would provide additional
resources for commercial truck safety inspections and the
enforcement of commercial truck vehicle codes.
Page 5 of 7 04®02,4
C. Oppose legislation that weakens enforcement of, and
penalties for, commercial truck violations.
D. Support legislation that would provide cities with
contract law enforcement a proportionate share of
Proposition,172 sales tax revenues for public safety.
E. Support legislation that increases local law enforcement
resources without increasing taxes.
F. Support legislation that would provide a greater share of
seized assets to cities.
G. Support legislation that allows use of state and federal
public safety grants for maintenance efforts in addition
to service increases.
8. Land Use Planning
A. Support legislation that reforms annexation law by
strengthening cities' authority over spheres of influence
and ensures that fair property tax agreements can be
obtained.
B. Support legislation that provides for shared land use
determinations between counties and cities when the
General Plan of the city establishes a planning area
consistent with Government Code provisions.
C. Support legislation that enhances local control and
diminishes litigation surrounding adult entertainment
facilities.
D. Support legislation that strengthens local control to
prepare, adopt, and implement fiscal plans for orderly
growth, development, beautification, and conservation of
local planning areas, including, but not limited to,
regulatory authority over zoning, subdivisions,
annexations, and redevelopment areas.
E. Support efforts that are consistent with the doctrine of
"home rule" and the local exercise of police powers,
through planning and zoning processes, over local land
use.
F. Oppose development agreements for undeveloped areas in
the cities' spheres of influence that do not conform to
city standards.
9. Housing
A. Support legislation that addresses occupancy levels and
strengthens cities' ability to reduce overcrowding in
residential housing.
Page 6 of 7 000025
10.
B. Support efforts to develop federal, state, and county
participation, financial support, and incentives for
programs that provide adequate, affordable housing for
the elderly, handicapped, and low - income persons
throughout the community.
C. Oppose legislation that expands the state Department of
Housing and Community Development's review role for local
Housing Elements.
D. Support Housing Element reform legislation that provides
greater local control and flexibility, simplifies the
process, and improves its effectiveness.
E. Support legislation that eliminates the current Regional
Housing Needs Allocation process and defines a more
equitable process to determine a "fair share" of new
housing needed to respond to growth trends in the region.
Redevelopment /Economic Development
A. Oppose legislation that further weakens a city
redevelopment agency's authority to use eminent domain.
B. Oppose legislation that would prohibit or limit the
establishment of new redevelopment project areas and /or
the expansion of existing project areas.
C. Oppose legislation that reduces the amount of gross tax
increment allocable to redevelopment agencies.
D. Support legislation that reforms reporting requirements
for redevelopment agencies by simplifying the process and
eliminating reporting confusion.
E. Oppose legislation that adds restrictions and procedural
requirements regarding closed session discussions on land
acquisition, use of eminent domain, and disposal of
property.
F. Oppose measures that would diminish the current authority
or financing capabilities,of redevelopment agencies.
G. Support legislation that gives cities resources to
finance economic development efforts, such as business
attraction, retention, and growth, as well as marketing
and tourism.
H. Support legislation that simplifies and streamlines the
process for foreign trade.
Page 7 of 7
00004E b
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
To: Honorable City Council
From: Nancy Burns, Senior Management Analyst V
Date: April 25, 2003 (CC Mtg. of May 7, 2 03)
Subject: Consider Revising Terms of CalHome Mobilehome
Rehabilitation Loan Program
BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2001, the City was awarded $420,000 by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for
mobilehome rehabilitation loans. Any of these funds that are
not expended by August 28, 2003, will be disencumbered and no
longer available to the City.
These loans for mobilehome rehabilitation are deferred (no
payments due) for fifteen (15) years. A balloon payment is due
at time of sale, transfer, when the mobilehome is no longer
owner - occupied, or when the loan term expires. Program
guidelines allow for 0 % -3% interest on the loans. So far, the
City's program has seen limited participation, primarily due to
the balloon payment requirement. Most low - income citizens view
the loan as impractical, considering they are encumbering a
mobilehome with an uncertain appreciation value.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the loans is to assist low income households make
needed repairs to their mobilehomes. The funds cannot be used
for improvements to the mobilehome park. Typical repairs, so
far, have included skirting, roofing, plumbing, water heaters,
electrical repairs, and HVAC systems. Seven (7) loans have been
funded to date under the CalHome program, totaling $76,778. All
7 are at 0% interest. Four (4) more loans are in process and
Honorable City Council
Date 04/29/03
Page 2
three (3) applications have been denied, due to the applicants'
income exceeding program guidelines.
The non - profit owner of the park maintains income certifications
for park residents, as required by the bonds which facilitated
acquisition of the park. The owner reports that at least sixty -
six per cent (66 %) of the residents of Villa del Arroyo are low
and very low income households. This means that at least 158
residents are eligible to participate in this program.
Funds from the deferred loans, when repaid, are returned to the
City's approved Reuse Account, to be used for affordable housing
purposes. A trust fund has been established for this purpose.
At the close of each rehabilitation project, the City receives a
one -time activity delivery fee. The activity delivery fee is
five per cent (5 %) of the loan made to the mobilehome owner.
The activity delivery fee is deposited into the General Fund.
Housing Setaside funds are being used to fund the contractor
hired to manage the program. These costs include $3,000 to
prepare program documentation and for marketing purposes, and
approximately thirteen hundred dollars ($1,300) per loan.
Total costs to date are $16,741.
The CalHome program has been modified to enable "conditional
grants" to be offered for mobilehome rehabilitation, as well as
deferred loans. The eligibility requirements are the same for
the conditional grants as for the deferred loans (low and very
low income households). The grants have a ten (10) year term,
and are forgiven on a graduated scale. During the first five
(5) years of the conditional grant, upon sale, transfer, or
cessation of owner - occupancy, the full principal amount, plus
interest, if applicable, is due. At the end of each of the
subsequent years (Years 6 -10), twenty per cent (20 %) of the
principal and accrued interest is forgiven. (See Attachment
"A ".)
Staff from the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) who administer the CalHome Program advised that most of
the cities participating in this program are now offering the
conditional grants to their mobilehome residents. These cities
see this as an opportunity to invest more of their grant money
into needed mobilehome repairs for their residents. These
Honorable City Council
Date 04/29/03
Page 3
cities do not charge interest on their loans or conditional
grants.
Staff recommends modifying the Promissory Note to provide for
15 -year 0% loans to low and very low income mobilehome owners,
with the provision that the loan will be forgiven at the end of
the 15 -year term, providing the mobilehome continues to be
occupied by the borrower, who is the original owner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize a revision to the Promissory Note to provide 0%
interest to low and very low income borrowers and
forgiveness of the loan at the end of the term, providing
the mobilehome is still occupied by the original owner; and
2. Extend these terms to mobilehome residents who have already
signed loan documents for this program by substituting a
New Promissory Note for their original Note.
Attachment "A" CalHome Management Memo 402 -03
ATTAC H M EN'KI
iTAZF OF -A IFO NIA - BllSINESS_ TRANSPOR7ATIQ4 AN6 HOUSING A + N -Y
GRAY ❑AVIC r nxernor
i)EPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
c
�tio
tBoo Third Street, Suite 390
:2
P. O. Box 952054
Sac Ito. CA 94252 -2054
; y
nY DEVf?'
CALHOME MANAGEMENT MEMO #02 -03
DATE: November 6, 2002
TO: CalHome Man d sin cipients
gram FROM: Peter.Solomon Manager
NO V 15 2002
ASSWC yMapapsOffice
SUBJECT: Authorization to offer conditional grants on Manufactured Housing
rehab /replacement
The purpose of this memo is to notify all CalHome recipients awarded funds under the November 7,
2000 Manufactured Housing NOFA of a change in the Replacement Housing and Rehabilitation Loan
Underwriting requirements.
1. Effective November 6, 2002 funds available to eligible manufactured housing owner/occupants
can be given in the form of conditional grants with certain conditions:
• For Replacement or Rehabilitation:
A. Funds are given in the form of a conditional grant with the following conditions:
-` 1. Within the first 5 years after the conditional grant is made, upon sale or transfer, or
when the property is no longer owner - occupied, the entire principal amount is due
and payable to the recipient (along with interest at 0% to 3% per year at the
recipient's option).
2. At the end of the-sixth year, upon sale or transfer, or when the property is no longer
owner- occupied, 20% of the principal and accrued interest is forgiven.
3. At the end of year seven, and for each year after, upon sale or transfer, or when the
property is no longer owner - occupied, an additional 20% of the principal and
interest is forgiven.
4. At the end of ten years, no principal or interest is due.
5. At the recipient's option, the forgiveness timetable can be accelerated. A
memorandum describing the reasons for the acceleration must be in the file.
Prior to awarding the first conditional grant, recipients must have their new loan documents
reviewed and approved by CalHome staff.
These changes effect Pages 18, and 26 -27 of the CalHome Operations Handbook for Manufactured
Housing (June 2001). Attached are new Pages 18, and 26 -27 as replacements in the CalHome
Operations Handbook for Manufactured Housing.
The minimum and maximum loan amounts per homebuyer/homeowner remain $2,000 (minimum) and
$20,000 (maximum).
CalHome Manufactured Housing Management Memo #02-03 November 6, 2002
Aw
CITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
CI G
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
Richard Diaz, Police Chief �14
DATE: April 25, 2003 (Council Meeting 5 -7 -03)
SUBJECT: Consider Establishment of the Speed Law Outreach
Workeffort [SLOW] Program
DISCUSSION
A. Background
The City has had very limited ability to respond in a pro-
active way to citizen concerns about vehicular speed in
residential neighborhoods. The Transportation and Streets
Committee [Mayor Pro Tem Millhouse and Councilmember Harper]
routinely hear complaints from concerned citizens, and the
response options available are few.
Staff has developed a new draft program which would enable the
City to be more responsive to these problems. The acronym for
the program is SLOW - Speed Law Outreach Workeffort. The
program outline was modeled after a similar program developed
and implemented by the City of Santa Barbara.
B. C.I.T.E. Program [Santa Barbara]
The Santa Barbara Police Department administers a program they
call C.I.T.E. [Citizen Involved Traffic Enforcement] . Under
that program, citizens may receive training on the use of a
radar gun, and then conduct a speed survey on their street.
One of the benefits of that program is that citizens often
learn -- after using the radar gun -- that vehicles they
thought were speeding were only traveling at or slightly
higher than the 25 MPH speed limit. This program provides for
the logging of license numbers of speeders and the mailing of
a follow -up letter to the registered owner of the vehicle. The
letter advises the registered owner that the speed violation
was observed and requests future compliance with the speed
laws.
SLOW 0305 () 00 031
SLOW Program
April 25, 2003
Page 2
C. SLOW
A copy of the program description for the proposed new SLOW
Program is attached as Exhibit 1. This program would allow the
City to respond to citizen complaints about vehicle speed in
residential neighborhoods by conducting a speed survey. But
unlike the C.I.T.E. program, the SLOW program would utilize
the Moorpark Police Department Citizens Patrol to perform the
speed surveys. Speed surveys could also be initiated by the
Police Department.
Like the C.I.T.E. program, the SLOW program includes means to
enable the mailing of letters to "speeders ". The program
would be administered by the Moorpark Police Department's
Community Services Supervisor.
The draft program also provides opportunities for the
"complaining party" to observe the speed survey while it is
being conducted, so that they can see first hand the actual
speeds being traveled by the perceived offending parties.
It is the view of staff that this program will provide some
analytical tools, which are now lacking, to assist in
responding to problems of vehicle speed in residential
neighborhoods.
D. Fiscal Impact
It is anticipated that there would be no additional costs
incurred by the City or the Police Department, as the result
of implementing and administering this new program. The
program would only require the diversion of existing resources
to this program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the implementation of the SLOW program, as described in
the program description attached as Exhibit 1.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: SLOW Program Description
SLOW-0305a 000032
S. L. O. W.
Speed Law Outreach Workeffort
City of Moorpark
May 2003
I. Overview & Introduction
Excessive vehicular speed is a common problem in residential neighborhoods throughout
Moorpark. But we are not unique. Every City experiences this problem to one degree or
another. Concerned residents often ask City officials to do something to "solve" the
problem. Experience has shown, however, that engineering solutions to this behavior
problem are limited, often cost prohibitive and not very effective. The other option --
increased traffic enforcement -- is not possible for extended periods, given the limited
resource and other priorities of law enforcement. The end result is that local agencies often
have no permanent solutions when these concerns are raised.
This presents a more pro- active program designed to be more responsive to citizen
concerns about excessive speed in residential neighborhoods. The City of Moorpark Speed
Law Outreach Workeffort [SLOW] is designed to intervene when such problems arise, by
undertaking certain data gathering, analysis and intervention efforts to improve public
awareness of this problem.
II. Program Description
A. Citizen Requests: Complaints regarding excessive vehicle speed in residential
neighborhoods are to be conveyed to the Moorpark Police Department's Community
Services Officer, the SLOW Program Coordinator [Note: wherever the term Program
Coordinator appears in this report, it shall mean the SLOW Program Coordinator or
his /her designee]. A SLOW Request Form attached shall be filled -out for each such
complaint received. The information requested by the form is needed not only to
document the nature of the perceived problem, but to also enable the SLOW Team to
provide feedback to the complaining party about the results of the investigation to be
undertaken. As discussed below, the complaining party may also be offered the
opportunity to observe the investigation as it takes place, in order to see first hand the
speed data gathering process and the actual speed of the vehicles being observed.
B. Vehicle Speed Investigation: A speed investigation shall be undertaken by the City for
each SLOW Request form received for residential streets and /or for collector streets with
a speed limit of no more than 40 MPH. Data shall be gathered utilizing the SLOW
Survey form attached.
Slow Program-0304a
000033
SLOW
May 2003
Page 2
C. Citizen's Patrol: Members of the Moorpark Citizen's Patrol shall be utilized as SLOW
Field Teams, to undertake the speed investigations. Data would be gathered utilizing the
SLOW Survey form attached.
D. Speed Investigation Guidelines:
1. A SLOW Field Team would be deployed to the location of the alleged problem.
2. Speed readings of passing vehicles would be logged, using the SLOW Survey form.
A speed detection radar gun would be used to gather this information.
3. In order to develop statistics about the nature and extend of any perceived
"speeding" problem, the total number of vehicles passing the survey site during the
survey period, shall also be recorded on the survey form(s).
4. If possible, the license number and description of all "speeding" vehicles should be
recorded on the survey form(s).
E. SLOW Field Team Operational Parameters:
1. SLOW Field Team members should always keep safety in mind when performing
speed surveys. Field Team members should not step into traffic or block the roadway.
2. SLOW Field Team members should not attempt to contact or interact with any speed
law violators. The Program Coordinator will make all police contacts with violators.
3. Radar gun use, training, care and calibration will be provided by the Program
Coordinator.
F. Results: All SLOW Survey forms will be provided to, and be reviewed and analyzed by,
the Program Coordinator.
G. Violator Contacts: If deemed necessary, the Program Coordinator may send letters to
the registered owner(s) of vehicles observed exceeding the speed limit.
H. Field Observers: If deemed useful and appropriate, the Program Coordinator may make
arrangements to enable the complaining party to be present and to observe the speed
investigation in progress. Such an effort can be useful in that complaining parties may be
allowed to observe the actual speed of vehicles being surveyed. Experience has shown
that vehicles believed to be speeding were proven by the radar gun to be traveling at
speeds which were at or only slightly greater than the 25 MPH prima facie speed limit for
residential streets.
Slow Program-0304a 0.000z"q
M XOM
[Speed Law Outreach Workeffort]
Request for Speed Investigation
Name:
Address:
Telephone Number(s):
Nature of Problem:
Location Street segment]:
Days / Times when Problem
is most Severe:
Other Comments:
Slow Program_0304a 0006
Location:
60]A
[Speed Law Outreach Workeffori]
Speed Investigation Survey Form
(Street address / location)
Start Time: End Time:
Date:
Total Vehicle Count:
Vehicle
Time
Seed
License Number
Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Remarks:
Slow Program_0304a 0000 z
TO: The Honorable City Council
�(, 9----
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
DATE: April 25, 2003 (Council Meeting 5 -7 -03)
SUBJECT: Consider Possible Action to Change the Name of Certain
City Street Segments [Los Angeles Avenue east of High
St., New Los Angeles Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue east
of Collins Drive]
DISCUSSION
A. Background
At one time the City had five separate street segments with
names including the term "Los Angeles" (see Exhibit 1).
A few years ago the name for Los Angeles Place (segment D
shown on Exhibit 1) was changed to Virginia Colony Place. The
City still has four (4) street segments with the same or
similar forms of this street name.
Also a few years ago consideration was given to changing the
name of that portion of Los Angeles Avenue east of High
Street. At that time the City Council decided not to take
that action.
B. Naminq Street Names
In order to avoid causing confusion to either the general
public or to emergency response vehicles, in naming new
streets it is the policy of the City and the County Fire
Department, to not use a name used by another street within a
ten mile radius. The street segments noted on Exhibit 1 do not
conform to that policy.
St_Name_L_A_0305a 00003
Street Name Changes
April 25, 2003
Page 2
C. Transportation and Streets Committee
On April 7, 2003, the Transportation and Streets Committee
(Mayor Pro Tem Millhouse and Councilmember Harper) considered
this matter and recommended that the City Council consider
changing the name of certain street segments in order to
remedy this situation.
D. Suggested Changes
It is suggested that the names for certain of the street
segments shown on Exhibit 1, be changed as follows:
Segment Current Name Proposed Name
C Los Angeles Avenue High Street
E (old) Los Angeles Ave. (to be determined)
B New Los Angeles Avenue Los Angeles Avenue
• "C" - Los Angeles Avenue east of High Street: It is
suggested that the name for Los Angeles Avenue east of
High Street to the SR 118 freeway, be changed to High
Street. One "spin -off" benefit to this action would be
the creation of a "High Street" off -ramp from the
freeway.
• "E" - [old] Los Angeles Avenue: It is suggested that the
name for that portion of Los Angeles Avenue east of
Collins Drive be changed to a name not yet determined. If
so directed by the City Council, it would be the intent
of staff to meet with officials of the City of Simi
Valley to discuss this action and the possible re- naming
of the street east of the Moorpark city limits.
• "B" - New Los Angeles Avenue: When and if the names for
Segments C and E are changed, consideration should be
given to changing the name of New L. A. Avenue to Los
Angeles Avenue. In order to avoid creating confusion, it
is not recommended that this action be taken unless and
until the names for Segments C and E are changed.
E. Implementation
It is suggested that efforts proceed immediately to change the
name for Segment C [east of High Street] and that staff be
directed to discuss with the City of Simi Valley the proposed
name change for Segment E [east of Collins Drive].
St Name L A 0305a 0 00 () � S
Street Name Changes
April 25, 2003
Page 3
F. Authority
Section 34091.1 of the Government Code of the State of
California provides that the name of any street within a City
may be changed by adoption of a City Council Resolution.
G. Public Notice
A public hearing is not required in order for the City Council
to change the name of a street. However, consistent with past
practices, it is recommended that a letter be sent to all
affected property owners and public agencies, advising them of
City's intended action.
H. Fiscal Impact
The estimated costs for changing the street name signs for
Segment C is approximately $10,000. It would be necessary to
amend the budget to fund these costs.
I. Caltrans Permit
It will be necessary for staff to obtain a Caltrans
Encroachment Permit to change all affected freeway signs.
J. Summary
It is recommended that efforts proceed immediately to change
the name of Segment C [east of High Street} and that staff be
directed to meet with officials at Simi Valley to discuss a
coordinated effort to change the name for Segment E [east of
Collins Drive]. In order to avoid confusion, efforts to change
the name of Segment B [New Los Angeles Avenue] should be
deferred until it is known that the names for Segments C and E
will be changed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Direct staff to schedule a public meeting to consider changing
the names for street Segment C [Los Angeles avenue East of
High Street] , and to mail a notice of such meeting to all
affected properties, emergency response agencies and
utilities.
2. Direct staff to meet with officials of the City of Simi Valley
to discuss a coordinated effort to change the name of Segment
E as defined in this report.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Map - Five Street Segments
St Name_L A 0305a () 000IJ9
�Q CITY OF MOORPARK
ril
s
0
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services ...
DATE: April 17, 2003 (CC Meeting of May 7, 2003)
SUBJECT: Consider Renaming Paul E. Griffin Park and
Approve Park Naming Policy Revisions
BACKGROUND
The City Council is being asked to consider changing the
name of Paul E. Griffin Park (generally referred to as
Griffin Park) to College View Park. Additionally, the
Council is asked to adopt revisions to the City's Park
Naming Policy.
Griffin Park was built prior to the City's incorporation
(approximately 1980) and it was named after the developer
who built the adjacent residential tract (Griffin Homes).
Its name was recommended by the neighborhood council in
place at the time and approved by the Ventura County Board
of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION
The City has shown a deference for using an individual's
name on a City facility, park, or street. When the Council
has elected to use an individual's name, it has done so
only in cases where an individual has made a significant
contribution benefiting the quality of live in Moorpark.
Examples include Miller Park, named after Bart and Vernice
Miller who volunteered years of service through numerous
community civic organizations. The recent renaming of
Liberty Bell Road to Leta Yancy Lane recognized Ms. Yancy's
years of service to the community of Moorpark and service
on the City's first Council. In staff's opinion, Mr.
Griffin's contributions do not meet the criteria used in
the aforementioned cases.
=IMk'
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page 2
Since the use of Paul E. Griffin sets a precedence not
established by the City, that of using a developers name
for the name of a designated City facility, staff proposes
that the City Council rename the Park. The name proposed
for Council consideration is College View Park. The Park is
located at the corner of Campus Park Drive and what was
once called College View Street. College View Street was
converted into the Park's parking lot when the freeway
connection was constructed and portions of Los Angeles
Avenue were abandoned. The name College View reflects the
location of the park and its proximity to Moorpark College.
In 2001, a previous Parks and Recreation Commission
discussed renaming Griffin Park. Their recommendation was
to retain the existing name on a vote of 3 to 1 (one
commissioner was absent). The matter was not brought
forward to the City Council at that time.
The Council's options on this matter include: retaining the
existing name; elect to adopt the new proposed name,
College View Park; or select another name. In the event the
Council elects to rename the park College View Park, staff
has prepared the necessary Resolution adopting the new name
(Attachment A). The City will also need to replace the
monument sign to reflect the new name. If approved, the
purchase of a new park monument sign will be added to the
FY 03/04 budget.
Park Naming Policy
To ensure that the Council's practice of reserving the use
of an individual's name for instances when an individual
has made significant contributions towards the community
and, through community service have enhanced the quality of
life in Moorpark, staff proposes revisions to the City's
Park Naming policy. The proposed revision to the Park
Naming Policy are shown in legislative format on
Attachment B for Council consideration and approval. If the
Council elects to approve the proposed revised policy, it
is recommended that staff be directed to add the Park
Naming Policy to the Council Policies the next time it is
brought before the Council for changes.
The City's existing Park Naming Policy was last approved by
the City Council in 1994. In summary, the policy states
M:\MLindley\PARKS \park name policy ccagdl.doc
000042
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page 3
that the Parks and Recreation Commission consider park
names and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Names may be selected that identify the geographic location
of the new park, or when possible, the street on which the
park is located. In special circumstances, the park may be
named to recognize a national or historical event. The
policy is silent on naming parks after people. Names
proposed by the Commission will be considered by the City
Council. The approved name will be adopted in the form of a
Council resolution.
The Parks and Recreation Commission's last action on this
issue was June 2, 2002. At that time they voted to
recommend that language be added that would specify terms
under which naming a park after an individual would be
appropriate. The Commission did not have an opportunity to
vote on the specific language changes, but staff has
attempted to draft a revised policy based on their input.
In summary, it would allow a park to be named after
Moorpark residents who have made significant contributions
by enhancing or improving the quality of life in Moorpark
(such as Mr. and Mrs. Miller and the naming of Miller Park)
or prominent state and national leaders who have made a
positive impact on the lives of Moorpark residents.
STAFF RECOMMNDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 2003 -_, renaming Paul E. Griffin Park
to College View Park (Attachment A), approve the revised
Park Naming Policy (Attachment B), and direct staff to add
the newly approved policy to the Council Policies.
M:\MLindley\PARKS \park name policy ccagdl.doc 0 O Zi
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE NAME
OF PAUL E. GRIFFIN PARK TO COLLEGE VIEW
PARK.
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1994, the City Council adopted
the Park Naming Policy; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2003, the City Council approved the
revised Park Naming Policy; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2003, staff's recommendation for
the renaming of Paul E. Griffin Park was presented to the
City Council for consideration.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Paul E. Griffin Park shall be
renamed College View Park.
SECTION 2. In accordance with Government Code
Section 34092, the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward
a copy of this resolution to the Ventura County Board of
Supervisors.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of the resolution and shall cause a certified
resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2003.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT B
PROPOSED
PARK NAMING POLICY REVISIONS
1. The City Council will direct the Parks and Recreation
Commission to make recommendations on names for all
new park projects during or before park construction.
2. City parks may be named in a manner which identifies
the geographic location of each park. Where=
pessible- The name of a street, or the street upon
which the park is located, may be part of the park
name. In special circumstances, parks may be named
for individuals under the following conditions: for a
City of Moorpark resident who has made significant
contributions that enhance and improve the quality of
life in Moorpark, or a prominent state or national
figure who has had a positive impact on the lives of
Moorpark residents. Park names may eeald be designated
to recognize a national or historical event.
3. The City Council will consider the Parks and
Recreation Commission's recommendations and will adopt
the chosen park name by resolution.
M:\MLindley\PARKS \park name policy ccagdl.doc 000045
i
of
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
'--'-Moorpark, California
January 23, 2002
An Adjourned Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark
was held on January 23, 2002, in the Community Center of said
City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 6:46 p.m.
Mayor Hunter announced that the adjourned meeting was
called to discuss Items 9.C., 9.D, and 9.F., which were
continued from the January 16, 2002, regular meeting with
the public hearing open.
2. INVOCATION:
Mayor Hunter requested a moment of silent reflection.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Joseph Montes, City Attorney, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Harper, Mikos, Millhouse,
Wozniak, and Mayor Hunter.
Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Joseph Montes,
City Attorney; Walter Brown, City Engineer;
Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst;
Deborah Traffenstedt, Acting Community
Development Director /Assistant to City
Manager /City Clerk; La -Dell VanDeren, Deputy
City Clerk.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS:
None.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Paae 2
7. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
January 23, 2002
Councilmember Mikos requested a discussion item regarding
Unmet Transit Needs for the city of Moorpark for the
February 6, 2002, agenda.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mayor Hunter announced that Items 9.C. and 9.D. would be
considered together.
C. Consideration of Certification of Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH- 1994081075), General Plan Amendment
No. 99 -01, Zone Change No. 99 -01, Residential Planned
Development No. 99 -02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 5187, to Develop 250 Single- family Homes on a
Portion of a 350 -acre Site, Located on the West Side
of Walnut Canyon Road, Approximately 3,500 feet North
of Casey Road. Applicant: West Pointe Homes.
(Continued Open Public Hearing from City Council
meeting of January 16, 2002.) Staff Recommendation:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2002 -1935 Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report (SCH 1994081075) and
approving the Mitigation Monitoring Program; 2) Adopt
Resolution No. 2002- approving General Plan
Amendment 99 -01; 3) Introduce Ordinance No. 276 for
first reading adopting Zone Change 99 -01; 4) Adopt
Resolution No. 2002- approving Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 5187 and Residential Planned Development
Permit No. 99 -02, subject to conditions of approval,
and to become effective upon the effective date of the
Zoning Ordinance.
D. Consider Adoption of Ordinance for Approval of
Development Agreement No. 2001 -01 for West Pointe at
North Ranch (General Plan Amendment 99 -01, Zone Change
99 -01, Residential Planned Development 99 -02 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5187) on the Application
of West Pointe Homes, Inc. (Continued Open Public
Hearing from City Council meeting of January 16,
2002.) Staff Recommendation: 1) Take public testimony
and close public hearing; and 2) If an approval
t� 'Im .
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California I Page 3 January 23, 2002
decision is made on the related West Pointe project,
introduce Ordinance No. 277 for first reading,
approving Development Agreement No. 2001 -01, subject
to insertion of revised language for Section 6.11 and
incorporation of minor edits recommended by staff.
Ms. Traffenstedt gave the staff report on Item 9.C.
Mr. Kueny gave the staff report on Item 9.D. He
stated that he has given the applicant and Council
edited copies of the Agreement along with the
Affordable Housing Section 11 subject to the changes
requested by the City Attorney.
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Kueny replied
that the Perpetual Obligation referenced in the
Development Agreement applies to the payment
obligation of the initial $10,000 for Open Space
maintenance.
Mayor Hunter stated that the public hearing remains
open.
Vince Daly, West Pointe Homes, Inc., 31304 Via
Colinas, #103, Westlake Village, outlined what
transpired at the last meeting with respect to "A"
Street and the reconfiguration of the 84 -foot right -
of -way.
Mr. Kueny focused on the issues of concern to the
Council and stated that the proposal staff is in
agreement with is: an 84 -foot right -of -way; a 14 -foot
median to allow for turn pockets; 25 feet of pavement
on each side of that median, which would initially be
striped with an 8 -foot bike lane that would later
accommodate conversion to two travel lanes in each
direction; a 10 -foot sidewalk /parkway provided on each
side of the street; a 12 -foot multi -use trail adjacent
to the parkway on the north side, outside of the
right -of -way with varying widths of landscaping
between the lots and that point, and an additional 10
feet within the right -of -way adjacent to the north
side with an additional 10 -foot for parkway or
landscaping outside of the right -of -way. He went on
to state that this proposal provides flexibility, in
the event the two travel lanes become a necessity, the
multi -use trail would provide an option for the bike
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 4 January 23, 2002
lanes or the ability to put paving in the parkway on
the south side outside of the right -of -way.
In response to Councilmember Millhouse, Mr. Kueny
replied that in order to avoid making it easy to
convert the roadway to two lanes in the future, the
matter should be included in the Circulation Element,
which would require public hearings. He stated that
staff could be directed to amend the Circulation
Element, or have the applicant fund the Circulation
Element Amendment to implement it prior to the final
map approval.
Councilmember Millhouse stated that the Transportation
and Streets Committee is concerned about high speeds
through the neighborhoods. He requested consideration
for visual speed control devices, narrowing of the
lanes, and implementation of a traffic plan to reduce
the tendency for high speeds when this right -of -way is
constructed.
Mr. Kueny stated that a bus turnout would be added to
the south side, west of the homes, to accommodate the
school district and city transit system.
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Daly described
pedestrian traffic from the tracts to and from "A"
Street.
Mr. Kueny stated that the second bus turnout would be
as close as possible to the Tract. He explained that
the City Engineer and Community Development Director
would determine the final location of the bus turnout
and sidewalk. He went on to recommend that homebuyers
be notified of the ultimate four -lane width for "A"
Street and connection to North Hills Parkway.
The Council concurred with Mr. Kueny's response to Mr.
Daly's request that the execution of the Affordable
Housing Agreement be subject to the Final Map approval
and not the Zoning Clearance for grading permit, as
stipulated on Page 7, Item 10 of the Tract Conditions
(stamped page 22 of the agenda report), Mr. Kueny
stated that staff concurs with the addition of the
standard language of, "prior to the first final map
approval ".
Cam]
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Paqe 5
January 23, 2002
In response to Mr. Daly's request to modify the
condition on Page 9, Item j. (stamped page 24 of the
agenda report) to read that streetscape within each
neighborhood shall be fully landscaped to comply with
the requirements of the city, Ms. Traffenstedt stated
that it would be best to leave the language as written
to be "consistent with rural aesthetic requirements of
the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program ".
Mr. Kueny concurred with keeping the language as a
reminder to staff.
In response to Mr. Daly, regarding Page 16, Item f.
(stamped page 31 of the agenda report), Mr. Kueny
stated that staff is in agreement with the change that
the front yard landscaping "must" include a minimum of
two "24- inch" box trees and in response to Mayor
Hunter, confirmed that it is a standard condition, as
modified.
In response to Mr. Daly, regarding amendments to Page
26, Item 37. (stamped page 41 of the agenda report),
Mr. Kueny stated that: staff is in agreement with the
change in the wording, from "Final Map" to "Zoning
Clearance for residential unit building permit" for
the payment of the Park and Recreational Facilities
fee; this is set by the Development Agreement at
$9,000 per lot, so the fee amount does not change,
just the timing of the payment; this same change will
apply to the RPD; and staff will redraft the final
wording.
CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Council that any
changes to the conditions agreed to at this meeting, will
be subject to final language approval by the City Manager.
Referencing page 27, Item 41. (stamped page 42 of the
agenda report), Mr. Daly requested that the
undergrounding of utilities be specified within the
project boundary west of Walnut Canyon Road, and not
on the east side, explaining that high tension lines
would be difficult to underground along that slope.
In response to Councilmember Harper's complaint that
the undergrounding may not get done if this applicant
0000% 0
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 6 January 23, 2002
does not do it, Mr. Daly stated that in fairness, the
undergrounding would be best undertaken at a later
date by whomever develops that property.
In response to Councilmember Harper, Mr. Kueny stated
that to be equitable with other locations in the city,
staff would probably not have required undergrounding
across the street from the project; the usual limit
for undergrounding is across the frontage of the site;
an option would be to require a contribution towards
accomplishing that undergrounding; or have them waive
their rights to protest the formation of an
Underground Utility District.
Mr. Kueny concurred with Mr. Brown's proposed changes
to the condition to require the undergrounding of all
existing and proposed utilities within the project and
along the Walnut Canyon frontage.
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Daly stated he
had not been clear on the meaning of the condition and
is satisfied with staff's explanation.
In response to Councilmembers Harper and Mikos, Mr.
Kueny stated that staff will be sure to add the
standard language that the applicant waives their
right to protest the formation of an Underground
Utility District, but not the amount of the assessment
if such a district is formed.
In response to Mr. Daly, regarding Page 28, Item 46.
(stamped page 43 of the agenda report), Mr. Kueny
stated that this condition pertaining to the North
Hills Parkway and slope easement will be rewritten.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Kueny replied
that the language would be consistent with the
direction given tonight; the applicant will not have
any obligation to construct or pay any money towards
the road project regarding North Hills Parkway and
State Route 118 other than the citywide traffic fee.
Mr. Daly stated that would be acceptable and confirmed
that they have reached an agreement with staff on all
other conditions except for a remaining few. He went
on to describe them.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 7 January 23, 2002
In response to Mr. Daly, regarding page 45, Item 58.
b. (stamped page 60 of the agenda report), Mr. Kueny
stated that staff is in agreement that they will not
require a surety, but will require the payment of the
then applicable fee at the issuance of a building
permit.
In response to Mr. Daly in reference to Page 48, Item
e. (stamped page 63 of the agenda report), regarding
adding the Walnut Canyon Corridor Exhibit to the
condition, Mr. Kueny replied that the Council has not
formally accepted the Walnut Canyon Road Improvement
Study. He stated that: there must be some agreement
to the limits of the improvements for this project;
the applicant and staff's understanding is that full
improvements would be required on the west side from
the future intersection with Spring Road to the south
project boundaries with transition into the Walnut
Canyon neighborhood; and full improvements on the east
side from the Spring Road connection south to their
project boundary, at which point, the SunCal property
would to be conditioned for Walnut Canyon Road
improvements. Mr. Kueny stated the basic improvements
to be: 8 -foot paved shoulders, 12 -foot travel lanes;
and striped median at appropriate locations.
Mr. Brown stated that remaining concerns center on
pedestrian traffic traveling from the site down the
westerly side of Walnut Canyon Road to the school or
library where there are no dedicated pedestrian
facilities and the need for a sidewalk on down to
Casey Road.
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Kueny replied
that the applicant's position is that the subject
sidewalk improvement is the responsibility of the
SunCal project.
Mr. Brown stated that the SunCal project would be
obligated to build sidewalks on the easterly side of
Walnut Canyon Road, which would cause some sidewalks
to not be immediately adjacent to the roadway. He
added that requiring pedestrians to cross Walnut
Canyon Road to gain access to the sidewalks would not
be his recommendation.
00002
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 8 January 23, 2002
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Brown replied
that sidewalks should be on both sides of Walnut
Canyon Road.
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Kueny stated
that a sidewalk, curb, and gutter can be accommodated
within the right -of -way in front of the existing homes
on Walnut Canyon Road and still allow for the 8 -foot
paved shoulder, 12 -foot travel lane on each side, and
a turning median where needed for this project.
Councilmember Mikos noted that funds were available at
one time for a sidewalk in that area, but she has
concerns that placement of a sidewalk in front of the
existing homes cannot be resolved at this meeting.
In response to Councilmember Millhouse, Mr. Kueny
stated that: staff can look at the study to review
the conditions of approval to see if the SunCal
project is obligated for this frontage improvement on
the west side; and he recommends that the Council
provide specific direction for the applicant to either
be obligated for all or part of the improvements on
the west side of Walnut Canyon Road.
Mr. Daly stated that the group of developers along the
Walnut Canyon Corridor had met to discuss frontage
improvements; he is agreeable to contributing to the
curb and gutter improvements; but stipulated that the
sidewalk would require further discussion.
Councilmember Harper stated that the sidewalk is a
safety issue and needs to be funded by some of these
projects and perhaps installed, as a compromise, after
a certain number of building permits have been issued.
Mr. Daly stated that they recognize that need and that
is why their trail system is off the street and
connects to the other trail system.
In response to Mr. Daly's request regarding Page 48,
Item f. (stamped page 63 of the agenda report), Mr.
Kueny stated that staff is in concurrence that the
modifications to SR -23 shall be constructed prior to
issuance of the first occupancy approval for any
residential dwelling unit rather than prior to the
issuance of the first building permit.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 9 January 23, 2002
In response to Mr. Daly's request regarding Page 49,
Item g. (stamped Page 64 of the agenda report), Mr.
Kueny stated that the final design for the project
entrance should be prior to the first issuance of the
building permit for the first residential unit, not
the first occupancy.
In response to Mr. Daly's request to strike the words
"zoning clearance for a building permit" on Page 64,
Item 7. (first paragraph on stamped page 79 of the
agenda report), Mr. Kueny stated that staff was in
agreement.
In response to Councilmember Harper, Mr. Kueny replied
that staff should be directed to report back with the
appropriate amended language for the sidewalk issue as
an open item for final City Council approval. He
indicated that he believes staff and the applicant
will be in agreement and if the Council does not
approve, they may apply whatever condition deemed
necessary.
Mr. Kueny recommended that the City Council close the
public hearing, and consider action on the
certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
James Rasmussen, West Pointe Homes, Inc., 31304 Via
Colinas, #103, Westlake Village, thanked the City
Council and staff for assisting him in the process.
In response to Councilmember Mikos' reference to Page
11, Item 12 p. (stamped page 26 of the agenda report),
Mr. Kueny stated that language would be added "to
enhance biological habitat value ".
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Kueny replied
that the condition requiring a Paleontological
Mitigation Plan on Page 12, Item 13, (stamped page 27
of the agenda report) , would cover finds similar to
the large fossil find in Simi Valley. He deferred to
Mr. Craig to address Councilmember Mikos' concerns
regarding the cost of a significant find.
Steve Craig, the city's Environmental consultant on
the project, stated that: there is an environmental
000024
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 10 January 23, 2002
plan for monitoring, which gives flexibility to make
sure the data recovery fits significance; CEQA
requires that the scope of the program be judged based
on the significance of the find; applicants are
generally very cooperative when a find is identified
and there is a monitoring program in place; and the
language of this condition is best left as it is,
since it has worked well in the past.
In response to Councilmember Mikos' concern regarding
the disconnect between Page 12, Item 14. (stamped page
27 of the agenda report) and Page 11, Item 12 p.
(stamped page 26 of the agenda report) in regard to
native species and non - native, Mr. Craig replied that
the non - native reference is specific to the non - native
cactus; the dominant re- vegetation should be native;
but it should not involve the destruction of non-
native vegetation.
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember
Wozniak seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002 -1935
certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH
1994081075) and approving the Mitigation Monitoring
Program. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Montes read the title of Ordinance No. 276
adopting Zone Change 99 -01.
MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember
Harper seconded a motion to waive further reading of
Ordinance No. 276. The motion carried by unanimous voice
vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember
Harper seconded a motion to declare Ordinance No. 276
introduced for first reading. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Council to
continue General Plan Amendment No. 99 -01, Residential
Planned Development No. 99 -02 and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 5187 with public hearing closed to February 6,
2002.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 11 January 23, 2002
Mr. Kueny stated that a copy of editorial and
substantive changes to the Development Agreement
submitted under Item 9.D., which the applicant has
indicated are acceptable and consistent with their
discussions, has been provided to the Council and
after conferring with the City Attorney, he went
through several minor changes, which the applicant has
not had time to review, but which is part of the final
version of the agreement.
Mr. Montes explained that the language of the
Agreement Section 5.4 indicates that subsequent
approvals including Tentative Maps would not last past
seven years, even if filed in phases; the Government
Code Section 66452.6(a) provides that if you have
certain levels of offsite infrastructure requirements,
which this approval would trigger, that the filing of
a phased Final Map automatically extends the balance
of the map for three years; and the intent of this
Section 5.4 is to make clear that the life of the
Tentative Maps is limited to seven years even if they
file in phases.
Mayor Hunter stated that the public hearing remains
open.
Mr. Daly stated that the applicant concurs with all of
the changes except for a clarification of Section 5.4
in regard to whether the recordation of the first
Final Map would than vest the remainder of the
project.
Mr. Montes stated that as Section 5.4 was just
modified, the recordation of the Final Map would not
vest the remainder of the project. If the applicant
chooses to do a Vesting Tentative Map on the whole
project and record the first phase, the remainder
phases would have to be finaled within seven years of
the approval of the original vesting tentative date.
In response to Mr. Daly's request for ten years, Mr.
Kueny replied that considering the magnitude of the
project, staff would consider the term of any
Tentative Map for the property to expire ten years
after its approval instead of seven years.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 12 January 23, 2002
The City Council concurred with Mr. Montes' statement
that the modification to 10 -years should then appear
in Section 5.4, per the Government Code Section cited
above.
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Mr. Montes read the title of Ordinance No. 277.
MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember
Harper seconded a motion to waive further reading of
Ordinance No. 277. The motion carried by unanimous voice
vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember
Harper seconded a motion to declare Ordinance No. 277
introduced for first reading. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
F. Consider Commercial Planned Development Permit No.
2000 -02 for a 2,868 Square Foot Jack -in- the -Box
Restaurant with Drive - through Service and a 17,196
Square Foot Two -story Retail /Office Building on
Property Located on the South Side of Los Angeles
Avenue One Property West of the Southwest Corner of
Los Angeles Avenue / Leta Yancy Road, North of the
Arroyo Simi, on the Application of Jack -in- the -Box
Restaurants and Acres Realty. (Continued Open Public
Hearing from City Council meeting of January 16,
2002.) Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept public
testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt
Resolution No. 2002- denying CPD No. 2000 -02
without prejudice, or accept the applicant's request
for withdrawal.
Ms. Traffenstedt gave the staff report.
Joe Ahearn, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Suite #214,
spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that
Jack -in- the -Box has withdrawn its application. He
addressed the history of the site and the service
station access conditions. He requested the
opportunity to work with staff on the project rather
than going back to the Planning Commission.
In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Ahearn replied that
the redesign would not include a fast food drive-
r. ,
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 13 January 23, 2002
through. He explained that he has one tenant who
wants all of downstairs and that a separate building
could be designed in place of the Jack -in- the -Box.
In response to Mayor Hunter's recommendation that the
applicant work with staff, Mr. Montes stated that the
application has been withdrawn and the only action
that could be taken by the City Council would be to
take no action.
CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the City Council to
take no action.
13. CLOSED SESSION:
Mr. Kueny announced that the City Council would be going
into Closed Session for discussion of Items 13.B., 13.F.,
and 13.G. on the agenda.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Wozniak
seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for a discussion
of two cases under Item 13.B. and Items 13.F. and 13.G. on the
agenda. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time
was 8:13 p.m.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Subdivision (c)
of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: (Number of
cases to be discussed - 4)
F. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: Assistant City Manager, Assistant to City
Manager /City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, City
Engineer, Chief of Police, Director of Administrative
Services, Director of Community Development, Director
Of Community Services, and Director of Public Works.
G. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Designated Representative: Steven Kueny
Employee Organization: Service Employees International
Union, AFL -CIO, CLC, Local 998
AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time
was 8:13 p.m. The Council reconvened into Closed Session at
8:20 p.m.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 14 January 23, 2002
Present in Closed 'Session were Councilmembers Harper,
Mikos, Millhouse, Wozniak, and Mayor Hunter; Steven Kueny,
City Manager; Joseph Montes, City Attorney; and Deborah
Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk.
The Council reconvened into open session at 8:25 p.m. after
discussion of one case under Item 13.B. Joseph Montes,
City Attorney, announced that a settlement had been reached
between the City and Charles Abbott & Associates regarding
claims arising out of the Spring Road Bridge project. He
stated that pursuant to the terms of the settlement,
Charles Abbott & Associates admits no liability, but has
agreed to pay the City $500,000. He further stated that
the City has agreed to assign to Charles Abbott &
Associates any and all claims the City may have against the
geotechnical firm on the project.
The City Council reconvened into Closed Session at 8:26
p.m. Joseph Montes, City Attorney, left the meeting at
8:38 p.m. following discussion of one case under Item 13.B.
The City Council reconvened into open session at 9:10 p.m.
Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report and
that one case under Item 13.B. and Items 13.F. and 13.G
were discussed.
14. ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Hunter adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
City Clerk
CITY OF MOORPARK -A-p-pr
WARRANT REGISTER
FOR THE 2002-2003 FISCAL YEAR
CITY CO UNCIL MEETING OF MAY 07, 2003
SEQUENCE AMOUNT
From To
MANUAL 112509 - 112511 $ 363,898.17
WARRANTS
VOIDED 112181 & 112303 & $ (944.00)
WARRANTS 112508 & 112623 &
112626
PAYROLL LIABILITY 112611 - 112615 $ 2,552.49
WARRANTS
REGULAR 112512 - 112610 & $ 83,184.18
WARRANTS 112616 - 112722 $ 712,460.11
TOTAL $ 1,161,150.95
CITY OF MOORPARK
WARRANT REGISTER
FISCAL YEAR 2002 -03
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF May 07, 2003
CHECK
ISSUE
NUMBER
DATE
VENDOR
STATUS
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
112181
4/29/2003
MANCHESTER GRAND HYATT
V
Planner's Institute -Hogan
(594.00)
112303
4/21/2003
MARIE'S PONIES & FARM
V
04/19 Event Pony Rides
(350.00)
112508
4/10/2003
ADELPHIA
V
Encroachment Permit Reimbursement
-
112509
4/10/2003
ADELPHIA
M
Encroachment Permit Reimbursement
25,981.95
112510
4/11/2003
HANCOCK, JAMES
M
Space #20 Moving Expenses
1,100.00
112511
4/11/2003
VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
M
03/03 Sheriffs Bill
336,816.22
112512
4/22/2003
ACCOUNTEMPS
R
K Szabo - 2 Weeks
1,350.00
112513
4122/2003
ACCU- PRINTS
R
Employee Fingerprinting
20.00
112514
4/22/2003
ACCURATE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
R
I TR Park Playground Repair
16.95
112515
4/22/2003
ACCURATE WELDING
R
Sign Post Fabrication
85.80
112516
4/22/2003
ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION
R
P Rothschild Conference Registration
40.00
112517
4/22/2003
AMERICAN RED CROSS
R
Babysitting Basics Class
375.00
112518
4/2212003
ANGEL, ANNETTE L
R
Henna Artist - Seniors
250.00
112519
4/22/2003
ARROWHEAD DRINKING WATER
R
3/03 CH Break room Supplies
137.63
112520
4/22/2003
ASCOM HASLER MAILING SYSTEM
R
1 -3/03 Postage Meter
244.53
112521
4/22/2003
B.T.R. -INC.
-R
AVRC Staff Mtg Pizza
27.00
112522
4/22/2003
BARRERA, YOLANDA
R
Refund - Youth League Fees
42.00
112523
4/22/2003
VICKI
R
Refund- Room Rental
100.00
112524
4/22/2003
IC
R
Temp Parking Lot Light Pole
807.48
112525
4122/2003
"BRUNTON,RHONDA
R
Refund - Swing &Salsa Class
45.00
112526
4/22/2003
R
CEO Seminar -M Riley
275.0112527
4/22/2003
NT OF CONSERVATION
R
10 -12/02 SMIP Fees
2,838.25
112528
4/22/2003
CALDERON, VERONICA
R
Refund -Tiny Tot Dance
20.00
112529
4/22/2003
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL STAT
R
Debt Statement
400.00
112530
4/22/2003
CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY
R
Purchase Mobile home Space #8
14,925.00
112531
4/22/2003
CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY
R
Replacement Housing and Rental Assistance
18,722.08
112532
4/22/2003
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
R
7 -11/02 HHW Events
70.16
112533
4/22/2003
COASTAL PIPCO
R
Parks Lodge Poles & Radar Sign Posts
486.75
112534
4/22/2003
COLLIER, JEAN
R
Refund Cit #172332
40.00
112535
4122/2003
COMPUWAVE
R
Computer Supplies
372.07
112536
4/22/2003
CPIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
R
5/03 Employee Vision Insurance
796.40
112537
4/22/2003
D & D SHIRTS UNLIMITED
R
Parks Commissioner Shirts
107.68
112538
4/22/2003
DATA BYTE CENTRAL INC
R
City Hall General Office Supplies
438.30
112539
4/22/2003
DIAL SECURITY
R
Metrolink Security Guard
598.00
112540
4/22/2003
DIEDERICH, GRETCHEN
R
Refund -Dog Obedience Class
60.00
112541
4/22/2003
DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATION
R
4/03 Phone Maintenance
434.00
112542
4/22/2003
DIRECT EDGE, INC.
R
Root Pruner Teeth
165.63
112543
4/22/2003
DISPENSING TECHNOLOGY CORP
R
PW Paint Mixer
44.96
112544
4/22/2003
DOYLE SHAW ICE
R
Vector Control Dry Ice
16.00
112545
4/22/2003
DRIVER ALLIANT
R
01/03 Rental Insurance Policies
270.00
112546
4/22/2003
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
R
Shipping Fees
38.56
112547
4/22/2003
FLAME, JACOB
R
Karate Instruction
792.00
112548
4/22/2003
GULL WINGS CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
R
Spring Camp Mobile Museum
150.00
112549
4/22/2003
GULL WINGS CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
R
Apricot Festival Museum
500.00
112550
4/22/2003
HOLMAN GROUP, THE
R
5/03 Employee EAP Insurance
195.00
112551
4/22/2003
HOME DEPOT -GECF
R
AVRC, Vector Control & PW Supplies
410.71
112552
4/22/2003
HOUSE SANITARY SUPPLY
R
Comm. Facility Cleaning Supplies
530.39
112553
4/22/2003
I.P.M.A.
R
6103 -5/04 Membership -D Traffenstedt &J Fretz
299.00
112554
4/22/2003
IMAGISTICS INTERNATIONAL,
R
5/03 Fax Machine Rental
64.35
112555
4/22/2003
INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CENTER
R
Dump Truck & Welder Trailer Repairs
521.28
112556
4/22/2003
J E CLARK II CORPORATION
R
PW & Parks Fuel
150.65
112557
4/22/2003
KELLY CLEANING & SUPPLIES
-PAPER
R
4/03 PW Janitorial Service
180.00
112558
4/22/2003
KELLY
-R
AVRC Paper Supply
213.03
112559
4/22/2003
KING, STEVEN
R
Refund -Youth Basketball
46.00
112560
4/22/2003
KWIK KART READY MIX, INC.
R
Christian Barrett&Hearon Ave Sidewalk Repair
470.03
112561
412212003
L.A. LAWNMOWER
R
PW Chainsaw & Blower Repairs
646.22
112562
4003
LBL EQUIPMENT REPAIR INC
R
Veh #37 Weed Sprayer Repair
8.35
112563
003
MAINTENA NCE SUPERINTENDENT
R
Casillas 03 Membership &5/22 Training &Equip
49.00
112564
003
MARIE'S PONIES & FARM
R
Easter Egg Hunt Pony Rides
350.00
112565
4/22/2003
MATILIJA WATER COMPANY
R
4/03 AVRC,PW,Annex &Com Fac Water
262.50
CITY OF MOORPARK
WARRANT REGISTER
FISCAL YEAR 2002 -03
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF May 07, 2003
CHECK
NUMBER
ISSUE
DATE
VENDOR
STATUS
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
112566
4/22/2003
MILLHOUSE, KEITH F.
R
League of Ca Mileage Reimbursement
110.16
112567
4/22/2003
MOBILE MINI, INC.
R
AVCP Skate Ramp Rental & Storage Rental
209.68
112568
4/22/2003
MONSTERTRAK.COM
-STAR
R
Rec Leader 1 /11 Ads
100.00
112569
4/22/2003
MOORPARK
R
Mpk PD Subscription
156.00
112570
4/22/2003
MR. T'S CUSTOM EMBROIDERY--R
2 PD Deputy Uniform Embroidery
102.96
112571
4/22/2003
NAVARRO, LIONICIO
R
Residential Moving Expense
275.00
112572
4/22/2003
NAVARRO, LOURDES
R
Residential Moving Expense
825.00
112573
4/22/2003
NEW HORIZONS
R
4/1 Cervantes Excel Class
113.00
112574
4/22/2003
NORTH OAKS AUTO PARTS
R
Vehicle #11 Belt Replaced
48.21
112575
4/22/2003
ORKIN EXTERMINATING
R
3103 CH & AVRC Pest Control
364.87
112576
4/2212003
PACIFIC RELOCATION CONSUL
R
3/03 Landscaping, Plumbing &PRC Admin Fee
838.35
112577
4/22/2003
PACIFIC SWEEP
R
2/03 Metrolink Sweeping
550.75
112578
4/22/2003
PFLAUMER, THOMAS E.
R
Park & Rec Mtg Expenses Reimbursement
531.35
112579
4/22/2003
POSTNET AND COMMUNICATION
R
Tree Trimming Door Hangers, Millhouse Name
BadgeCC Mtg Agenda Packets &Bus Cards
623.13
112580
4/22/2003
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY
R
PW,Parks,Vector Control Uniform Maintenance
301.39
112581
4/22/2003
RAKOWSKI ,KAREN A.
R
Cooking Class Instruction
252.00
112582
4/22/2003
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY
R
City Council Supplies & 20th Anniv Supplies
39.65
112583
4122/2003
RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION
R
Trencher -Bocce Ball Court
120.13
112584
4/22/2003
ROTARY CLUB OF MOORPARK
R
3/03 Capt. Diaz Dues
70.00
112585
4/22/2003
S &S SEEDS INC.
R
Seed -Bocce Ball Court
87.92
112586
4722/2003
SCMAF
R
Adult Team Registration
356.00
112587
4/22/2003
SHELL OIL COMPANY
R
2/03 City Vehicle Fuel
159.90
112588
4/22/2003
SIMI VALLEY LOCK & KEY
R
Install Mpk PD Lockset
380.79
112589
1 4/22/2003
SKILLPATH SEMINARS
R
P Rothschild - Conflict Seminar
99.00
112590
4/22/2003
TAYLOR, JANE RUTH
R
3/03 Sr Strength Training
83.25
112591
4/22/2003
TELCOM INC
R
Motorola Radios Batteries
81.72
112592
4/22/2003
TERRA FIRMA ENTERPRISES
R
SEMS Sectional Training
80.00
112593
1 4/22/2003
THE FINE PRINT SHOP
R
Spring 03 Flyer Distribution
241.31
112594
4/22/2003
THE GAS COMPANY
R
3/03 PW,AVRC,Com Fac &Mobilehome Gas
580.22
112595
4/22/2003
THERESA'S COUNTRY FEED
R
Vector Control Kennel & Bowl
168.98
112596
4/22/2003
THOUSAND OAKS CAB COMPANY
R
02 &03/03 Sr Taxi Trips -88 Trips
517.30
112597
4/22/2003
TROPHIES ETC
R
Adult Sports Plaques
19.30
112598
4/22/2003
U.S. POSTMASTER
R
2/03 -2/04 Bulk Mailing Permit
150.00
112599
4/22/2003
UNIVERSAL REPROGRAPHICS
R
Spring Road Storm Drain
28.57
112600
112601
4/22/2003
4/22/2003
VENTURA COUNTY COMMUNITY
VENTURA COUNTY ENVIRONMENT
R
R
Media Latino Mtg & Sr Vol Coordinators Mtg
EHD Fees -Event Organization
50.00
211.00
112602
4/22/2003
VENTURA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION
R
10 -12/02 Fire Fees
21,799.88
112603
112604
4/22/2003
4/22/2003
VENTURA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
VENTURA COUNTY STAR
R
R
5/03 Vector Control Lease Payment
3/9 Rec Leaders Ad
352.72
214.35
1126 05
4/22/2003
WEST GROUP
R
CA Legislative Service
226.50
112606
112607
4/22/2003
4/22/2003
WHITAKER HARDWARE, INC
WILLIAMS, SEAN
R
R
Chas St Hardware,Mpk PD Tools &Sign Post
Refund -Film Permit Deposit
28.05
250.00
112608
4/22/2003
WM. L. MORRIS CHEVROLET
R
Vehicle #51 Mirror Replaced
147.18
112609
4/22/2003
WOLCO
R
Copy Machine Toner
379.58
112610
112611
112612
112613
112614
4/22/2003
4/24/2003
4/24/2003
4/24/2003
4/24/2003
ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INS
S E I U LOCAL 998
SANDRA KUENY
UNITED WAY OF VENTURA COUNTY
R
R
R
R
R
City Vehicle Sign,Flory Ave PD Sign
04/25/03 Payroll Liability
04/25/03 Payroll Liability
04/25/03 Payroll Liability
04/25/03 Payroll Liability
360.29
114.32
397.71
1,693.00
179.00
112615
112616
112617
112618
112619
112620
112621
112622
112623
112624
4/24/2003
4/30/2003
4/30/2003
00/2003
4/30/2003
4/30/2003
4/30/2003
4/30/2003
4/30/2003
4/30/2003
VENTURA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ACCOUNTEMPS
BERRY GENERAL ENGINEERING
BNY WESTERN TRUST COMPANY-_R
BONE HEALTH
BONTERRA CONSULTING CORP
BRANDCO -BILLING
BRUCE LINDSEY PAINTING
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
R
R
R
R
R
-R
R
V
R
04/25/03 Payroll Liability
K Szabo - 2 Weeks
Miller Prkwy /Pch Hill
10/02 -9/03 Admin Fees
5/9 Sr Bone Density Testing
North Park Specific Plan
Vehicles #2 & #5 tire and oil change
Poindexter Park Fence Painting
Additional Remittance copy
01 & 02/03 Legal Invoices
168.46
1,316.25
13,937.27
1,816.02
700.00
21,904.39
54.09
2,340.00
-
36,877.86
CITY OF MOORPARK
WARRANT REGISTER
FISCAL YEAR 2002 -03
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF May 07, 2003
CHECK
NUMBER
ISSUE
DATE
VENDOR
STATUS
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
112625
4/30/200T
CENTURY CONSTRUCTORS, INC
R
284 Charles St. Work
19,718.71
112626
4/30/2003
CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES
V
Additional Remittance copy
-
112627
4/30/2003
CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES
R
03/03 Invoices
107,394.09
112628
4/30/2003
CITY OF GLENDALE
-USA
R
Skate Park Workshop for 4 Employees
120.00
112629
4/30/2003
COACH
-R
1 -3/03 Bus Maintenance
54,162.82
112630
4/30/2003
COASTAL PIPCO
R
Glenwood Park Timer
601.98
112631
4/30/2003
COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN
R
AVCP Sports Field Design
9,886.05
112632
4/30/2003
COMPUWAVE
R
Computer Supplies
573.60
112633
4/30/2003
D & D SHIRTS UNLIMITED
R
JBL Shirts & Summer 03 Camp Shirts
3,225.41
112634
44/30/2003
DALEY, MICHAEL P
R
Basketball Official
20.00
112635
4/30/2003
DATA BYTE CENTRAL INC
R
City General Office Supplies
3,199.05
112636
4/30/2003
DIAL SECURITY
R
Feb & Mar Metrolink Security Guard
4,784.00
112637
4/30/2003
DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATION
R
5/03 AVRC,Comm Ctr,PW Phone Maintenance
2,882.07
112638
4/30/2003
DISPENSING TECHNOLOGY CORP
R
Asphalt Cold Patch
225.01
112639
4/30/2003
ECOTELESIS
R
AB939 New Base Year
38,000.00
112640
4/30/2003
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
R
2/9 PW Shipping Charges
14.95
112641
4/30/2003
FETCHET, ERIC
R
JBL Official
90.00
112642
4/30/2003
FINE FOODS BY JULIE
R
4 /3Sr Volunteer Recognition
1,650.00
112643
4/30/2003
FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE
R
5/03 Employee Dental & Life Insurance
5,409.38
112644
4/30/2003
FRUIT GROWERS LABORATORY
Redwood Tree Lab Work
255.00
112645
4/30/2003
GOLD COAST THEATRE CONSERVATORY
��R
Theatre Instruction Classes
840.00
112646
4/30/2003
GONZALES, BRYAN
JBL Official
80.00
112647
4/30/2003
GUERRERO, JOSE & ELISA
R
Residential Moving Expense
1,100.00
112648
4/30/2003
HARTMANJJEFF
R
Basketball Official
72.00
112649
4/3012003
HAWKS & ASSOCIATES INC
R
Flinn Ave Realign & Spring Rd Widening
28,925.10
112650
4/30/2003
HERRERA, RAMIRO & MARIA
R
Final Payment Incidental Moving Fees
1,425.00
112651
4/30/2003
HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL
R
Truck Rental used in 6 Parks
427.90
112652
4/30/2003
HILLYARD
R
CH Restroom Hand Soap
66.70
112653
4/30/2003
HILTI INC
R
Parks, AVRC &Com CTr Graffiti Remover
549.12
112654
4/30/2003
HOME DEPOT-GECF
R
Bocce Ball Court Lumber & Sidewalk forms
1,425.32
112655
4/30/2003
I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICE
R
Credit Card Invoices
5,423.05
112656
4/30/2003
INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CENTER
R
Compressor Trailer Repair
76.83
112657
4/30/2003
J.C. CONSTRUCTION
R
Remove & Install Caps
9,700.00
112658
4/30/2003
J.G. MAINTENANCE
R
2002 Catch Basin Cleanout
6,508.50
112659
4/30/2003
JOHN FORD
R
Sr Choral Performance
150.00
112660
4/30/2003
KELLY CLEANING & SUPPLIES
R
4/03 AVRC & SR Ctr Janitorial Service
1,549.00
112661
4/30/2003
KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES
R
TR Rd Traffic Signal Project
11,858.00
112662
4/30/2003
KING KOHL
R
Vector Control Bird Nets & Chicken Coop
179.67
112663
4/30/2003
KWIK KART READY MIX, INC.
-KEITH
R
Sidewalk Repairs
144.52
112664
4/30/2003
LAWRENCE,
-R
JBL Official
90.00
112665
4/30/2003
LBL EQUIPMENT REPAIR INC
R
Jack Hammer Repair
30.00
112666
4/30/2003
LORMAN EDUCATION SERVICES
R
5/20 Developing Budget Seminar- Johnny Ea
359.00
112667
4/30/2003
MARTIN, VICTORIA
R
Babysitting Basics Class
30.00
112668
4/30/2003
MCGRATH, JEFF
R
Refund- Park Rental
40.00
112669
4/30/2003
MCMASTER -CARR SUPPLY
R
360 Rivet Tool
30.00
112670
4/30/2003
METLIFE SMALL BUSINESS CE
R
5/03 Employee STD & LTD Insurance
2,259.75
112671
4/30/2003
MOORPARK BUSINESS SERVICE
R
5/03 Sr Newsletter
128.70
112672
4/30/2003
MOORPARK FEED & SUPPLY
R
Vector Control Lay Mash
9.35
112673
4/30/2003
MORALES, ELIZABETH
R
Refund - Security Deposit
100.00
112674
4/30/2003
MVCAC -STATE MOSQUITO ASSOCIATION
R
1 -6/03 Vector Control Membership
1,218.00
112675
4/30/2003
NAVARRO, LIONICIO
R
Mobile home Sp #12 Rental Assistance
4,567.50
112676
4/30/2003
NAVARRO, LOURDES
R
Rental Assistance Final Payment
13,702.50
112677
4/30/2003
NEW HORIZONS
R
Power Point -J Figueroa &Access -A Cervantes
339.00
112678
4/30/2003
NYE & NELSON INC
R
High St Parking Lot
3,720.00
112679
4/30/2003
PACIFIC SWEEP
R
03 &04/03 Street Sweeping
8,404.92
112680
4/30/2003
PASCUAL RROSA
R
Refund - Security Deposit
75.00
112681
41/30/2003
PEACH HILL SOILS
R
AV Park Dust Control & Sidewalk Repair
467.60
112682
4/30/2003
PEACOCK, STEVE P
R
4/03 Citation Hearing
15.00
112683-
4/30/2003
PEEL, HEIDI
-LYNN
R
Basketball Game Official
20.00
112684
4/30/2003 PERLEY,
-R
Refund -Tiny Tot Dance
30.00
112685
4/30/2003 POSTNET
AND COMMUNICATION
R
Envelopes,CC Mtg Agendas &Sr Newsletter
1,349.62
CITY OF MOORPARK
WARRANT REGISTER
FISCAL YEAR 2002 -03
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF May 07, 2003
CHECK
NUMBER
ISSUE
DATE
VENDOR
STATUS
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
112686
4/30/2003
JIM DOUGLAS
R
Starship Performance
4,500.00
112687
4/30/2003
PROGRAMMERS, INC.
R
Detts Dev Final Payment
6,300.00
112688
4130/2003
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT
R
5/03 Employee Medical Insurance
33,679.38
112689
4/30/2003
RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION
R
Multiquip KD -6 Light Tower
29,981.27
112690
4/30/2003
ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY
R
5/20 Admin Professional
273.00
112691
4/30/2003
RODRIGUEZ, JOSE
R
JBL Official
70.00
112692
4/30/2003
RRM DESIGN GROUP
R
Arroyo Simi Trail Study
21,869.63
112693
4/30/2003
SCE
R
5/03 Previously Not Billed Invoice
1,551.79
112694
4/30/2003
SHILTS CONSULTANTS INC
R
Comm Lighting Survey
7,678.39
112695
4/30/2003
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE
-&
R
3/03 Maintenance & Ins Ad'
1,405.65
112696
4/30/2003
SIMI VALLEY LOCK KEY
R
Griffin & Pch Hill Park Dead Bolts
257.79
112697
4/30/2003
SIMMONS, CARILYN
R
Sr Walking Cross Country Prizes
90.00
112698
4/30/2003
SMART & FINAL
R
AVRC,Teen, Camp, Sr Ctr &Easter Egg Hunt Sup[
1,126.63
112699
4/30/2003
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
R
2/13 -3/15 Electric Bills
32,384.57
112700
4/30/2003
SUB -ZERO EXCAVATING, INC.
R
2002 Ramps at "T" Intersections
16,184.57
112701
4/3012003
SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC
R
5/03 -4/04 Custom Programs Maint
18,323.62
112702
4/30/2003
SUNRIDGE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
R
4/03 Landscaping Service
43,152.00
112703
4/30/2003
SWING, JAMES ROBERT
R
Guitar Instruction
216.00
112704
4/30/2003
TAYLOR, JANE RUTH
R
4/03 Bldg Better Bones - Seniors
111.00
112705
4/30/2003
THOUSAND OAKS YAMAHA KAWASAKI
R
01 PD Cycle Maintenance
371.30
112706
4/30/2003
TOTAL TENNIS ACADEMY
R
Tennis Instruction Minus Facility Use Fee
2,075.75
112707
4/30/2003
TUMBLESON, DEPUTY ED
R
Kiwanis Club Dues
110.00
112708
4/30/2003
UNION 76
R
2/03 City Vehicles Fuel
1,242.99
112709
4/30/2003
VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO
R
12/02 Transit Control
1,000.00
112710
4/30/2003
VENTURA COUNTY ANIMAL REGULATION
R
10 -12/02 Animal Regulation
11,887.00
112711
4/30/2003
VENTURA COUNTY STAR
R
03/03 Hearing, Ordinance, Bids Ads
1,508.77
112712
4/30/2003
VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS
R
1/15 -4/08 Water Invoices
24,849.82
112713
4/30/2003
VESTUTO, ANGELITA D.
R
Tennis Instruction
255.00
112714
4/30/2003
VIDEOMAX PRODUCTIONS
R
3/03 Services &Lighting System Repair
3,482.00
112715
4/30/2003
VILLAGE VIEW LIGHTING
R
6 Parks Light Repairs
214.93
112716
4/30/2003
W & S CONSULTANTS
R
Phase I Survey -2 Acres
1,412.25
112717
4/30/2003
WAYNE J. SAND & GRAVEL
R
TR Park Bocce Ball Court
1,310.56
112718
4/30/2003
WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC
R
7 Zones Tree Trimming
4,227.08
112719
4/30/2003
WHITAKER HARDWARE, INC
R
Misc Parks,PW &VC Repairs Supplies
63.83
112720
4/3012003
WILL, SHAWNA
R
JBL Official
20.00
112721
4/30/2003
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE CO.
R
First Aid Supplies
193.67
112722
4/30/2003
ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
R
Do Not Block Signs
435.22
TOTAL REPORT
1,161,150.95
m; wn
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Cynthia L. Borchard, Administrative Services Director 9b
DATE: April 30, 2003 (meeting of May 7, 2003)
SUBJECT: Consider GASB Statement No. 34 Implementation Proposals
SUMMARY
The City is required to comply with Government Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 which establishes new
financial reporting guidelines including infrastructure
reporting. Proposals from our audit firm to restate our
financial statements and from engineering firms to value our
infrastructure have been obtained. Staff is recommending
approval of the proposal from our audit firm, Vavrinek, Trine,
Day and Co., LLP, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 and from
Harris and Associates in the not to exceed amount of $24,990.
Also recommended is an additional appropriation of $24,990.
BACKGROUND
In June 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
- which sets "generally accepted accounting principles"
(financial reporting rules) for all state and local governments
- established a new framework for the financial reports of state
and local governments. The new framework or financial reporting
model represents the biggest single change in the history of
governmental accounting. Known as Statement No. 34: Basic
Financial Statements - and Management's Discussion and Analysis
- for State and Local Governments, it represents a fundamental
revision of the current financial reporting model, which has
been in place since 1979.
DISCUSSION
Statement 34 covers the basic financial statements, note
disclosures, and the new Management Discussion and Analysis
(MD&A). Governments need to report capital assets with
consideration of depreciation, including infrastructure assets
and "historical treasures ". This means that the government
needs to report in a complete, accurate and detailed manner to
adequately account for and report their capital asset activity.
The objective of the new Statement is that anyone with an
interest in public finance - citizens, the media, bond raters,
creditors, legislators, and others - will have additional and
easier -to- understand information in a business -like format about
any government in the United States.
Key Features of the New Reporting Model. Even though the new
governmental financial reporting model has deep roots in
traditional public sector accounting and financial reporting, it
offers many new features. The most important of these new
features are:
1. Government -wide financial reporting. For the first
time, users of state and local government financial
reports have access to government -wide financial
statements that provide a clear picture of the
government as a single, unified entity. These new
government -wide financial statements complement
rather than replace traditional fund -based financial
statements.
2. Additional long -term focus for governmental
activities. Traditional reporting for tax - supported
(governmental) activities has focused on near -term
inflows, outflows and balances of spendable
financial resources. The new financial reporting
model retains this short -term focus in the
governmental fund financial statements while
providing a long -term perspective on these same
activities in the government -wide financial
statements.
3. Narrative overview and analysis. The new
governmental financial reporting model provides
financial report users with a simple narrative
introduction, overview and analysis of the basic
financial statements in the form of management's
discussion and analysis (MD&A).
2 (00OOCG
4. Information on major funds. It is widely agreed
that fund information is most useful when presented
for individual funds rather than for aggregations of
funds (e.g., all special revenue funds).
Accordingly, the new governmental financial
reporting model presents individual fund data for
each of a government's major funds.
5. Expanded budgetary reporting. Currently, budgetary
comparisons are based solely on the final amended
budget. Under the new governmental financial
reporting model, information on the original budget
also is presented. In addition, the new model
eliminates aggregated budget presentations (e.g.
totals for all budgeted special 'revenue funds) in
favor of comparisons for the general fund and each
individual major special revenue fund.
6. Infrastructure reporting. Current accounting
principles do not require reporting the cost of
infrastructure such as roads, bridges, storm drains,
street lights and traffic signals as capital assets
- not because they aren't major community
investments, but because they are immovable, and
only of value to the government. The new
governmental financial reporting model requires that
infrastructure be reported at its "historical" (not
current) value, and then depreciated like other
assets.
Under GASB 34, our financial statements will become longer and
more complex - and thus more difficult to prepare and audit.
This increased difficulty and complexity directly translate into
increased costs - both one -time during implementation and
ongoing thereafter - for staff resources as well as audit fees
and consultant services.
With GASB 34 being such a significant change, one question is:
Why implement GASB 34? The three most important reasons are:
1. It's Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). This is probably the most compelling reason
for implementing the new model. GASB is the
acknowledged authoritative body in setting generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for local and
state agencies. Maintaining citizen confidence in
the stewardship of public assets requires
credibility and integrity in the City's accounting
3 00,06 -1
and financial reporting systems. And preparing
audited financial statements in accordance with
industry standards is an essential foundation in
gaining and sustaining this trust.
2. The new model is supported by a number of users and
professional associations. The National Association
of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers has
endorsed the new model, and so have the credit
rating agencies (who are the primary "users" of
these reports). There are many public works'
officials who believe the new reporting model will
result in a better understanding of infrastructure
needs. And a number of well- respected municipal
finance professionals think the new reporting model
better tells a city's fiscal story, and is a
significant improvement over the current model.
3. Usually required for grants and long -term financing.
In most cases, grant agencies and those who review
and monitor long -term financing, require the
submission of audited financial statements. Those
entities that do not implement GASB 34 will receive
a qualified opinion (as opposed to an unqualified
opinion) on their financial statements. Such
opinions will have a negative impact with respect to
grant compliance and long -term financing.
Implementation. As set forth in the following table, the
effective date for the new model varies depending on the
financial size of the agency and its fiscal year. (The chart
assumes a fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30).
Also, there are different effective dates for implementing the
new model and prospective reporting of infrastructure assets
(assets added or deleted from the effective date of the new
model) versus retroactive reporting of infrastructure back to at
least 1980:
Basic Model
(Prospective Retroactive
Total Infrastructure Infrastructure
Revenues Reporting) Reportinq
$100 million or more
$10 to $100 million
Under $10 million
2001 -02
2002 -03
2003 -04
4
2005 -06
2006 -07
Not Required
The City of Moorpark falls within the $10 to $100 million
revenue category and therefore we need to implement the required
changes for fiscal year 2002 -03. Retroactive Infrastructure
reporting is not required until 2006 -07, however, the
consultants recommend completing the retroactive valuations now
so we don't have to go back and restate our financial statements
and possibly incur additional costs.
Following are comments on each of the required elements of the
new reporting model and the status of same:
ELEMENT
STATUS
Management Discussion and
Some of this information is
Analysis (MD&A)
currently in the introduction
section of the City's
Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR), but it will need
to be expanded to cover all the
required items.
Government -Wide Financial
A new element requiring
Statements
conversion of current
Statements.
Governmental Fund Financial
In current reports, but new
Statements
requirement changes the format.
Proprietary Fund Financial
The City does not have any
Statements
proprietary funds.
Fiduciary Fund Financial
In current reports. No
Statements
significant changes are
anticipated.
Notes to the Financial
In current reports, but changes
Statements
and additions are required in
order to meet the new model's
disclosure requirements.
Required Supplementary
New element. Added requirement
Information Other than MD&A
for presentation of both
original and final budget.
Infrastructure Reporting and
Not an independent element, but
Depreciation
a significant new requirement.
Will be the most costly change
to implement. The City does
not have infrastructure
valuations at the present time.
In planning for GASB 34 implementation, staff met
City's audit firm, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP.
proposed to assist the City in the conversion at
rates in effect for their auditing services and have
with the
They have
the hourly
estimated
5 10 06
our cost at $15,000 to $20,000. This will include re- formatting
the financial statements and reviewing the work performed by the
Valuation consultant during their preparation of the
infrastructure inventory and calculations of estimated net book
value to ensure compliance with GASB 34.
Prior to the adoption of the New Reporting Model, the financial
statements of public agencies generally included land, buildings
and equipment only. After adoption of the New Reporting Model,
the City's financial statements will include roadways, sewer
systems, drainage systems and other infrastructure assets.
In other cities and governmental agencies, many of these
infrastructure systems were constructed using debt financing,
rather than cash reserves. After the adoption of the New
Reporting Model, financial advisors and other interested parties
will be able to compare the agency's cost and depreciated value
of roads, storm drains, and other infrastructure assets with the
amount of debt used to finance their construction. In addition,
the City Council, staff, financial advisors and the City's
residents will be able to analyze the amount of its investment
and depreciated book value of the entire infrastructure of the
City.
Infrastructure Valuation and Capitalization Threshold
GASB 34 requires governments to establish and disclose a
capitalization policy for infrastructure assets. The policy
sets forth the dollar value above which such asset acquisitions
are capitalized and included in the City's Statement of Net
Assets (the balance sheet). Infrastructure falling below this
capitalization threshold will be expended when acquired. The
threshold does not indicate that individual assets with costs
less than $100,000 have not been, or in the future will not be,
counted. Infrastructure inventory records will continue to
include historical costs of assets less than $100,000. A
capitalization threshold is a practical tool to serve a
government's financial reporting needs.
Fixed Asset (Equipment) Capitalization Threshold
Currently, the City designates capitalization of fixed assets
with a value of $500 or more. In 1997, the Governmental Finance
Officers Association (GFOA) approved a recommended practice,
"Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Fixed
Assets." The key elements are:
6 °C
1) Fixed assets should be capitalized only if they have an
estimated useful life of at least two years following the
date of acquisition;
2) Capitalization thresholds should be applied to individual
fixed assets rather than groups of fixed assets;
3) As a general rule, capitalization thresholds should be
designed to encompass approximately 80 percent of a
government's total non - infrastructure assets;
4) In no case should a government establish a fixed asset
threshold of less than $5,000 for any individual item;
5) In establishing capitalization thresholds, governments that
are recipients of federal awards (i.e. Community
Development Block Grants and Department of Justice awards)
should be aware of federal requirements that prevent the
use of capitalization thresholds in excess of certain
specified maximum amounts; and
6) Governments should exercise control over non - capitalized
fixed assets by establishing and maintaining adequate
control procedures at the departmental level.
If the City's policy were modified to adhere to the GFOA set of
recommended practices (establishing a $5,000 and $100,000
thresholds for fixed assets and infrastructure), the capitalized
items will include infrastructure, computer software,
photocopiers, and vehicles, but exclude furniture and some
computer equipment and hardware. Non - compliance with the
recommended infrastructure capitalization and fixed asset
thresholds will likely draw criticism by the National Council of
Government Accounting in its review of the City's annual report.
Additionally, non - compliance will cause the City's assets to be
overstated and expenditures understated in the future, when
compared with other agencies.
To adequately maintain control over non - capitalized fixed
assets, staff will utilize bar -coded tags and handheld bar -code
scanning equipment to conduct annual inventories of all
equipment. Department heads will continue to be responsible for
all property charged to their department, establishing each
employee's accountability for asset security and care.
Depreciation Reporting Method
Standard Approach
The standard depreciation reporting method is currently utilized
for the City's buildings and equipment. In accordance with
GAAP, land is never depreciated. The City's buildings, computer
hardware and software, equipment and furniture are depreciated
000071
using the straight -line method with the following estimated
useful lives:
Buildings and Improvements 50 years
Furniture and Fixtures 10 -15 years
Equipment and Vehicles 5 -10 years
Computer Software and Hardware 3 years
The accounting concept of depreciation allows for the systematic
reduction of the carrying value of assets (e.g. buildings,
equipment, roadways, etc.) over the period of time they are
used. The historical cost is divided by the estimated useful
life (in years) to determine the annual charge for depreciation.
The resulting "net book value" is computed by subtracting the
total accumulated annual depreciation from the historical cost,
as the following example demonstrates:
Assumptions:
Est. historical cost - computer network installed FY 99 -00 $250,000
Estimated useful life 3 years
Annual charge for depreciation $83,333
Net book value of computer network installed in FY 99 -00:
Historical cost - computer network installed in FY 99 -00 $250,000
Less: total accumulated depreciation through the end of FY 01 -02
($250,000 divided by 3 years estimated useful life, multiplied
by 3 years service equals $250,000) ($250,000)
Net book value as of June 30, 2002 $ 0
If the standard depreciation reporting method is used for
reporting infrastructure assets, a one -time determination of the
estimated historical cost, useful life and net book value will
be necessary. Annual depreciation is calculated and recorded as
an expense in the current reporting period and a proportionate
reduction of the net book value of the asset.
The use of the standard depreciation reporting method offers the
following advantages to the City:
➢ Comparability - Based upon discussions with the City's
auditors, other California municipal finance officers and
GASB 34 consultants, only major metropolitan cities will
adopt the modified approach;
➢ Simplicity - The use of the
method enables integration
currently used by the City
organizations;
standard depreciation reporting
of the accounting method
and all other non - governmental
8 000072
➢ Cost Savings - Based upon discussions with other municipal
finance officers and the City's auditors, Finance staff
believes the cost of implementing the Modified Approach
(the alternative described below) would probably exceed
$40,000 immediately, followed by the cost of performing
future evaluations, recordkeeping, and reporting that would
exceed $40,000 annually.
Modified Approach
The City has the option of choosing the "Modified Approach" for
infrastructure assets, but only if it satisfies the following
requirements.
➢ The City must develop and maintain an up -to -date inventory
of its infrastructure assets.
➢ The City must perform or obtain condition assessments of
the infrastructure assets and summarize the results using a
reliable measurement scale. It is essential that such
condition assessments be replicable by other measurers to
reach substantially similar results.
➢ The City must determine an annual estimate of the cost to
maintain and preserve the infrastructure at a condition
level established and disclosed by the City.
➢ The City must assert and document that infrastructure
assets are being preserved at or above the condition level
established and disclosed by the City.
If the modified approach is elected for its infrastructure, the
City would be required to present two types of information
regarding the assets. First, the results of the three most
recently completed condition assessments must be presented to
demonstrate that infrastructure assets have been maintained at
or above the condition level established by the City. Second,
an estimate of the dollar amount needed to maintain or preserve
infrastructure assets at the level established by the City, and
actual amounts of expense for each of the past five reporting
periods must be disclosed. The purpose of the second disclosure
is to allow readers of the financial statements to make their
own assessment of the City's long -term commitment to maintaining
infrastructure assets.
As described previously in this report, Finance staff believes
the cost of performing the conditional assessment of the three
previous years would exceed $40,000. Finance staff believes the
9'
cost of performing future evaluations, recordkeeping, and
reporting using the modified approach would exceed $40,000
annually. Because of the significant cost, it appears that only
very large local governments will elect to use the modified
approach. In addition, governmental accounting industry leaders
have stated that in the event infrastructure assets are not
maintained at the established condition level, the local
government's bond rating is likely to fall to an unacceptable
risk category and may even require the return of Federal and
State funds.
It should be noted that selecting a method does not permanently
commit the City to that method. The method may be changed at a
future date, as the City's needs change. Upon review of both
methods and consultations with the City's auditors, staff
recommends the use of the depreciation reporting method for
infrastructure assets.
Services Required by Public Work's Professional Advisors
Regardless of whether the City decides to use either the
depreciation reporting method or the modified approach, a
detailed inventory of the City's infrastructure is required.
Some of the City's infrastructure was inherited from Ventura
County upon incorporation of the City in 1983. No reliable
infrastructure records were provided at that time. Because it
has not been necessary to include the City's infrastructure
assets in the City's financial statements prior to the adoption
of GASB 34, a detailed inventory of the entire infrastructure of
the City does not exist. This is consistent with other
municipalities.
The City's budget includes an appropriation of $5,000 for Public
Work's consultants and $15,000 for Finance consultants in FY
2002 -2003. This was intended to enable a preliminary review
with the expectation that additional services would be necessary
to complete the infrastructure inventory. Based upon findings
during planning meetings with the City's auditors and staff, it
has become obvious that it will be necessary to retain Public
Work's consultants to prepare the infrastructure inventory.
Staff has received proposals from four (4) qualified engineering
firms with GASB 34 experience. Staff interviewed the top two
qualified bidders. Although both firms are competent and
professional, based upon their experience and knowledge, Harris
& Associates is clearly the most qualified consultant to perform
the infrastructure inventory and valuation. They have worked
with our audit firm and their approach would require less city
staff time and result in a lower overall cost. The Personnel
10 100001,4-
Profiles of the Harris & Associates team that would serve the
City during the GASB 34 project are attached to this staff
report. If retained, the Public Work's professional advisor
would perform the following:
➢ Compile inventories of infrastructure assets;
➢ Determine the actual acquisition date or estimate the
acquisition date;
➢ Determine the useful life of each type of infrastructure
asset;
➢ Establish unit costs of infrastructure assets or components
in order to establish replacement cost in the event the
modified approach is elected;
➢ Discover actual historical cost of infrastructure assets,
or apply an industry index to arrive at estimated
historical cost; and
➢ Calculate the current net book value of infrastructure
assets utilizing straight -line depreciation.
Harris & Associates has proposed the following scope of work:
➢ Task 1 - Kickoff and Preliminary Review City Inventories
and Records.
➢ Task 2 - Inventory work including in -depth review of city
inventories, determination of asset classification and
network subsystems, determination of useful life and
evaluation of existing and appropriate capitalization
levels /policy.
➢ Task 3 - Acquisition and Valuation Effort.
➢ Task 4 - Comprehensive Maintenance and Perpetuation
Procedures.
➢ Task 5 - Project Planning and Coordination.
➢ Task 6 - Preparation of GASB 34 Final'Report(s).
Their proposal includes a time -line to completion of 11 weeks
which would meet our needs.
Services Required by Finance's Professional Advisors
As described previously, the net book value of the
infrastructure inventory will be integrated into the audited
financial statements of the City upon the adoption of the New
Reporting Model. Therefore, Finance staff believes it's in the
best interest of the City to retain the City's auditors to
supervise the preparation of the infrastructure inventory that
they will opine thereon as follows:
➢ Plan and review the work performed by Public Work's
consultants during their preparation of the infrastructure
inventory and calculations of estimated net book value to
ensure compliance with GASB 34; and
➢ Re- format the audited financial statements of the City to
conform to GASB 34.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 2002 -2003 City budget includes an appropriation of $5,000
for Public Work's consultants and $15,000 for Finance
consultants. The attached budget resolution increases the
appropriation in the amount of $19,990 for the Public Work's
consultant and $5,000 for Finance consultant, resulting in an
increased appropriation of $24,990.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Roll Call Vote)
1) Adopt the recommended infrastructure capitalization
threshold of $100,000 and fixed asset (equipment)
capitalization threshold of $5,000 effective July 1, 2002;
2) Approve the use of the standard depreciation reporting
method for the entire infrastructure of the City upon
adoption of the New Reporting Model;
3) Authorize the City Manager to execute a professional
services agreement with Harris & Associates subject to
final language approval by the City Attorney and City
Manager not to exceed $24,990;
4) Accept the proposal from Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP,
for assistance in implementation of GASB 34 in accordance
with their current hourly rates not to exceed $20,000;
5) Adopt Resolution No. 2003- amending the FY 02/03
Budget to revise the amount of funding for this project per
Exhibit "A ".
12 000E 7
ATTACHMENTS:
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP Proposal
Harris & Associates Schedule of Fees
Harris & Associates Project Team
Professional Services Agreement Draft
Summary of Proposals Received
Resolution and Budget Amendment Exhibit "A"
13
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP
Certified Public Accountants & Consultants
April 4, 2003
Johnny Ea
Budget and Finance Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Johnny:
[VALUE THE DIFFERENCE
As you are aware the City of Moorpark is a phase II government and is required to implement GASB Statement
No. 34 this year. I have prepared a summary of the assistance that we will provide to the City of Moorpark for the
implementation the new pronouncement. Our firm has completed more than 50 phase I governments including 4
CSMFO and GFOA award winning GASB 34 reports.
Based upon our experience, the most efficient implementations have been accomplished by preparing a proforma
financial statement using the prior year's audited numbers as a base. The proforma is then used to prepare the
actual 2002 -2003 GASB 34 financial statements. We have also learned that waiting until the last minute causes
unnecessary frustrations and delays in issuing the audit report. Therefore we are suggesting that we begin the
proforma process as soon as possible with your assistance. To start the process we need your approval to begin to
incur time for the development of the 2002 -2003 proforma. We expect the implementation to be performed in
different segments.
GASB 34 Planning meetings
(Proposed timeline April/May 2003)
• Meet with City staff to formalize timelines and to agree upon the division of work required to implement
the new GASB pronouncement.
Meetings with city engineers /consultants
(Proposed timeline April 2003 — August 2003)
• We would expect the infrastructure valuation to be completed during these months. We will need to be
involved in a preliminary planning meeting, if this has not already occurred, and at least one progress
meeting to review the assumptions used in the valuations.
• This assumes that the City contracts, or uses in -house engineers to complete the infrastructure valuation
during this time period.
�,Q
8270 Aspen Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tel: 909.466.4410 Fax: 909.466.4431 rwww.vtdcpa.com
FRESNO LAGUNA HILLS PLEASANTON RANCHO CUCAMONGA SACRAMENTO SAN JOSE
Johnny Ea
Budget and Finance Manager
City of Moorpark
April 4, 2003
Page 2
Preparation of the Citv's Financial Statements in the new format
(Proposed timeline April — July 2003)
• It is during this time period that the majority of the work on the City's proforma financial statements will
be performed.
• During this time period we will work with City staff to ensure that the City of Moorpark financial report
is prepared in compliance with the new requirements.
• We will also review your policies and procedures to ensure that they the City's records will be maintained
in a GASB 34 compliant manner.
• Review of fund structure and account codes for proper presentation of accounting activity in the new
format required by GASB 34.
• Review City policies and procedures related to capitalization of fixed assets and related annual
depreciation.
• Review City policies and procedures related to the capitalization of infrastructure and related annual
depreciation (assuming the modified approach is not used).
• Review fixed asset listing for compliance with requirements for Land, Improvements, Buildings and
Equipment.
• Identification of all long -term liabilities and assets for recording in the new Full Accrual Financial
Statements.
• Assist in the development of format and structure of information to be included in the Management's
Discussions and Analysis.
• Development of reconciling and conversion entries that are necessary to bring the City's financial records
into the new required full — accrual, entity — wide financial statement format.
• Development of format for Statement of Cash Flows, if required.
The above services will be provided at our standard hourly billing rates. Our fees for these services will be based
upon the hours spent on the engagement. Based upon our experience with the City's that implemented last year
we estimate the total charge for our services to range from $15,000 to $20,000. The cost is affected by the level
of City staff assistance in the completion of the various tasks and assignments. Our invoices for these services
will be billed as the services are rendered.
Johnny Ea
Budget and Finance Manager
City of Moorpark
April 4, 2003
Page 3
Please sign the copy of this letter in the space provided and return to me in the enclosed envelope. We would like
to start the project as soon as possible to ensure that your 2002 -2003 financial statements are issued within your
timelines. It is our pleasure to work with your staff in the implementation of this new accounting pronouncement.
If you have any questions or concerns please call me at 909 - 466 -4410.
KTP:mcr
030248
Yours very truly,
��—/ —1 /v
Kevin T. Pulliam
of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP
000010
.•�� /rte
�V
6 - Schedule of Fees
GASB 34 Infrastructure Valuation Services
Scope of Work
Description
Project
Manager
Project
Engineer
Engineering
Analyst
Admin
Total by Task
$170/hr $150/hr
$75/hr
$55/hr
Task 1 - Kickoff & Prelim Review City Inventories and Records
4
4
10
$2,030
Task 2 - Inventory Work
Step 1
In -depth Review of Inventories and City Records
2
8
30
$3,790
Step 2
Determine Asset Classification and Network/Subsystem
1
$170
Step 3
Determination of Useful Life
1
1
$320
Step 4
Evaluation of Existing /Appropriate Capitalization Level/Policy
2
$340
Task 3 - Acquisition and Valuation Effort
2
8
30
$3,790
Task 4 - Comprehensive Maintenance and Perpetuation Procedures
Step 1
Establish Asset Modules (Spread sheets) via Microsoft Excel
8
30
$3,450
Step 2
Preparation of a Procedure to Capture Future Asset Information
2
1
$490
Task 5 - Project Planning and Coordination
8
8
12
$3,460
Task 6 - Preparation of GASB 34 Final Report(s)
Step 1
Prepare Summary of Findings (Draft Report)
18
4
4
2
$4,070
Step 2
Review Results with Appropriate City Staff
4
4
4
$1,580
Step 3
Final Report
4
4
4
$1,500
Total Hours per Staff
48
50
120
6
Total Cost per Staff
$8,160
$7,500
$9,000
$330
$24,990
Standard Hourly Billing Rates:
Jeffrey Cooper, PE, Project Director
Ronald D. Creagh
Dennis Anderson
Engineering Analyst
Clerical Staff
Project Cost
Lump Sum Not to Exceed Total Project Cost
$190.00
$170.00
$150.00
$75.00
$55.00
$24,990
$24,990
Indirect expenses (such as mileage, duplicating and postage) are included in the hourly rates
shown above.
F
F iT�l
Page 37
p�+eq(s
GASB 34 Infrastructure Valuation Services
4TEp �
Project Team
Jeffrey M. Cooper, PE, Project Directorr, As Senior Vice President and Member of the
Board of Directors, Mr. Cooper has over 26 years of professional consulting engineering
experience with public infrastructure planning, design, and finance. His projects have
included master plans for flood control, drainage, sewer, and water systems, which has
involved extensive inventory work and condition assessment. His projects have included
significant street rehabilitation, street widening, pavement management, traffic signal design,
and intersection signal modification. Mr. Cooper is an expert assessment engineer and has
directed the formation and /or management of over a hundred assessment and special
financing districts which funded numerous capital projects. These include 1913 and 1915 Act
districts, Mello -Roos districts, and special fee districts. As a result, he has worked extensively
with finance departments and has extensive knowledge of local government budget and
financial systems.
Ron Creagh, ProjectManaget. Upon joining Harris 5 years ago, Mr. Creagh brought with
him over 30 years of city management experience, serving as City Manager and Assistant
City Manager in a number of cities of varying sizes in California and Nevada. He has
directed a host of special projects and has overseen the operations of a multitude of
complex city departments. Mr. Creagh heads up our GASB 34 Program, and he has been
assigned as Project Manager for our GASB 34 compliance work in the cities of Palo Alto,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Piedmont, Walnut Creek, San Luis Obispo, Berkeley, Manhattan
Beach, and Vacaville. He has been assigned as Management Advisor for our GASB 34
projects in the cities of Lake Elsinore, Carson, and Foster City, and Tustin. Previously, he
worked in Harris' Tracy Office overseeing infrastructure planning, technical studies, and the
development of complex Finance and Implementation Plans for the City of Tracy. Mr.
Creagh has also completed major, high profile projects for two of the fastest - growing cities
in the country (Las Vegas, Nevada, and Phoenix, Arizona) which resulted in numerous
process and organizational improvements, streamlined plan review /processing and
customer service. He also served as Interim Manager for the City of Las Vegas' Land
Development Office for 1 year. Mr. Creagh has extensive knowledge of the financial
reporting requirements for local government agencies and will be instrumental in ensuring
that the infrastructure valuation work will be GASB 34 compliant.
Dennis A. Anderson, Project Engineer. Mr. Anderson has served as Project Manager for
our GASB 34 projects in the cities of Lake Elsinore, Carson, Upland, Yorba Linda, and
Tustin. He is assigned as Project Engineer for other GASB 34 projects in the cities of Palo
Alto, Rancho Palos Verdes, Vacaville, and San Luis Obispo. He has more than 14 years of
professional experience in the areas of public infrastructure management and public finance.
He has been involved in a wide variety of public finance projects as project manager and
financial analyst, including assessment districts, CFD's, special tax districts, fee districts, public
grants, and loans. He has extensive experience in developing and implementing infrastructure
management systems and has assisted more than 25 agencies with their infrastructure asset
management needs. Mr. Anderson is also an expert in computer software applications
related to the development of databases and user - friendly interface development and
programming. He has prepared user manuals and conducted numerous trainin sessions.
0
Page 18
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
MOORPARK AND (NAME OF CONSULTANT) FOR (SPECIFY
TYPE OF SERVICES)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
200_, 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 (NAME OF
CONSULTANT), A [insert capacity of CONSULTANT], ( "CONSULTANT ").
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, City is desirous of obtaining services necessary
to: ; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified by virtue of experience,
training, education, and expertise to accomplish these services;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants,
benefits and premises herein stated, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
I. COMPENSATION
City does hereby retain Consultant in a contractual
capacity to provide contract services. Consultant shall provide
City with an estimated cost quotation for each specific task
requested by City to be completed by Consultant, and shall not
proceed until written approval is granted by the City. The
compensation to Consultant shall be on an hourly fee basis or at
a negotiated lump sum amount, as approved by the City. Payment
by City to Consultant shall be in accordance with the provisions
of Article III, Paragraph M, of this Agreement.
II. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION
This Agreement may be terminated or suspended with or
without cause by City at any time with no less than ten (10)
working days written notice of such termination or suspension.
Consultant may terminate this Agreement only by providing City
with written notice no less than thirty (30) days in advance of
such termination. In the event of such termination or
suspension, Consultant shall be compensated for such services up
to the date of termination or suspension. Such compensation for
work in progress shall be prorated as to the percentage of
progress completed at the date of termination or suspension.
Yrotessional Services Agreement 1
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Consultant covenants that neither they nor any officer
or principal of their firm have any interests, nor shall they
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict
in any manner or degree with the performance of their services
hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance
of this Agreement, they shall employ no person having such
interest as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor.
B. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability
for the direct payment of any salary, wage or other compensation
to any person employed by Consultant performing services
hereunder for City.
C. Consultant is, and shall at all times, remain as to
City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City, nor any
of its elective of appointive boards, officers, employees,
agents, or attorneys shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or of Consultants officers, employees or agents,
except as herein set forth. Consultant shall not at any time or
in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees
or agents are in any manner employees of City.
D. At the time of 1) termination of this Agreement or 2)
conclusion of all work, all original plans, documents, designs,
drawings, reports, calculations, diskettes, computer files,
notes, and other related materials whether prepared by Consultant
or their subcontractor (s) or obtained in the course of providing
the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the sole property of City. Any word processing computer
files provided to City shall use IBM compatible, Microsoft Word
for Windows software.
E. Consultant shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend
City and its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents,
attorneys and employees from any and all claims, liabilities,
expenses, or damages of any nature, including attorneys' fees
arising out of, or in any way connected with performance of the
Agreement by Consultant, Consultant's agents, officers,
employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors hired by
Consultant.
City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may
have against Consultant by reason of Paragraph E, hereof, because
of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any
insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this
Agreement. This hold harmless and indemnification provision
shall apply regardless of whether or not said insurance policies
are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage,
liability, loss, cost or expense described in Paragraph E hereof.
Professional Services Agreement 2
The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of
indemnification to be provided by Consultant.
F. Consultant shall secure from a good and responsible
company or companies doing insurance business in the State of
California, pay for, and maintain in full force and effect for
the duration of this Agreement the policies of insurance required
by this paragraph and shall furnish to the City Clerk of the City
certificates of said insurance on or before the commencement of
the term of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any inconsistent
statement in any of said policies or any subsequent endorsement
attached thereto, the protection offered by the policies shall:
1. Name City and its elective or appointive boards,
officers, agents, attorneys and employees as
additional insured with Consultant.
2. 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,
City shall be notified by mail, postage prepaid, not
less than thirty (30) days before the cancellation or
amendment is effective. Consultant shall give City
thirty (30) days written notice prior to the
expiration of such policy.
3. Be written on an occurrence basis.
G. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph F,
Consultant shall provide general public liability insurance
including automobile liability and property damage insurance in
an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per
occurrence and annual aggregate.
H. Consistent with the provisions
Consultant shall provide workers, compensat
required by the California Labor Code. If any
engaged by Consultant in work under this
protected by the workers, compensation law,
provide adequate insurance for the protection
to the satisfaction of City.
of Paragraph F,
;ion insurance as
class of employees
Agreement is not
Consultant shall
of such employees
I. Consultant shall not assign this Agreement, or any of
the rights, duties or obligations hereunder. It is understood
and acknowledged by the parties that Consultant is uniquely
qualified to perform the services provided for in this Agreement.
J. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, codes, and regulations of the federal, state, and
local government.
00001ILS
Professional Services Agreement 3
K. Consultant shall obtain a Moorpark Business
Registration, all permits, and licenses as may be required by
this Agreement.
L. The language contained in this Agreement shall take
precedence over the language contained in any exhibit to this
Agreement.
M. Payment to Consultant shall be made by City within
thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice, if the invoice is not
contested or questioned by City. If City identifies a
discrepancy between the invoice amount and the work tasks or
products completed, City shall within fifteen (15) workdays of
receipt of the invoice specify in writing the discrepancy.
Consultant shall then either 1) provide support materials to
satisfy City stated discrepancy, or 2) revise the invoice to
reflect stated discrepancy. City shall then pay the revised or
documented invoice within thirty (30) days of such revision or
documentation. Each Consultant invoice must show details of
hours and expenses in a format which is acceptable to City.
N. City shall have the right to audit and inspect all
payment and expense related books and records kept by Consultant
and any subcontractors in connection with the operation and
services performed under this Agreement. Notification of audit
shall be provided at least thirty (30) days before any such audit
is conducted.
O. Any notice to be given pursuant to
shall be in writing, and all such notices and any
to be delivered shall be delivered by personal
deposit in the United States mail, certified
return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, &
the party for whom intended as follows:
To: City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
To: Address of Consultant:
this Agreement
other document
service or by
or registered,
id addressed to
Either party may, from time to time, by written notice
to the other, designate a different address or contact person,
which shall be substituted for the one above specified. Notices,
payments and other documents shall be deemed delivered upon
Professional Services Agreement 4
receipt by personal service or as of the second (2nd) day after
deposit in the United States mail.
P. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed,
construed or represented by City or Consultant or by any third
person to create the relationship of principal or agent, or of a
partnership, or of a joint venture, or of any other association
of any kind or nature between City and Consultant.
Q. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the
parties concerning the subject matter hereof and all prior
agreements or understanding, 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.
R. 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.
S. No waiver of any provisions of this Agreement shall be
deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision,
whether or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute a
continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provisions. No
waiver shall be binding, unless executed in writing by the party
making the waiver.
T. 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.
U. Cases involving a dispute between City and Consultant
may be decided by an arbitrator if both sides agree in writing,
with costs proportional to the judgment of the arbitrator.
V. This Agreement is made, entered into, and 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.
W. The captions and headings of the various Articles,
Paragraphs, and Exhibits of this Agreement are for convenience
and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit or
10004817
Protessional Services Agreement 5
define the content of the respective Articles, Paragraphs, and
Exhibits hereof.
IV. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
The individuals directly responsible for Consultant overall
performance of the Agreement provisions herein above set forth
and to serve as principle liaison between City and Consultant
shall be and no other individuals may
be substituted.
The City's contact person in charge of administration of
this Agreement, and to serve as principal liaison between
Consultant and City, shall be the
or his /her designee.
V. IMPLEMENTATION
City shall provide Consultant with written notice in
advance of the date at which these services are to be implemented
if different than the date of the Agreement.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the day and year first shown above.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CONSULTANT
By
CITY OF MOORPARK
By
Steven Kueny, City Manager
ssional Services Agreement 6
City of Moorpark
Administrative Services Department
Infrastructure Valuation Proposals
# of Years in
—company
Contact
Business
Fees
Comments
Maximus
Gregory Friz, V.P. Asset Mgmt. Div.
since 1989
Professional Services Fee & Expenses $ 9,200
Has local office, hired by Moorpark to
1445 E. Los Angeles Ave., Ste 301 -E
(805) 522 -0644
Optional Services:
value general fixed assets a few years
Simi Valley, CA 93065
GASB -34 Readiness Assessment $ 7,300
ago. Prior staff was not happy with the
Update 2001 -2002 Fixed Assets $ 4,800
final product. Some references were
Master File Diskett in Excel Format $ 300
happy so far with their work related to
Total of Optional Services $—1 2,400
GASB 34 valuation services, while others
claimed that their work was poorly
Total (including optional services) $ 21,600
completed.
Harris & Associates
Ronald D. Creagh, GASB 34 Group Mgr.
since 1974
Total Project Cost $ 24,990
Good experience, references are happy
34 Executive Park, Ste. 150
(800) 860 -3625
with their work. Will train staff on master
Irvine, CA 92614
(800) 827 -4901 X536
file for future use. Highly recommended
by our City auditors.
Muni Financial
Frank G. Tripepi, President & CEO or
since 1987
Standard Approach (including expenses) $ 23,100
Good experience, references are happy
27368 Via Industria, Ste 110
Scott Koppel, Project Manager
with their work. Gets job done on time
Temecula, CA 92590
(800) 755 -6864
Modified Approach (including expenses) $ 39,910
and within budget.
American Appraisal Associates
Jeanne Boom, District Manager
since 1896
Primary Service $ 14,500
Project team has minimal experience.
11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste 1050E
(310) 312 -8050
Optional Services: $5,000+
Proposal seems unclear as to the needs
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Dependent on the size /scope
of the City.
Total $19,500+
RESOLUTION No. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FY 2002/03 BUDGET
BY APPROPRIATING $7,500 FROM THE GAS TAX FUND (2605 -
5500); $7,500 FROM THE GENERAL FUND (1000 -5500) AND
$9,990 FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND (2902 -
5500)TO SPECIAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (1000- 5110 -1016-
9103; 2605- 5110 - 0000 - 9103;2902 -5110- 0000 -9103) FOR GASB
34 IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES.
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2002, the City Council adopted the
budget for Fiscal Year 2002/03; and
WHEREAS, an appropriation was made for GASB 34
implementation in the amount of $20,000 from General Fund
($10,000) and Gas Tax Fund ($10,000); and
WHEREAS, proposals have- been received from our auditor and
public work's consultants to implement GASB 34 for amounts
exceeding current appropriations; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A" hereof describes said necessary budget
amendment and its resultant impacts to the budget line item(s).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A budget amendment appropriating $24,990 from
the funds listed above to the line item for implementation of
GASB 34 as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be
filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2003.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Budget Amendment
EXHIBIT A
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
FINANCE
FY 2002 -03
FUND ALLOCATION FROM:
Fund
Account Number
Amount
General
1000 -5500
$ 7,500.00
Gas Tax
2605 -5500
$ 7,500.00
Redevelo ment Agency
2902 -5500
$ 9,990.00
Total
$
$ 24,990.00
DISTRIBUTION OF APPROPRIATION TO EXPENSE ACCOUNTS:
Account Number
Current Budget
Revision
Amended Budget
1000 - 5110 - 1016 -9103
$ 47,310.00
$
7,500.00
$
54,810.00
2605- 5110- 0000 -9103
$ 10,000.00
$
7,500.00
$
17,500.00
2902 -5110- 0000 -9103
$ -
$
9,990.00
$
9,990.00
Total
$ 57,310.00
$
24,990.00
$
82,300.00
Approved as to Form: __E&
111EN/1 / 0 . �i•
C_-
oc ,
prvveei,
TT
CITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
e
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Plic Works
David Bobardt, Planning Manager
DATE_: April 25, 2003 (Council Meeting 5 -7 -03)
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared on Behalf of Project No. 8026: Spring Road
Widening Between Flinn Avenue and New Los Angeles
Avenue
DISCUSSION
A. Project Description
1. Project Limits: The limits of the project extend from "old"
Flinn Avenue to New Los Angeles Avenue (see Exhibit 1).
2. Project Scope: The scope of work for the Spring Road
Widening Project is generally summarized as follows:
• Acquisition of additional street right -of -way along the
east side of the street;
• Construction of additional pavement width and new
curbs, gutters and sidewalks along the east side of the
street (see Exhibit 2);
• Construction of a raised, landscaped center median (see
Exhibit 3);
• Relocation of the traffic signal poles at the northeast
corner of Spring Road and New Los Angeles Avenue;
• Construction of a double left -turn lane for south -to-
east left - turners at the intersection of Spring Road
and New Los Angeles Avenue (see Exhibit 4);
• Restriping of the street to include painted Bike Lanes;
• Reconstruction of masonry walls and other private
improvements on the east side of the street;
• Reconstruction of parkway landscaping and irrigation;
• Removal and replacement of trees along the east side of
the street, as required by the project.
Spring Rd MND_a 0 00 osz
Spring Road Widening
Mitigated Negative declaration
April 25, 2003
Page 2
3. Tree Replacement: As mentioned above, the project will
require the removal of approximately twenty -nine (29)
mature trees. The project will include the planting of one
twenty -four inch (24 ") box trees for each tree removed.
B. Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires
environmental review for certain public projects that would
result in physical changes to the environment. To comply with
CEQA, staff prepared an Initial Study (Exhibit 5) to determine
if the proposed Spring Road widening project would result in
any significant effect on the environment.
The conclusion of the Initial Study was that potentially
significant noise, aesthetic, and biological effects of the
project could result, due to the construction of the proposed
street improvements. These potential effects could be
mitigated to a less -than significant level by limiting
construction hours and by providing replacement parkway trees.
As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit 6) was
prepared and noticed for public comment from April 4 to April
25, 2003. No public comments were received during this
period. A Resolution (Exhibit 7) has been prepared for City
Council consideration to adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this project.
It should be noted that the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration considered the widening of Spring Road
between the Southern California Regional Rail Authority
railroad tracks and New Los Angeles Avenue. Subsequently, the
northerly limits of the Spring Road Widening Project [Project
8026] was revised to begin at Flinn Avenue, with the Spring
Road widening north of Flinn Avenue to be undertaken as a part
of the Flinn Avenue Realignment Project [Project 80371.
Project 8037 was found to be exempt from environmental review.
C. Project Implementation
1. Design: The design for the project is nearing completion.
It will be necessary to seek and obtain a permit from
Caltrans for the work to be done at the northeast corner of
New Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road.
2. Right -of -Way: Upon adoption of the subject Mitigated
Negative Declaration, it is the intent of staff to proceed
with efforts necessary to acquire the additional street
rights -of -way required for the project. It is anticipated
that all rights -of -way will be acquired by June of 2004.
Spring Rd MND_a 0
Spring Road Widening
Mitigated Negative declaration
April 25, 2003
Page 3
3. Construction: Upon completion of the acquisition of the
required rights -of -way (June 2004), the project should be
ready to advertise for receipt of bids.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution NO. 2003- adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for Project No. 8026: Spring Road Widening.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Map
Exhibit 2: Cross - Section
Exhibit 3: Plan
Exhibit 4: Striping Plan for Double Left -Turn Lane
Exhibit 5: Initial Study
Exhibit 6: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit 7: Resolution
Spring Rd MND_a 0
Spring Road Widening
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit 1
Location Map
U-) I
FLIINN
ROPErT
AVE.
FIT LH---
AVE.
rs
•.� `n - I �� L J
Lug NN C. L s
00,00-SIS
J7'
WET �
n
I I
II
II
I
ii
II 6
I I
. II
I VARIES
O— - – -�'-- _ – --- – – —
m
U
N
� Q
I I I
-P SPRING RnAD
U ` —GRIND EDGE AND
�i: N TACK COAT. 3' X 1"
TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS GRIND AT JOIN LINE
�O a N U)
4J NOT TO SCALE
�4J�
�4
04-H X
co %w
8\ 1
QCurb
QCurb
& Gutter
QMedian
37'
7' AC
EAST f�'
I
O VERLA Y
I
C�
7 7'
12'
1
I
VARIES
WIDENING
6
4" AC O
VARIES
ix
8" PUB
GRADE T01
27. MAX. i
12'f 1EA9
I
- '.:,:
I I I
-P SPRING RnAD
U ` —GRIND EDGE AND
�i: N TACK COAT. 3' X 1"
TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS GRIND AT JOIN LINE
�O a N U)
4J NOT TO SCALE
�4J�
�4
04-H X
co %w
8\ 1
- -arf ��
vat
I ffm
I` f � �a
Mt
, m oli$
A
5TR E T LINN
I ' I f ; �`'$��� I � I I � i • � , �tl ,� , . TAB
J
, �s
;I( i Ll I f i 19I I I
— ?�> l I 1 IjI I � ,AYE . –� � °-0 If- �..�:, ,�! ��il i::. � r ,
� I I ! f � �, r. !r f
W
LOSJANGELES AVENUE
II fl 1
en
Jill
U)
0
.rq
4-)
flo
�
124
U
"0 -P
-H rd
a)
-0 z
(0
0 z3 M
fx a)
-P 4-)
0) �
—1 -H -rq
� 4-J
cn
- -arf ��
vat
I ffm
I` f � �a
Mt
, m oli$
A
5TR E T LINN
I ' I f ; �`'$��� I � I I � i • � , �tl ,� , . TAB
J
, �s
;I( i Ll I f i 19I I I
— ?�> l I 1 IjI I � ,AYE . –� � °-0 If- �..�:, ,�! ��il i::. � r ,
� I I ! f � �, r. !r f
W
LOSJANGELES AVENUE
II fl 1
en
Jill
Spring Road Widening
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit 4
Plan: Double Left-Turn Lanes
�j
AGGEL) RCD V I , 1696
0 0 0 G" . �,'_ _81
11�K 4t
t , I M
fl
I
. . . . . . . . . . .
Jig
6�
4141
;
LOS
AVENUE
0 0 0 G" . �,'_ _81
Project Title: Spring Rd. Widening
-*���� Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
Case No.: Project 8026
Contact Person and Phone No.: Ken Gilbert (805) 517 -6255
Name of Applicant: City of Moorpark (Public Works Department)
Address and Phone No.: 799 Moorpark Ave, Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6255
Project Location: Spring Road between New Los Angeles Avenue and High Street
General Plan Designation: n/a Zoning: n/a
Project Description: Right -of -way acquisition along Spring Road and widening of street to provide
bike lanes and landscaped median.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: n/a
North: Residential and commercial uses.
South: Shopping centers on each side of Spring Road at New Los Angeles Avenue.
East: Residential, commercial, and industrial uses with some vacant land.
West: Primarily residential uses with some industrial and commercial uses near High Street
Responsible and Trustee Agencies: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED:
The environmental
Significant
X
factors checked below would
Impact" or 'Potentially Significant Unless
be potentially
Mitigated,
affected by this project, involving at
as indicated by the checklist on the
least
following
one impact thatis a 'Potentially
pages.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
X
Biological Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Cultural Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use /Planning
X
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population /Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities /Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
DETERMINATION: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. Mitigation measures described on the attached Exhibit 1 have been
added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Prepared by: �1rs� Reviewed by:
Date: " 3/ ` -� Dat . ' 3 r .0 3
1
000099
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 1:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Prior to removal of any trees along Spring Road, landscaping and irrigation plans prepared by a
licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the community development director for review
and approval. Existing trees to be removed shall be replaced with minimum 24" box -size trees.
New trees shall be installed within one (1) year of completion of sidewalks and concrete median
curbs.
Monitoring Action: Review of landscaping plans, field inspection
Timing: Prior to tree removal, After installation of landscaping
Responsibility: Community Development Director
2. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday as specified in
Chapter 15.26 of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
Monitoring Action: Review of construction specifications
Timing: Prior to approval of contract
Responsibility: Director of Public Works
AGREEMENT TO PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 95070 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3,
Article 6), this agreement must be signed prior to release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public
review.
I, THE UNDERSIGNED PROJECT APPLICANT, HEREBY AGREE TO MODIFY THE PROJECT DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE ABOVE - LISTED
MITIGAT tl EA U S IN THE PROJECT.
gnature of Projedt Applicant Date
2 000100
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
A. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but X
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Response: The road widening would remove 29 ornamental trees, including pine trees, birch trees, pear
trees, elm trees, an ash and an oak tree, along with other landscaping along Spring Road. The
project would, however, replace the existing landscaping with a new landscaped median.
Mitigation is included that replacement trees shall be provided. New street lighting will be installed
as part of the project, however, since the street is already lit, this is considered a less -than
significant impact.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: Prior to removal of any trees along Spring Road, landscaping and irrigation plans prepared by a
licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the community development directorfor review
and approval. Existing trees to be removed shall be replaced with minimum 24" box -size trees.
New trees shall be installed within one (1) year of completion of sidewalks and concrete median
curbs.
B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, the City of Moorpark may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
agency, to non - agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Response: This project does not affect agricultural resources.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
3
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
C. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable x
air quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute x
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
X
X
X
Response: The widening of Spring Road does not include the addition of any motor vehicle lanes, and would
therefore not increase its capacity. Rather, bike lanes would be added in each direction, resulting
in a potential for reduction of vehicle miles traveled. With no growth - inducing impacts that could
result in increases in air pollution, no adverse impact is expected. Construction dust may result
from the widening activities, but the size of the project is too small to result in significant fugitive
dust as defined in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.
Sources: Project description, site plans, Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines of the
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District November 2000.
Mitigation: None required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
.2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
X
X
X
4
00010;
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
X
wnservation plan
Response: This project, in an urbanized location, does not affect natural biological resources. Mitigation
is included for the removal of existing parkway trees (See aesthetics). With mitigation, no
significant adverse impact is expected.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historic resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
Response: This project involves the grading and paving of the existing right -of -way and additional right -of-
way to be acquired. The land has previously been cleared and graded, leaving a remote
possibility of cultural resources existing on site.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
Involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
5
X
X
X
X
®0003
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
X
X
X
Response: This project does not include the construction of any buildings. Soil erosion is not expected,
since the site will be landscaped.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
6
®00:.04
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Response: This project does not affect hazards or hazardous materials.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving i) flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ii) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Response: This project involves minor widening of Spring Road. Proper NPDES Best Management
Practices will be employed during construction.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
7
+�.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
X
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Response: This project does not affect hazards or hazardous materials.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving i) flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ii) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Response: This project involves minor widening of Spring Road. Proper NPDES Best Management
Practices will be employed during construction.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
7
+�.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Mitigation: None required.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Significant Less Than
With Significant No
Mitigation Impact Impa
Response: This project involves the widening of Spring Road to accommodate bicycle lanes in both
directions. Spring Road is designed consistent with the Circulation Element Highway
Network Plan.
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, project description, site plans.
None required.
X
X
X
J. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Response: This project does not affect mineral resources.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
K. NOISE — Would the project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
X
X
X
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Response: Construction noise could be significant on residential uses to the east and west of Spring
Road. Mitigation is included to restrict construction hours, reducing this impact to less -than
significant.
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, Moorpark Municipal Code.
Mitigation: Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday as
specified in Chapter 15.26 of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly ( for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly ( for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Response: The widening of Spring Road will accommodate bicycle lanes and will not stimulate additional
population and housing growth.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
g
X
X
X
X
0400:107
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Other public facilities?
Response: This project does not affect public service levels.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
X
N. RECREATION
1) Would the project increase the use of existing X
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Response: This project does not affect parks or recreation.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
O. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC — Would the project:
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation X
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
6) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Response: This project will accommodate bicycle lanes on Spring Road between New Los Angeles
Avenue and the rail crossing south of High Street. Spring Road will continue to have 4 travel
lanes, consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element Highway Network Plan.
10
-L
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
2) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
6) Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
Response: This project does not involve any land uses that would affect water supplies, wastewater, or
solid waste.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history of prehistory?
2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effect of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and effects of probable future projects)?
11
V
Spring Rd Widening
Project 8026
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Response: This project involves the widening of the right -of -way by 12 feet and the roadway by 10 feet
along Spring Road between High Street and New Los Angeles Avenue. Parkways and
medians will be landscaped. The area of work is fully urbanized.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study
None
Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study
One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and
are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the Response Section of the Initial
Study Checklist.
1. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended.
2. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended.
3. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 92 -872
4. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. & California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section
15000 et. seq.
5. Letter from Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works dated October 25, 2001 detailing project
description.
6. Memo from Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works dated February 15, 2002 providing
additional information on project description.
7. Spring Road Widening Project Tree Survey dated May 30, 2002 from Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of
Public Works.
12
000:.x.0
i ii it i � I' L %l�rl
It
i J ha ,
f t y. •'6r, �a�l I
I __
JI
i }
Legend
Tree #
Species
Diameter
1
Ash I
9"
2
Pine
12"
3
Pear !
8"
4
Birch I
8"
5
Birch I
10"
6
Pine
12"
7
Pine
9"
8
Pine
12"
9
Elm
4"
10
Elm
12"
_ 11
Pine
20"
12
Elm
12"
13
Pine
20"
14
Elm
12"
15
Pine
22"
16
Pine
18"
17
Elm
4"
18
Elm
12"
19
Pine
14"
20
Elm
10"
21
Pine
20"
22
Oak
8"
0 G_I .
. . ..................
.e end
Tree #
1
2
3
7
—2
13
14
15
—6
17
18
19
fo—
fl—
f2—
Diameter
91,
12"
8.
8-
10,
j-07,
I � E
I I
I '
i
i
i
I I�
i, III
I
i
• I i ��
i
r
eft end
Tree #
Species
I Diameter
1
Ash
2
Pine
2 —
3
Pear 1
81,
4
Birch j
8"
5 1
Birch
10"
6
Pine �___
7
Pine 1
_12"_�
91,
8
Pine
12°
9
Elm
4„
10
Elm
12"
11
Pine
20^
12
Elm
12"
13
Pine
20"
14
Elm
12"
15
Pine
22»
16
Pine
18°
17
Elm
4"
18
Elm
12"
19
Pine
14"
20
Elm
101,
21
Pine
20»
22
Oak
8"
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures
of the City of Moorpark.
Public Review Period: April 4, 2003 to April 25, 2003
Project Title /Case No.: Spring Road Widening (Project 8026)
Project Location: Spring Rd., Moorpark, Ventura County.
Project Description: Right -of -way acquisition along Spring Road and widening of street for bike
lanes and landscaped median.
Project Type: Private Project X Public Project
Project Applicant: City of Moorpark Department of Public Works, Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director
Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above - referenced project, revisions
have been made by or agreed to by the applicant consistent with the mitigation
measures identified in the Initial Study. With these revisions, it is found that
there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of
Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(Initial Study Attached)
Responsible Agencies: None.
Trustee Agencies: None.
Attachments:
Initial Study with Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Program
Contact Person: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California, 93021
(805) 517 -6281
MADBobardt \M \CEQA \Draft Env. DocumentsTroposed MND Spring Rd.doc 000114
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT FOR PROJECT NO. 8026: SPRING ROAD
WIDENING
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requires public agencies to conduct environmental review on
certain projects that would result in a physical change to the
environment; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared in compliance with
CEQA for proposed Project No. 8026: Spring Road Widening, in
order to determine if any significant environmental effects
would result from the project; and
WHEREAS, the conclusion of the Initial Study was that, with
the incorporation of mitigation measures as conditions of
approval, no significant effects would result from proposed
Project No. 8026 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration was given in accordance with CEQA with comments
accepted between April 4, 2003 and April 25, 2003 and no
comments were received during this period.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: The City Council has considered the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared for Project No. 8026: Spring Road
Widening, together with any comments received during the public
review process.
SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
The City Council finds on the basis of the whole record for
Project 8026: Spring Road Widening, including the Initial Study
and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment with the inclusion of mitigation measures identified
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, that these mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project as conditions of
Resolution No. CC -2003-
Page 2
approval, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared
for the project reflects the independent judgment and analysis
of the City of Moorpark and is hereby adopted.
SECTION 3. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM:
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identified in
the Initial Study prepared on behalf of Project 8026: Spring
Road Widening, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The City Clerk
shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause
a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original
resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2003.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
AC Arlo.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works �l
DATE: April 25, 2002 (CC Meeting 5 -7 -03)
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report for the
Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment
Districts for Fiscal Year 2003/2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This presents for approval a Resolution approving the Engineer's
Report [Exhibit 1] for the City's Landscaping and Lighting
Maintenance Assessment Districts and setting the date for a public
hearing to consider the levy of the assessments for said Districts
for FY 2003/04.
DISCUSSION
A. Background
In 1984, a Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Assessment
District (AD 84 -2) was created to fund costs associated with
Citywide street lighting and landscape maintenance. This was a
successor to the District enacted by the County of Ventura
prior to the incorporation of the City. In 2001, three (3) new
Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Assessment Districts (AD01-
1, AD01 -2 & AD01 -3) were formed at the request of the owner /
developer of the affected properties.
B. Citywide Lighting & Landscaping
Assessment District AD84 -2 provides for the levy of an
assessment upon all of the parcels in the City, to fund street
lighting energy and maintenance costs. There is also a separate
assessment to fund maintenance and improvement costs for
certain designated landscaped parkways and medians.
C. Zones & Sub - Districts
In addition, a number of Zones and Sub - Districts have been
established to levy additional assessments upon the lots within
those areas, to fund the maintenance and improvement of certain
designated improvements within or adjacent to those areas.
AD84_03- 04_report 0 0 0 117
Landscaping & Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer's Report
April 25, 2003
Page 2
D. Annual Review
As part of the annual budget process, the City Council
considers whether or not to renew the subject Assessment
Districts and levy assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. In
preparation for that consideration, it is necessary to prepare
an Engineer's Report setting forth certain relevant information
pertaining to such an action. On February 19, 2003, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 2003 -2051 directing the
preparation of that Engineer's Report.
E. Improvements to be Maintained
The improvements and maintenance funded by the Assessment
Districts is generally described as follows:
• Citywide District:
a. Street Lighting: Street lighting energy and maintenance
costs.
b. Landscape Maintenance: The maintenance of certain
designated parkways and medians.
c. Zones:
1 Pecan Avenue [T -2851]
2 Steeple Hill Area [T -2865] * **
3 Buttercreek /Peppermill [T -3032]
4 Williams Ranch Rd [T -3274]
5 Pheasant Run Area [T -3019 & T -3525] * **
6 Inglewood St. [T -3306]
7 Moorpark Business Park (L. A. Ave & Gabbert)
8 Home Acres Buffer
9 Moorpark Industrial Park (Condor Drive)
10 Mountain Meadows (PC -3) * **
11 Alyssas Ct. [T -4174]
12 Carlsberg Specific Plan Area
13 Unassigned
d. Sub- Districts:
14 Wilshire Builders [T -5201] (formerly AD01 -1)
15 Toll Brothers [T -4928] (formerly AD01 -3)
16 Cabrillo [T -5161] (formerly AD01 -3) * **
* ** Landscape and Drainage Maintenance
F. Method of Assessment
The method used to establish the assessment amounts is set
forth in the Engineer's Report. This method (benefit spread
formula, etc.) is unchanged from prior years.
AD84_03- 04_report 000-118
Landscaping & Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer's Report
April 25, 2003
Page 3
G. FY 2003/04 Assessment Amounts
The assessment amounts proposed for FY03 /04, as set forth in
the Engineer's Report, are summarized as follows:
AD84_03- 04_report 0 0 0.19
Total
Per Lot Assessment
Assessment
Landscape Maintenance
US & Drainage Maint.
Description
Amount ($)
Number
Amount ($)
Number Amount ($)
Citywide
Streeet Lighting
221,956.00
20.84
Landscaping
164,632.00
17.24
Sub -Total
386,588.00
38.08
1. Tract 2851
9,702.00
75
129.36
2. Tract 2865 Landscaping
72,439.00
574
116.46
Drainage
1,400.00
48 145.63
73,839.00
3. Tract 3032
3,079.00
265
11.62
4. Tract 3274
6,383.00
129
49.48
5. T 3019/3525 Landscaping
23,340.00
142
107.56
Drainage
500.00
75 114.22
23,840.00
6. Tract 3306
924.00
22
42.00
7. NE L. A. Ave / Gabbert Rd
11,298.00
91.74 ac
123.15 ac
8. Buffer: City
7,669.00
498
15.40
Buffer: Home Acres
7,574.00
201
37.68
9. Condor Drive
1,356.00
49.44 ac
27.43 ac
10. PC -3: US - Comm. Prop.
7,216.06
11.23 ac
642.57 ac
US - Residential
187,063.98
1,775
76.54
Drainage
7,251.96
669 87.38
201,532.00
11. Tract 4174
3,040.00
9
337.78
12. Carlsberg - Residential
227,301.94
536
424.07
Com. / Ind.
11,318.84
73.72 ac
153.54
Institutional
5,307.87
3.84 ac
1,382.26
243,928.65
13. Unassigned
14. Tract 5201 (Wilshire)
1,249.00
10
124.90
15. Tract 4928 (Toll): Res.
322,107.06
216
1,491.24
Golf Course [33 %]
165,933.94
165,933.94
488,041.00
16. T 5161 Landscaping
13,971.00
Drainage
7,500.00
21,470.00
59 363.90
Total
1,491,512.65
AD84_03- 04_report 0 0 0.19
Landscaping & Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer's Report
April 25, 2003
Page 4
H. District 16 Petition Waiver
In October of 2002, the City Council accepted and approved a
Petition and Waiver from the owner(s) of the properties within
District 16 [Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation] to
increase the scope of the improvements and the assessment
amounts for District 16. The approved changes to the assessment
amounts are summarized as follows:
I. Cost of Living Adjustment
Pursuant to language set forth in the formation documents for
Zone 12 and Districts 14, 15 and 16, the annual assessments for
these Zones /Districts may be increased annually to cover cost -
of- living increases. The assessment amounts set forth in
Section G, include these COLA Adjustments.
The adjusted assessment amounts for the above mentioned
Zones /Districts as set forth in the Engineer's Report and the
attached Resolution, are summarized as follows:
Zone /District
12 - Residential
12 - Commercial
12 - Institutional
14
15
16
FY 02/03
Prior Annual
FY 03/04
Revised Annual
Per Unit [Ac.]
Assessment
Change
Assessment
Description
Amount
[Incl. COLA]
Amount
Landscaping
$2,919.63
$10,611.71
$13,531.34
Drainage
$7,656.38
$283.29
$7,939.66
Total
$10,576.01
$10,894.99
$21,471.00
Number of Lots
59
$1,382.26
59
Per Lot Assessment
$179.25
$363.92
I. Cost of Living Adjustment
Pursuant to language set forth in the formation documents for
Zone 12 and Districts 14, 15 and 16, the annual assessments for
these Zones /Districts may be increased annually to cover cost -
of- living increases. The assessment amounts set forth in
Section G, include these COLA Adjustments.
The adjusted assessment amounts for the above mentioned
Zones /Districts as set forth in the Engineer's Report and the
attached Resolution, are summarized as follows:
Zone /District
12 - Residential
12 - Commercial
12 - Institutional
14
15
16
FY 02/03
C.O.L.A.
FY 03/04
Per Unit [Ac.]
Adjustment
Per Unit [Ac.]
Total
Assessment
Amount
Assessment
FY 03/04
Amount
[3.7 %]
Amount
Assessment
$408.94
$15.13
$424.07
$227,301.94
$148.06
$5.48
$153.54
$11,318.84
$1,332.94
$49.32
$1,382.26
$5,307.87
$243,928.65
$120.48
$4.46
$124.94
$1,249.38
$1,452.56
$53.74
$1,506.30
$488,042.73
« « « « « « «< See Section H » » » » » » » » » » »>
J. Improvement Reserve Ceiling
The Engineer's Report provides for a Capital Reserve Account
for each District. Consistent with past City Council action,
the Engineer's Report stipulates that Capital Reserve Account
for any Zone /District should not exceed an amount equal to
AD84_03- 04_report 000:120
Landscaping & Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer's Report
April 25, 2003
Page 5
three (3) times the annual operating budget for that
Zone /District. Should the projected Year -End Fund Balance for
any Zone /District exceed that "ceiling ", the amount of the
assessment shall remain unchanged; but the amount of the
assessment to be levied upon the affected properties shall be
reduced to a lesser amount determined by the Assessment
Engineer to be consistent with these guidelines.
K. Decreased Levy Amounts
Pursuant to the above policy, the amounts to be levied upon the
parcels in certain Zones /Districts shall be less than the
assessment amount set forth in Section G above. A summary of
those adjustments is as follows:
Remarks
Ten Percent of Assessment
Ten Percent of Assessment
81 % of Assessment
Note: The above recommended levy amounts are less than the
assessment amounts set forth in Section G above.
L. Assessment Amounts Unchanged
Accepted as noted in Sections G, H, I & K above, the assessment
amounts set forth in the subject Engineer's Report are the same
as the assessments levied last year. Any action to otherwise
increase these assessments may not be taken without first
seeking approval of such an increase via a mail ballot prepared
and processed in accordance with the requirements of
Proposition 218.
M. Fund Activity
Attached as Exhibit 2 are charts showing fund activity for all
Zones /Districts for FY01 /02 through FY03 /04. Page 4 of Exhibit
2 shows certain details with respect to the Reserve Fund
Ceilings and the Assessment vs. recommended Levy amounts for
FY03 /04.
AD84_03- 04_report
000121
Three Years
Total
Total
Zone/
Beginning
Annual
Assessment
Levy
District
Balance
Expenses
Amount
Amount
1
$22,573
$12,630
$9,702.00
$970.00
11
$6,657
$2,460
$3,040.00
$304.00
12
$451,247
$499,746
$243,928.65
$197,081.00
Remarks
Ten Percent of Assessment
Ten Percent of Assessment
81 % of Assessment
Note: The above recommended levy amounts are less than the
assessment amounts set forth in Section G above.
L. Assessment Amounts Unchanged
Accepted as noted in Sections G, H, I & K above, the assessment
amounts set forth in the subject Engineer's Report are the same
as the assessments levied last year. Any action to otherwise
increase these assessments may not be taken without first
seeking approval of such an increase via a mail ballot prepared
and processed in accordance with the requirements of
Proposition 218.
M. Fund Activity
Attached as Exhibit 2 are charts showing fund activity for all
Zones /Districts for FY01 /02 through FY03 /04. Page 4 of Exhibit
2 shows certain details with respect to the Reserve Fund
Ceilings and the Assessment vs. recommended Levy amounts for
FY03 /04.
AD84_03- 04_report
000121
Landscaping & Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer's Report
April 25, 2003
Page 6
N. FY 02/03 Fund Deficits
As reflected on Page 2 of Exhibit 2, it is anticipated that the
FY 02/03 Year -End Fund Balance for certain Zones /Districts will
again show a deficit. A summary of those anticipated deficits
is as follows:
Fund
2300 - Lighting
2307 - Zone 7
2309 - Zone 9
Total
Last Fiscal
transfers to
action with
as follows:
FY 02/03
Transfer to:
Fund
2300 - Lighting
2307 - Zone 7
2309 - Zone 9
FY02 /03
Expenses
$259,824.00
$275,000.00
Beginning
$17,400.00
$2,106.00
FY02 /03
Balance
Revenue
Expenses
Enging Bal.
($24,284.00)
$241,416.00
$255,000.00
($37,868.00)
($129.00)
$11,427.00
$13,000.00
($1,702.00)
$433.00
$917.00
$2,100.00
($750.00)
($23,980.00)
$253,760.00
$270,100.00
($40,320.00)
Year the City Council approved certain fund
correct FY 01/02 Year -End Fund deficits. A like
respect to the above noted deficits is summarized
From
Gas Tax
Fund 2605
$37,868.00
$851.00
$375.00
Total $39,094.00
From
General Fund
Fund 1000
$0.00
$851.00
$375.00
$1,226.00
Total
Transfer Amt.
$37,868.00
$1,702.00
$750.00
$40,320.00
Last year the City Council approved deficit correcting fund
transfers in June, and then had to make adjustments in November
based on the actual year -end Fund Balances. In order to avoid
this duplication of effort, this year the above recommended
fund transfers will be deferred until November 2003.
O. FY 03/04 Fund Deficits
As reflected on Page 3 of Exhibit 2, it is anticipated that the
FY 03/04 Year -End Fund Balance for certain Zones /Districts will
once more show a deficit. A summary of those anticipated
deficits is as follows:
Fund
2300 - Lighting
2307 - Zone 7
2309 - Zone 9
FY02 /03
Beginning
Balance
($37,868.00)
($1,702.00)
($750.00)
Total ($40,320.00)
Revenue
Expenses
$259,824.00
$275,000.00
$13,000.00
$17,400.00
$2,106.00
$2,255.00
$274,930.00
$294,655.00
FY02 /03
Enaina Bal.
($53,044.00)
($6,102.00)
($899.00)
($60,045.00)
AD84 03 -04 report 000122
Landscaping & Lighting Assessment Districts
Engineer's Report
April 25, 2003
Page 7
Based on the above estimates, a deficit correcting
transfer in November 2004 would be as follows:
FY 03104
From
From
Transfer to:
Gas Tax
General Fund
Total
Fund
Fund 2605
Fund 1000
Transfer Amt.
2300 - Lighting
$53,044.00
$0.00
$53,044.00
2307 - Zone 7
$3,051.00
$3,051.00
$6,102.00
2309 - Zone 9
$449.50
$449.50
$899.00
Total $56,544.50
$3,500.50
$60,045.00
P. Resolution
fund
Attached as Exhibit 3 is a Resolution approving the subject
Engineer's Report and setting June 4, 2003, as the date of a
public hearing to consider the levy of the assessments for the
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts for Fiscal Year
2003/04. This resolution will also serve as the public hearing
notice for the June 4th public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt Resolution No. 2003- approving the Engineer's Report
and setting June 4, 2003, as the date of a public hearing to
consider the levy of assessments for FY 2003/04.
Attachments:
Exhibit l: Engineer's Report
Exhibit 2: Fund Activity
Exhibit 3: Resolution
AD84 03 -04 report 0 00123
Exhibit 1:
Engineer's Report
The Engineer's Report has been distributed by separate Memo to
the City Council and key staff. Copies of the Engineer's Report
may be obtained from the City Clerks office.
O O Z
Landscape / Lighting Page 1 of 4
Assessment Districts [File: adfunds_03_04]
Fund Activity: FY01 /02 4/21/2003
Fund
2300
Description
Lighting
Landscaping
Beginning
Balance
(11,076)
126,519
Rev.
Code
3100
3102
Assmnt
216,766
144,347
Misc
> 40,000
Interest
8,654
Total
Revenue
Exp.
Code
Expenses
Total Available
Less Expenses
Less
Reserve
Ending
Balance
256,766
153,001
8901
7901
269,974
173,616
(24,284)
105,904
(105,904)
(24,284)
0
2301
Zone 1
115,443
9,499
3102
361,113
9,719
40,000
8,654
476
7901
443,590
3,350
409,767
10,195
81,620
16,344
(105,904)
(16,344)
(24,284)
0
2302
Zone 2: US
Zone 2: Drains
67,540
3,381
3102
3103
70,216
1,403
(2,678)
3,763
71,301
1,403
7901
8902
55,415
25
83,426
4,759
(83,426)
(4,759)
0
0
Zone 2: Improvements
33,472
104,393
3101
6,230
77,849
2,678
0
3,763
8,908
8019
47,207
102,647
0
(4,827)
0
(4,827)
81,612
83,358 (88,185)
(4,827)
2303
2304
Zone 3
Zone 4
1,724
(689)
3102
3102
3,084
6,394
67
12
3,151
6,406
7901
7901
2,876
5,752
1,999
(35)
(1,999)
0
(35)
2305
Zone 5: US
Zone 5: Drains
(13,596)
1,473
3102
3103
23,382
501
> 30,000
53,382
501
7901
8902
34,010
234
5,776
1,740
(5,776)
(1,740)
0
0
(12,123)
23,883
30,000
0
34,244
53,883
7,516
(7,516)
0
2306
2307
2308
2309
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9
1,202
(260)
8,110
(7)
3102
3102
3102
3102
925
11,318
15,270
1,352
> 3,100
> 1,000
175
24
373
4
1,100
14,442
15,643
2,356
7901
7901
7901
7901
1,214
14,311
12,270
1,916
1,088
(129)
11,483
433
(1,088)
(11,483)
(433)
0
(129)
0
0
2310
Zone 10: US
Zone 10: Drains
101,456
18,052
3102
3103
194,624
7,265
5,248
199,872
7,265
7901
8902
206,266
1,300
95,062
24,017
(95,062)
(24,017)
0
0
119,508
201,532
0
5,248
207,566
207,137
119,079
(119,079)
0
2311
2312
2313
Zone 11
Zone 12
Zone 13
Sub -Total AD 84 -2
4,874
165,339
5,752
522,765
3102
3102
3102
3,041
238,870
954,350
(4,517)
69,583
215
8,702
204
27,917
3,256
247,572
(4,313)
7901
7901
7901
1,118
101,722
1,439
934,015
7,012
311,189
0
(7,012)
(311,189)
0
0
0
1,052,207
640,957 (670,232)
(29,275)
2314
2315
AD01 -1 Wilshire Builder:
AD01 -2 Toll Bros
(450)
1,259
3102
3102
1,180
460,948
45
1,180
460,993
7901
7901
427
0
303
462,252
(303)
(462,252)
0
0
2316
0
AD01 -3 Cabrillo: US
AD01 -3 Cabrillo: Drains
1,412
1,412
3102
3103
2,859
7,500
10,359
0
52
52
2,911
7,500
7901
8902
0
0
0
4,323
7,500
(4,323)
(7,500)
0
0
10,411
11,823 (11,823)
0
0
Total
524,986
1,426,837
69,583
> Transfer
28,014
1,524,791
934,442
1,115,335
(1,144,610)
(29,275)
June 2002
Landscape /Lighting
Assessment Districts
Fund Activity: FY02 /03
Page 2 of 4
[File: adfunds_03_04]
4/21/2003
Total
Exp.
Beginning
Rev.
Less
Ending
Revenue
Code
Fund
Description
Balance
Code
Assmnt
8901
Misc
Interest
2300
Lighting
(24,284)
3100
217,132
>
24,284
0
160,803
Improvements
7,315
134,392
(134,392)
0
402,219
103,839 (134,392)
(37,868)
Landscaping
98,589
3102
159,803
(22,573)
0
1,000
7901
46,000
81,620
(107,287)
376,935
1,400
24,284
1,000
2301
Zone 1
16,344
3102
9,702
0
65,445
0
527
2302
Zone 2: US
83,426
3102
66,209
A
1,403
2,249
(2,878)
Zone 2: Drains
4,759
3103
1,400
1,383
(1,383)
0
17,564
Zone 2: Improvements
(4,827)
3101
6,230
A
(1,403)
8902
272
3,372
1,968
83,358
0
73,839
22,208 (22,208)
0
2,249
2303
Zone 3
1,999
3102
3,079
11,427
7901
100
2304
Zone 4
(35)
3102
6,383
>
35
(15,935)
0
917
0
2,100
(750)
(750)
198,956
2305
Zone 5: US
5,776
3102
23,340
>
(5,776)
3,261
258,437
28,008
Zone 5: Drains
1,740
3103
500
0
545
7901
900
6,657
7,516
0
23,840
7901
(5,776)
0
2306
Zone 6
1,088
3102
924
0
161
2307
Zone 7
(129)
3102
11,298
>
129
(1,483)
2308
Zone 8
11,483
3102
15,243
(938,584)
0
209
2309
Zone 9
433
3102
1,350
>
(433)
0
0
2310
Zone 10: US
95,062
3102
194,280
0
4,676
Zone 10: Drains
24,017
3103
7,252
119,079
201,532
0
4,676
2311
Zone 11
7,012
3102
304
<
241
2312
Zone 12
311,189
3102
238,448
11,610
2313
Zone 13
0
3102
Sub -Total AD 84 -2
640,957
962,877
18,239
20,773
2314
AD01 -1 Wilshire Builder:
303
3102
1,180
2315
AD01 -2 Toll Bros
462,252
3102
461,354
14,978
2316
AD01 -3 Cabrillo: US
4,323
3102
3,076
378
AD01 -3 Cabrillo: Drains
7,500
3103
7,500
0
0
11,823
10,576
0
378
0
0
Total
1,115,335
1,435,987
18,239
36,129
A: Surplus to go to US
> Transfer Nov 2002
< Levy Amount
Less Than
Page 2 of 4
[File: adfunds_03_04]
4/21/2003
Total
Exp.
Total Available
Less
Ending
Revenue
Code
Expenses
Less Expenses
Reserve
Balance
241,416
8901
255,000
(37,868)
(37,868)
8033
7,315
0
160,803
7901
125,000
380,000
134,392
(134,392)
0
402,219
103,839 (134,392)
(37,868)
10,229
7901
4,000
22,573
(22,573)
0
69,861
7901
46,000
107,287
(107,287)
0
1,400
8902
258
5,901
(5,901)
0
4,827
8019
0
65,445
0
0
76,088
113,188 (113,188)
0
3,179
7901
2,300
2,878
(2,878)
0
6,418
7901
5,000
1,383
(1,383)
0
17,564
7901
3,100
20,240
(20,240)
0
500
8902
272
3,372
1,968
(1,968)
0
18,064
22,208 (22,208)
0
1,085
7901
1,200
973
(973)
0
11,427
7901
13,000
(1,702)
(1,702)
15,452
7901
11,000
15,935
(15,935)
0
917
7901
2,100
(750)
(750)
198,956
7901
200,000
94,018
(94,018)
0
7,252
8902
3,261
258,437
28,008
(28,008)
0
206,208
122,026 (122,026)
0
545
7901
900
6,657
(6,657)
0
250,058
7901
110,000
451,247
(451,247)
0
0
7901
0
856,754
0
0
1,001,889
860,455 (893,460)
(40,320)
1,180
7901
0
1,483
(1,483)
0
476,332
7901
0
938,584
(938,584)
0
3,454
7901
0
7,777
(7,777)
0
7,500
8902
0
0
15,000
(15,000)
0
10,954
22,777 (22,777)
0
1,490,355 I 856,754 1,823,299 (1,856,304) (40,320)
Est Transfer
Nov 2003
Assessment Amount
Landscape / Lighting
Assessment Districts
Fund Activity: FY03 /04
1,433,197
Page 3 of 4
[File: adfunds_03_04]
4/21/2003
Total
Exp.
Beginning
Total Available
Fund Description
Balance
._._...
2300 Lighting
(37,868)
Assmnt
Improvements
7,315
3100
Landscaping
134,392
103,839
3102
164,632
7,315
2301 Zone 1
22,573
386,588
2302 Zone 2: US
107,287
3102
Zone 2: Drains
5,901
500
Zone 2: Improvements
0
1,470
3,000
113,188
1,400
2303 Zone 3
2,878
3101
2304 Zone 4
1,383
124,026
2305 Zone 5: US
20,240
0
Zone 5: Drains
1,968
22,208
(7,043)
100
3102
2306 Zone 6
973
0
2307 Zone 7
(1,702)
76,839
2308 Zone 8
15,935
500
2309 Zone 9
(750)
3,607
2310 Zone 10: US
94,018
0
Zone 10: Drains
28,008
122,026
132
3102
11,298
2311 Zone 11
6,657
3102
2312 Zone 12
451,247
100
2313 Zone 13
0
> 750
Sub -Total AD 84 -2
860,455
194,280
2314 Z -14: Wilshire Builders
1,483
3103
2315 Z -15: Toll Bros
938,584
709
2316 Z -16: Cabrillo: US
7,777
0
Z -16: Cabrillo: Drains
15,000
304
<
22,777
3102
0
<
1,823,299
3102
0 Total
2,106
7901
2,255
922,437
40,320
22,732
1,433,197
Page 3 of 4
[File: adfunds_03_04]
4/21/2003
Total
Exp.
Revenue
Total Available
Rev.
Ending
._._...
Code
Code
Assmnt
Misc
Interest
3100
221,956
> 37,868
3102
164,632
7,315
(7,315)
0
386,588
37,868
0
3102
970
<
500
3102
72,439
1,470
3,000
3103
1,400
(19,833)
0
3101
0
58,700
124,026
(124,026)
73,839
0
3,000
3102
3,079
(7,043)
100
3102
6,383
0
58,958
0
3102
23,340
76,839
131,069 (131,069)
3103
500
7901
2,450
3,607
23,840
0
0
3102
924
2,666
132
3102
11,298
> 1,702
33,200
3102
15,243
0
100
3102
1,356
> 750
(2,196)
3102
194,280
12,576 (12,576)
600
3103
7,252
1,320
709
(709)
201,532
0
600
3102
304
<
300
3102
197,081
<
18,000
3102
0
2,106
7901
2,255
922,437
40,320
22,732
3102
1,249
192,200
96,698
3102
488,041
7,252
30,000
3102
13,970
(31,999)
1,000
3103
7,500
0
604
7901
21,470
0
1,000
1,433,197
Page 3 of 4
[File: adfunds_03_04]
4/21/2003
Total
Exp.
Total Available
Less
Ending
Revenue
Code
Expenses
Less Expenses
(53,044)
Reserve
Balance
259,824
8901 275,000
(53,044)
7,315
(7,315)
0
164,632
7901
193,000
468,000
106,024
(106,024)
0
424,456
60,295 (113,339)
(53,044)
1,470
7901
4,210
19,833
(19,833)
0
75,439
7901
58,700
124,026
(124,026)
0
1,400
8902
258
7,043
(7,043)
0
0
8019
0
58,958
0
0
76,839
131,069 (131,069)
0
3,179
7901
2,450
3,607
(3,607)
0
6,383
7901
5,100
2,666
(2,666)
0
23,340
7901
33,200
10,380
(10,380)
0
500
8902
272
33,472
2,196
(2,196)
0
23,840
12,576 (12,576)
0
1,056
7901
1,320
709
(709)
0
13,000
7901
17,400
(6,102)
(6,102)
15,343
7901
20,250
11,028
(11,028) .
0
2,106
7901
2,255
(899)
(899)
194,880
7901
192,200
96,698
(96,698)
0
7,252
8902
3,261
195,461
31,999
(31,999)
0
202,132
128,697 (128,697)
0
604
7901
820
6,441
(6,441)
0
215,081
7901
166,582
499,746
(499,746)
0
0
7901
0
976,278
0
0
985,489
869,666 (929,711)
(60,045)
1,249
7901
1,090
1,642
(1,642)
0
518,041
7901
412,500
1,044,125
(1,044,125)
0
14,970
7901
13,971
8,776
(8,776)
0
7,500
8902
7,500
21,471
15,000
(15,000)
0
22,470
23,776 (23,776)
0
40,320 53,732 I 1,527,249
> Est. Transfer November 2003
< Levy Amount Less Than Assessment Amount
1,411,339 I 1,939,209 (1,999,254) I (60,045)
Est Transfer
Nov 2004
Landscape /Lighting
Assessment Districts
Fund Activity: FY03 /04
Adjusted Assessment Calculation
Page 4 of 4
[File: adfunds_03_041
4/21/2003
2314
Z -14: Wilshire Builder
2315
FY 03/04
Amount of Amount Year -End
Z -16: Cabrillo: US
412,500
Z -16: Cabrillo: Drains
Fund
Description
Beginning
Balance
Projected
Expenses
Fund CAP
[Est 3 Yr Costs]
Projected Balance
Exceeds CAP **
Assessment
Amount
Levy
Amount
Remarks
2300
Lighting
(37,868)
Improvements
7,315
Landscaping
134,392
103,839
2301
Zone 1
22,573
4,210
12,630
15,935
9,702
970 <
Ten Percent of Assessment Amount
2302
Zone 2: US
107,287
58,700
176,100
0
72,439
72,439
Zone 2: Drains
5,901
258
774
0
1,400
1,400
Zone 2: Improvements
0
113,188
58,958 176,874 0
73,839 73,839
2303
Zone 3
2,878
2,450
7,350
0
3,079
3,079
2304
Zone 4
1,383
5,100
15,300
0
6,383
6,383
2305
Zone 5: US
20,240
33,200
99,600
0
23,340
23,340
Zone 5: Drains
1,968
272
816
0
500
500
22,208
33,472
100,416
0
23,840
23,840
2306
Zone 6
973
1,320
3,960
0
924
924
2307
Zone 7
(1,702)
17,400
52,200
0
11,298
11,298
2308
Zone 8
15,935
20,250
60,750
0
15,243
15,243
2309
Zone 9
(750)
2,255
6,765
0
1,356
1,356
0
2310
Zone 10: US
94,018
192,200
576,600
0
194,280
194,280
Zone 10: Drains
28,008
3,261
9,783
0
7,252
7,252
122,026
195,461
586,383
0
201,532
201,532
2311
2312
2313
Zone 11
Zone 12
Zone 13
6,657
451,247
0
820
166,582
0
2,460
499,746
0
6,717
46,848
0
3,040
243,929
304 <
197,081 <
Ten Percent of Assessment Ammount
81 %: Assmnt. Adj. to Not Exceed Fund Max.
2314
Z -14: Wilshire Builder
2315
Z -15: Toll Bros
2316
Z -16: Cabrillo: US
412,500
Z -16: Cabrillo: Drains
7,777
0
0
41,913
0
21,470
H%
22,500
to
Ot
64,413
1,483
1,249
1,090
3,270
938,584
488,041
412,500
1,237,500
7,777
0
13,971
41,913
15,000
21,470
7,500
22,500
22,777
21,471
64,413
0
1,249
1,249
0
488,041
488,041
0
13,970
13,970
0
7,500
7,500
0
21,470
21,470
** [Begining Balance + Assessment + Interest - Expenses] Less Maximum Fund Amount
Exhibit 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENTION TO LEVY
ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -04,
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT,
AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE
CITY OF MOORPARK LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2003 -2051, the City Council
ordered the preparation of an Engineer's Report for the
City's Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment
Districts (the "Assessment Districts ") for Fiscal Year 2003-
04; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Resolution, the Engineer's
Report was prepared by Shilts Consultants, Inc., Engineer of
Work, in accordance with 22565, et. seq., of the Streets and
Highways Code (the "Report ") and Article XIIID of the
California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, said Engineer's Report was filed with the City
Clerk and the City Council has reviewed the Report and wishes
to take certain actions relative to said Report and the levy
of assessments recommended therein.
NOW, THEREFORE,, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Report for "Moorpark Landscaping and
Lighting Maintenance Assessment Districts ", for the fiscal
year commencing on July 1, 2003, and ending on June 30, 2004,
on file with the City Clerk, has been duly considered by the
Moorpark City Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and
approved. The Report shall stand as the Engineer's Report
for all subsequent proceedings under, and pursuant to, the
foregoing resolution.
SECTION 2. It is the intention of this Council to levy
and collect assessments within the Assessment Districts for
fiscal year 2003 -04. Within the Assessment Districts, the
existing and proposed improvements, and any substantial
changes proposed to be made to the existing improvements, are
generally described as the installation, maintenance and
servicing of public facilities, including but not limited to,
street lights, public lighting facilities, landscaping,
sprinkler systems, statuary, fountains, other ornamental
structures and facilities, landscape corridors, ground cover,
shrubs and trees, street frontages, drainage systems,
fencing, entry monuments, graffiti removal and repainting,
000129
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 2
and labor, materials, supplies, utilities and equipment, as
applicable, for property owned, operated or maintained by the
City of Moorpark. Installation means the construction of
lighting and landscaping improvements, including, but not
limited to, land preparation, such as grading, leveling,
cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems,
sidewalks and drainage and lights. Maintenance means the
furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and
usual maintenance, operation and servicing of said
improvements, including repair, removal, or replacement of
all or part of any improvement; providing for the life,
growth, health and beauty of landscaping; and cleaning,
sandblasting and painting of walls and other improvements to
remove or cover graffiti. Servicing means the furnishing of
electric current or energy for the operation or lighting of
any improvements, and water for irrigation of any landscaping
or the maintenance of any other improvements.
SECTION 3. The Assessment Districts consists of the
lots and parcels shown on the boundary map of the Assessment
Districts on file with the City Clerk, and reference is
hereby made to such map for further particulars.
SECTION 4. Reference is hereby made to the Engineer's
Report for a full and detailed description of the
improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment Districts, and
the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of
land within the Assessment Districts. The Engineer's Report
identifies all parcels which will have a special benefit
conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be
imposed.
SECTION 5. The Fiscal Year 2003 -04 levy rates are not
proposed to increase, with the exception of Zone 12, District
14, District 15 and District 16. The authorized maximum
assessment rate for these Districts includes an annual
adjustment by an amount equal to the annual change in the Los
Angeles Area Consumer Price Index. As the amount of the
annual increase in the Los Angeles Area Consumer Price Index
from December 2001 to December 2002 is 3.7 %, the authorized
maximum levy rate for fiscal year 2003 -04 is 3.7% above the
maximum levy rate for fiscal year 2002 -03. Including the
authorized annual adjustment, the maximum authorized
assessment rates for fiscal year 2003 -04 are as follows:
Zone 12 $ 424.07 per single family benefit unit
$ 153.54 per acre of commercial or industrial property
$1,382.27 per acre of institutional property
Dist.14 $ 124.94 per single family benefit unit
Dist.15 $1,506.30 per single family benefit unit
040-1?0,
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 3
All property owners in District 16 have approved a rate
increase of $184.64 from $179.26 per single family benefit
unit to a maximum levy rate of $363.90 per single family
benefit unit effective Fiscal Year 2003 -04.
SECTION 6. Notice is hereby given that on June 4,
2003, at the hour of 6:30 o'clock p.m. in the Council
Chambers, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,
California 93021, the Council will hold a public hearing to
consider the ordering of the improvements and the levy of the
proposed assessments.
SECTION 7. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any
interested person may file a written protest with the City
Clerk, or, having previously filed a protest, may file a
written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest shall
state all grounds of objection. A protest by a property
owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the
property owned by such owner. Such protest or withdrawal of
protest should be mailed to the City Clerk, City of Moorpark,
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the
hearing to be given by publishing a copy of this resolution
once, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing
above specified, in a newspaper circulated in the City of
Moorpark.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to
be filed in the book of original resolutions.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
®0'0.31-
Moorpark City Council
Agenda Report
I' mm 1 fl
To: The Honorable City Council
From: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works,
Date: April 25, 2003 (Council Meeting 5 -7 -03)
Subject: Consider Award of Contract for the Construction of the
Flinn Avenue Realignment Project [Project 8037] and
Adoption of a Resolution Amending FY 2002/2003 Budget to
Revise the Funding for Said Project
BACKGROUND
In November of 2001, the City Council approved the conceptual
design for the subject project. In February of 2003 the City
Council approved the project plans and authorized staff to
advertise for bids.
DISCUSSION
A. Scope of Work
The subject project calls for:
• the construction of a new Flinn Avenue to intersect Spring
Road at Second Street (see Exhibit 1, Pages 1 and 2);
• the widening of the east side of Spring Road from Flinn
Avenue northerly to the rail crossing (see Ex. 1, Page 3);
• the construction of a raised center median in Spring Road
from Flinn Avenue to the rail crossing; and
Note: The installation of landscaping in that median will be
undertaken at a later date. A separate consultant has
been retained to prepare the design for that and other
landscaping in the area.
• the construction of a traffic signal at the new
intersection of Spring Road, Flinn Avenue and Second
Street.
flinn_awd
000:132
Flinn Avenue Realignment: Award Contract
April 25, 2003
Page 2
B. Spring Road Widening Project
Design efforts are proceeding on a project to widen Spring
Road south of Flinn Avenue. That project will require
acquisition of additional street right -of -way. It is
anticipated that the design will be completed within three
months and that the required rights -of -way will be acquired
by June of 2004.
C. Construction Details
Some of the components of the subject project include the
following:
• Gas, water, sewer, telephone and storm drain utilities
will remain in the "old" Flinn Avenue right -of -way.
• The existing overhead electrical lines along the "old"
Flinn Avenue, will be placed underground in the new Flinn
Avenue. This "undergrounding" effort will also include a
portion of Minor Street.
• The installation of several new street lights.
• A water meter will be installed for the future median
irrigation system and will be "stubbed -out" to the median,
in order to avoid a future street cut.
• Irrigation sleeves will be installed from the median to a
point south of Flinn Avenue, where future medians will be
constructed.
• New curbs and gutters will be constructed at their
ultimate location, along the Spring Road and Flinn Avenue
frontage of the future Police facility.
• A sidewalk will be constructed on the south side of the
new Flinn Avenue, and on the east side of Spring Road,
south of the new Flinn Avenue.
• No sidewalks will be constructed on the north side of the
new Flinn Avenue or on the east side Spring Road north of
the new Flinn Avenue. That work will be constructed as a
part of the new Police facility.
• The old Flinn Avenue will be left in -place at this time. A
barricade will be placed at the west end of the street to
prevent vehicular access to and from Spring Road.
• A driveway will be constructed at the east end of the old
Flinn Avenue, to allow vehicular access to the properties
on the south side of the old Flinn Avenue.
D. Campus Park Drive Median Improvements
In March of 2003 the City
Tax Fund] for the placement
Park Drive Median. A design
work to the subject project.
flinn awd
Council appropriated $22,000 [Gas
of stamped concrete in the Campus
Addendum was prepared adding this
Mr t
Flinn Avenue Realignment: Award Contract
April 25, 2003
Page 3
E. Right -of -Way
No right -of -way acquisition will be required to construct
this project. The new Flinn Avenue and the added street width
for Spring Road, will be created via recordation of a Parcel
Map for the Police facility property.
F. Environmental Clearance
The subject project has been determined to be Categorically
Exempt.
G. Street Vacation
It is the intent of staff to prepare and process, at a later
date, documents necessary to vacate the old Flinn Avenue.
That vacation will include action to retain utility easements
for the existing utilities to remain in place.
H. Ultimate Access to Properties south of Flinn Avenue
As mentioned above, the project calls for the construction of
a barricade at the west end of the old Flinn Avenue and the
construction of a driveway at the east end of the old Flinn
Avenue, to allow access for the businesses on the south side
of the street. The pavement improvements for old Flinn Avenue
will remain in place until the street vacation efforts have
been completed. The business and /or property owners affected
by these changes have been contacted and notified of these
changes.
Staff invited the affected business and property owners along
the south side of "old" Flinn Avenue to meet and discuss a
number of issues, including:
• the subject project;
• the future widening of Spring Road (and the right -of -way
acquisition related thereto);
• the planned vacation of the old Flinn Avenue;
[Note:Upon vacation of the street, the south one -half of old
Flinn Avenue can be conveyed to the properties fronting
the south side of the street.]
• the ultimate use of the remnant parcel to be created when
the street is relocated;
• the design for the future ultimate access from the
affected properties to the new Flinn Avenue; and
• the removal of the street improvements within the old
Flinn Avenue right -of -way to be vacated.
flinn_awd 000134
Flinn Avenue Realignment: Award Contract
April 25, 2003
Page 4
The owner of the most westerly property on the south side of
"old" Flinn Avenue met with staff to discuss the project.
Staff explained the scope of the project, the impacts to
adjacent properties and the future plans related to the
disposition of "old" Flinn Avenue. There were no objections
noted.
I. Bid Results
Bids for the subject project were received and opened on
April 22. The apparent low bidder is Nativ Engineering, with
a bid of $539,865.00. A summary of the bid results is
attached as Exhibit 2.
It has been determined that the apparent low bidder is
qualified to perform the work. Said bidder has confirmed that
their bid is valid and that they are prepared to proceed with
the construction of the project.
J. Sub - Contractors
Nativ Engineering listed two sub - contractors for concrete
work. They failed to state in the bid documents that the two
"subs" were to perform different components of the work. The
firm subsequently provided a letter to the City clarifying
this matter. It has been determined that this clerical error
in the bid did not render the bid "non- responsive."
K. Fiscal Impact
1. Construction Contract Costs: Based on the bid results,
the estimated construction cost is as follows:
.................----...............................--........_.........____._ ..........................._._......_----._...._........._........................._._.._--._._.. ......I...............--- ._...:
Description Amount ($)
Construction Contract 539,865.00
Contingency (10 %) 53.986.50
Total 593,851.50
2. Contract Breakdown: A breakdown of the Contract Costs
into certain project components is as follows:
Bid Amount
Contingency (10 %)
Total
Less Campus Park Median (Bid Item #613)
Less Electrical Conduit for Undergrounding (Bid Item #13)
Less Spring Road Widening Costs
Less Traffic Signal Costs (Bid Item #15)
Flinn Avenue Realignment Costs
flinn awd
Amount ($)
539,865.00
53.986.00
593,851.00
(16,000.00)
(139,236.00)
(62,236.00)
(90,000.00)
286,379.00
Flinn Avenue Realignment: Award Contract
April 25, 2003
Page 5
3. Spring Road Widening Costs: The project includes the
painting of Class 2 Bike Lanes along that portion of
Spring Road between "old" Flinn Avenue and the rail
crossing. The project will be able to install these Bike
Lanes because this segment of Spring Road is to be widened
eleven feet (11'). Identified in the above chart is the
approximate cost [$62,236] of that portion of the work
related to this street widening.
As stated below, a portion of these street widening costs
[$30,230] is to be funded from TDA Article 3 (SB -821)
bicycle / pedestrian grant funds carried over from prior
year projects. This recommended funding will bring the
unappropriated Fund balance for this Fund [Fund 2602] to
zero.
4. Electrical Undergrounding Costs: As authorized by the
City Council, the project includes the undergrounding of
existing overhead electrical distribution facilities in
the general vicinity of the project. The placement of the
conduits for that effort is included in the construction
contract. Certain other equipment and energizing costs
were paid directly to the Southern California Edison
Company (SCE). A summary of these costs is as follows:
--- ............... ---- .............. ___ ............... --- ...................... __.__ ........................... ....... _------._._ .......................................... . ---- ....................... _
Description Amount ($)
Direct Costs to SCE 56,698
Conduit Costs (Bid Item #13) 139.236
...--- ........Total.. ..._ ... -- ................__._. 195,934
_
5. Total Project Costs: A current estimate of total project
costs is as follows:
Descri
Design
Design Support
Right -of -Way
Construction Contract ( +10 %)
SCE Undergrounding Direct Costs
Inspection / Contract Admin.
Total
Amount ($)
60,000
500
2,000
593,851
56,698
70.000
783,049
flinn_awd 0001,36
Flinn Avenue Realignment: Award Contract
April 25, 2003
Page 6
6. Budget Amendment: The attached Resolution provides for an
amendment to the Budget to reflect the revised funding
sources and requirements discussed above. That Resolution
is summarized as follows:
Description Fund
Current Budget ($)
Chan a ($)
Revised Budget ($
Design 2501 L A AOC
11,195
1750
12,945
2902 MRA
11,195
1750
12,945
22,390
3500
25,890
Construction 2501 L A AOC
347,852
(45,692)
302,160
** > 2605 Gas Tax
0
16,000
16,000
* ** > 2602 TDA Art. 3
0
30,230
30,230
2902 MRA
347,852
(45,692)
302,160
695,704
(45,154)
650,550
Inspection 2501 L A AOC
35,000
0
35,000
2902 MRA
35,000
0
35,000
70,000
-
70,000
Total FY 02103
788,094
(41,654)
746,440
Plus Prior Year Costs
39,610
0
39,610
Total Project Budget
827,704
(41,654)
786,050
** Campus Park
Medians
* ** Portion of
Spring Rd. Widening
L. Schedule
It is anticipated that construction of the project will
commence in June and be completed by September.
M. Administrative Actions
If the recommended action is taken by the City Council,
certain administrative actions will be undertaken by staff,
including the following:
• A contract agreement will be forwarded to Nativ
Engineering, Inc., for the construction of the subject
project, for the contract price of $539,865.00.
• When all of the contract documents are in order, the
agreement will be executed by the City Manager.
• A construction contingency of $53,987 (10 %) will be set
aside for the project.
f1inn_awd 000137
Flinn Avenue Realignment: Award Contract
April 25, 2003
Page 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Roll Call Vote)
1. Approve the award of a contract to Nativ Engineering, Inc.
for the construction of the subject project.
2. Adopt Resolution NO. 2003-
Attachments:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
flinn awd
Design Diagrams
Bid Results
Resolution
U- 13- 2001(TUE) 12:24 HAWKS AND ASSOCIATES
FLINN AVENUE REALIGNMENT 000139
80 - _ 0 80 160
SCALE OF FEET
NOR TH f?
7'
23'
1 PC3 Z
60' SOUTH !�
23' I 7' I
(
i m WI
I v : Q
Q a Z
Z
tqRA D E --0-2 ..2--7°
FLINN AVENUE
5 Curb & Gutter
7 Sidewalk
000140
ri
Q Curb
Curb & Gutter
Q9 Median
a�
q4/
37' 37'
T ki< 15-
WEST I
7' AC
EAST R
111
I
OVERLA Y
I I
I
7' 7' 12'
11,
VARIES
- II
W1DENlNG
II
6
II
6
I
VARIES
VA'Q /ES
n AC 01
19 8" PMB
GRADE
TO
—''^
.,_._ ._.;.... .....MIN.
!.
---�
2Z MAX.
--
12'f E
i
I I I
8
I
SPRING ROAD
i
GRIND EDGE AND
TACK COAT. 3' X 1"
TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS
GRIND AT JOIN LINE
NOT TO SCALE
Flinn Avenue Realignment and Spring Road Widening Project
Bid Opening: 04/22/03
Engineer's Estimate
marks an allowance
Flinn Avnue Realignment
Item #
Item Code
Item Description
Quantity
Unit of Measure
Unit Price
Item Total
1
1001 -8
TRAFFIC CONTROL & CONSTRUCTION
1
LS
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
2
1003 -3
CLEARING & GRUBBING
1
LS
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
31004-3
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
1521
CY
$15.00
$22,815.00
41005-3
UNCLASSIFIED FILL
246
CY
$10.00
$2,460.00
5A
1006 -3
6" PCC CURB & 18" GUTTER
980
LF
$12.00
$11,760.00
5B
1006 -3
8" PCC CURB & 24" GUTTER
702
LF
$16.00
$11,232.00
61007-3
PCC MEDIAN CURB & STAMPED
1131
LF
$15.00
$16,965.00
71008-3
PCC SAN & CROSS GUTTER, H/C RAMPS
12026
SF
$6.00
$72,156.00
8
1009 -3
ROAD BASE (PMB)
665
CY
$55.00
$36,575.00
91010-3
ASPHALT CONCRETE
700
TON
$65.00
$45,500.00
101011-3
CATCH BASIN
3
EA
$4,000.00
$12,000.00
11
1012 -3
18" DRAIN RCP (3000 D -LOAD)
75
LF
$60.00
$4,500.00
12
1013 -3
24" DRAIN RCP (2000 D -LOAD)
22
LF
$120.00
$2,640.00
13(A)
1014 -3
1 1/2" STREET LIGHT CONDUIT
1212
LF
$8.00
$9,696.00
13(B)
1014 -3
2" CONDUITS
20
LF
$10.00
$200.00
13(C)
1014 -3
3" CONDUITS
759
LF
$13.00
$9,867.00
13(D)
1014 -3
4" CONDUITS
1641
LF
$15.00
$24,615.00
13(E)
1014 -3
5" CONDUITS
145
LF
$20.00
$2,900.00
141015-3
MISC. FACILITIES
1
LS
$44,000.00
$44,000.00
151016-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
1
LS
$160,000.00
$160,000.00
16
1017 -3
SIGNING & STRIPING
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
17
RELEASE
1
LS
$1.00
$1.00
181018-3
6" PVC
135
LF
$30.00
$4,050.00
191019-3
BUS TURNOUT
32
CY
$400.00
$12,800.00
6b
Addendum N
STAMPED CONCRETE CAMPUS PARK
3200
SF
$0.00
$0.00
Bid List
Total
$556,732.00
Total Bid Amount
$556,732.00
I
TI)
x
9
Nativ Engineering, Inc.
SULLY- MILLER
C.A. Rasmussen, Inc.
7003 Owensmouth Avenue
3555 E Vineyard Ave
2360 Shasta Way
Canoga Park, CA 91304
Oxnard, CA 93036 -1091
Simi Valley, CA 93065 -1800
US
US
US
Unit Price
Item Total
Unit Price
Item Total
Unit Price
Item Total
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$46,000.00
$46,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$28.00
$42,588.00
$21.00
$31,941.00
$15.00
$22,815.00
$20.00
$4,920.00
$11.50
$2,829.00
$20.00
1 $4,920.00
$10.00
$9,800.00
$19.00
$18,620.00
$8.00
$7,840.00
$12.00
$8,424.00
$17.00
$11,934.00
$9.00
$6,318.00
$18.00
$20,358.00
$26.00
$29,406.00
$17.00
$19,227.00
$3.00
$36,078.00
$3.50
$42,091.00
$4.00
$48,104.00
$30.00
$19,950.00
$27.50
$18,287.50
$33.00
$21,945.00
$67.00
$46,900.00
$46.25
$32,375.00
$60.00
$42,000.00
$4,000.00
$12,000.00
$6,425.00
$19,275.00
$5,800.00
$17,400.00
$200.00
$15,000.00
$61.00
$4,575.00
$50.00
$3,750.00
$220.00
$4,840.00
$117.00
$2,574.00
$75.00
$1,650.00
$35.00
$42,420.00
$6.25
$7,575.00
$6.00
$7,272.00
$36.00
$720.00
$7.15
$143.00
$7.00
$140.00
$37.00
$28,083.00
$11.20
$8,500.80
$11.00
$8,349.00
$38.00
$62,358.00
$34.30
$56,286.30
$40.00
$65,640.00
$39.00
$5,655.00
$58.40
$8,468.00
$65.00
$9,425.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$44,200.00
$44,200.00
$79,000.00
$79,000.00
$90,000.00
$90,000.00
$105,000.00
$105,000.00
$96,600.00
$96,600.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$7,550.00
$7,550.00
$7,000.00
$7,000.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$118.00
$15,930.00
$55.00
$7,425.00
$50.00
$6,750.00
$120.001
$3,840.00
$250.00
$8,000.00
$250.00
$8,00.00
$5.00
$16,000.00
$5.90
$18,880.00
$8.00
$25,6600.00
$539,865.00
$546,936.60
$549,746.00
$539,865.00
$546,936.60
$549,746.00
Mendez Concrete
Berry General Engineering
Nye & Nelson
1210 E Santa Paula St
Santa Paula, CA 93060 -2237
us
PO Box 1457
Ventura, CA 93002
us
1860 Eastman Ave #108
Ventura, CA 94004
us
Unit Price
Item Total
Unit Price
Item Total
Unit Price
Item Total
$9,500.00
$9,500.00
$16,925.00
$16,925.00
$13,320.00
$13,320.00
$6,749.00
$6,749.00
$41,002.00
$41,002.00
$63,118.00
$63,118.00
$12.00
$18,252.00
$18.95
$28,822.95
$14.53
$22,100.13
$10.70
$2,632.20
$34.10
$8,388.60
$12.00
$2,952.00
$13.20
$12,936.00
$11.30
$11,074.00
$15.13
$14,827.40
$14.10
$9,898.20
$14.80
$10,389.60
$20.01
$14,047.02
$18.80
$21,262.80
$17.60
$19,905.60
$15.66
$17,711.46
$6.60
$79,371.60
$4.10
$49,306.60
$4.57
$54,958.82
$45.40
$30,191.00
$30.55
$20,315.75
$51.91
$34,520.15
$72.50
$50,750.00
$51.95
$36,365.00
$73.74
$51,618.00
$3,986.00
$11,958.00
$5,440.00
$16,320.00
$6,427.30
$19,281.90
$71.20
$5,340.00
$98.10
$7,357.50
$50.60
$3,795.00
$80.70
$1,775.40
$110.00
$2,420.00
$81.40
$1,790.80
$6.70
$8,120.40
$6.20
$7,514.40
$26.95
$32,663.40
$7.70
$154.00
$7.10
$142.00
$27.23
$544.60
$12.00
$9,108.00
$11.10
$8,424.90
$27.50
$20,872.50
$36.80
$60,388.80
$34.00
$55,794.00
$28.60
$46,932.60
$62.70
$9,091.50
$57.90
$8,395.50
$29.70
$4,306.50
$51,861.00
$51,861.00
$68,721.00
$68,721.00
$58,359.60
$58,359.60
$97,900.00
$97,900.00
$105,275.00
$105,275.00
$71,940.00
$71,940.00
$10,620.00
$10,620.00
$7,205.00
$7,205.00
$7,548.20
$7,548.20
$1.001
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$66.40
$8,964.00
$92.65
$12,507.75
$55.00
$7,425.00
$305.70
$9,782.40
$204.00
$6,528.00
$272.15
$8,708.80
$9.40
$30,080.00
$6.00
$19,200.00
$5.351
$17,120.00
$556,687.30
$568,3011.151
1
$590,462.88
$556,687.301
$568,301.15
$590,462.88
A
Silvia Construction Co.
Olivas Valdez Inc.
Lee Construction Company
9007 Center Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 -5311
us
846 N Charter Dr
Covina, CA 91724 -2620
US
PO Box 940909
Simi Valley, CA 93094 -0909
us
Unit Price
Item Total
Unit Price
Item Total
Unit Price
Item Total
$69,000.00
$69,000.00
$9,000.00
$9,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$39,000.00
$39,000.00
$35,000.00
$35,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$19.30
$29,355.30
$45.00
$68,445.00
$50.00
$76,050.00
$24.00
$5,904.00
$48.00
$11,808.00
$50.00
$12,300.00
$13.00
$12,740.00
$21.00
$20,580.00
$12.50
$12,250.00
$14.50
$10,179.00
$25.00
$17,550.00
$15.00
$10,530.00
$42.40
$47,954.40
$24.00
$27,144.00
$11.00
$12,441.00
$4.04
$48,585.04
$5.40
$64,940.40
$4.25
$51,110.50
$29.30
$19,484.50
$42.00
$27,930.00
$50.00
$33,250.00
$54.00
$37,800.00
$66.00
$46,200.00
$60.00
$42,000.00
$5,500.00
$16,500.00
$6,000.00
$18,000.00
$7,000.00
$21,000.00
$149.00
$11,175.00
$125.00
$9,375.00
$125.00
$9,375.00
$198.00
$4,356.00
$140.00
$3,080.00
$400.00
$8,800.00
$8.80
$10,665.60
$8.65
$10,483.80
$9.00
$10,908.00
$22.00
$440.00
$21.60
$432.00
$23.00
$460.00
$22.00
$16,698.00
$21.60
$16,394.40
$23.00
$17,457.00
$27.50
$45,127.50
$27.00
$44,307.00
$28.75
$47,178.75
$36.30
$5,263.50
$35.65
$5,169.25
$38.00
$5,510.00
$28,000.00
$28,000.00
$70,000.00
$70,000.00
$82,655.00
$82,655.00
$112,000.00
$112,000.00
$110,000.00
$110,000.00
$116,957.00
$116,957.00
$9,900.00
$9,900.00
$9,700.00
$9,700.00
$10,235.00
$10,235.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$105.00
$14,175.00
$120.00
$16,200.00
$100.00
$13,500.00
$232.00
$7,424.00
$330.00
$10,560.00
$240.00
$7,680.00
$8.70
$27,840.001
$6.00
$19,200.00
$6.25
$20,000.00
$629,567.841
$671,499.85
$721,648.25
$629,567.841
$671,499.85
$721,648.25
Exhibit 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FY
02/03 BUDGET TO REVISE THE AMOUNTS OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGET FOR PROJECT 8037:
FLINN AVENUE REALIGNMENT [L. A. AVE. AOC FUND
(FUND 2501); MRA AREA 1 OPERATIONS FUND (FUND
2902); GAS TAX FUND (FUND 2605) AND TDA
ARTICLE 3 FUND (FUND 2602)]
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2002, the City Council adopted the Budget
for Fiscal Year 2002/03; and
WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the City
Council requesting a budget decrease in the aggregate amount of
$ (41, 654) ; and
WHEREAS, said staff report discusses certain fund transfers
approved last fiscal year and the need to adjust same; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof,
describes said budget amendment and its resultant impacts to the
budget line item(s).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That a Budget amendment in the aggregate decrease
of $(41,654), as more particularly described in Exhibit "A ", is
hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed
in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2003.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
Attachment:
Exhibit 'A': Appropriation and Budget Detail
,. m: l* `,1:
Resolution No. 2003 -
Exhibit "A"
Revised Appropriations & Budget
For Project 8037: Flinn Avenue Realignment
A_ Fund Allocation
B. FY 02/03 Budget Re -Cap
......... ---- ......................... --...................._....................__............._..--_....................__...
....................._......_.. - ......
,.................................................. _1...___ .......... .....
Current;
Subject:
Revise
FY 02/031
Appropriation!
FY 02/03
Account Number
Budget!
/ (Reduction);
Budget
2501.8310.8037.xxxx
-
.........�...... ;...._....;.
$ 394 047;
$ (43,942);
.........,.
$
--- ........................
350,105
- - -- _._.......
-- ..................... --..............._..__..............---..................---._....................----...._.......
2602.8310.8037.xxxx
...............................
-------._....................................... _._;.-----
$ 0
..............._...-- _........ - ............__............ --
$ 30,230:
$
---.__.................
30,230
...............................
---- ........................ ---... ..............--- ._............ ............... --..._............. .----
2605.8310.8037.xxxx
...................._.....
_.. ......................
$ 0
--_-........... ._._..............--- .......... --.. ..........__.r._...............
$ 16,000'::•
$
16,000
...............................
. . .....................---._..............---........._....----............ ......_._..._..................
2902.8310.8037.xxxx
..._............ ...................:......_....
--- - - - - -- ............................ ...,...----
$ 394,047;
._._................ _..._..........__._........... ---....;.........---....................................
$ 43,942);
$
350,105
- -- ...................--.---.................---...............---................._.__.....................---._....
_ ..............................---_-.._............_...__.................__..................---......................---.................
............................... --
....._.------- ..._.............
;- _., .............................._
..............._.__................._._..
$........_7 8 8, 0 94 . .
__
$ (.4..1 ....6 5 4...)._._............
_ _$........7.4._6_
- .._4._4._0...
C. Total Appropriations
Re-Cap
--..... ........__.....................
-----..............................._...._.-
......... -----._ ........................__...._ ............. ---..............--- ................ __........................---_....
......................_......-
--.........._............................... _........._.. ----...........................__._...........
Revised'
._.__..........................
FY 02/03: Years:
Total
Account Number
Budget! Expenditures;
A
ro riations
2501.8310.8037.xxxx
_$
350,105'
$ 19,805; ...............
$
--- ._...........................
369,910
-- ...._................
... ....................__. __....................__.... .............--- ............... __.................... _._ .... _..................
2602.8310.8037.xxxx
_. -__ -..........................
$
..................-- ..... - - - - -- ._..... ...........................
30,230
- - -- ............. .....-- _...........__._...,.... -- ...........
$
30,230
- -. - --
.......
260.5.8310 .8037 .xxxx ................
y- $
_ ..................... ...............................---_....._................-_-_...............---......._.__...
16, 000
........... __ ................
-- ............
_ ................. ........
$
- --
-
16, 000
........................... ...............................
.............. ...... .......... ---._..............---................._ .......... ..._..._.__................. -
2902.8310.8037.xxxx
-- ........................;..------._........................................................-----._...._.......................----..................__..............
$
350,105;
__............._...............
$ 19,805
$
369,910
..__ ............................----......................__._................._.- ................. _._.........................._...........................---v.............._.........
$.........
7. 4_ 6_ r...._ 4._ 4._ 0 .. ........................__._._.
....._..............._.__......
$ 3 9 , 610
$.._.__7._8._6_r_...
5
D. Distribution of
Appropriations
to Expense
Accounts
.. .... _ ...........................__ ... _ ............... _.._._ .................. __ ................. ..._ .......................... _ ..............................
_.__ ........ ................
............................... .. ..... _ ........................................
Current;
:.........._._......................._...................__..............._ ............... _._.....,..........._._...................................
Subject:
..... ...........................
Revised
FY 02/03:
Appropriation;
FY 02/03
Account Number
Budget....;._
/ (Reduction)
Bind et
2501.8310.8037.9601:
__........_........_.........._
Design
$ 11,195;
$ 1,750
$
12,945
- -- -- - - - --
-- ................... ............._---................
2902.8310.8037.9601:
.._.--- ........................
Design
-----
$ 11,195
r- .................. --- ..........._.. --......... ..__............__.............
$ 1,750
-- ...............
$
--- - - -
12,945
---------._ ......................----- ............---- ............ - -- ................----................ ..---
._._...................._. _
$ 22,390:
- -- .............� .:................
$ 3,500:
$
25,890
- ---- .................... - . .. ........ .......... ---............... . - . . . ............. ..-- . .... .................---._._........
2602.8310.8037.9640:
........................._.....
Const
-----...._.................. ........................ ____-
$ 0_
-.. . ............... . ... -- ............ _. . ... ..... . .... -- ..... ..... .-- . ...........
$ 30,230:
.._- .. ..........
$
------- - - - - ---
30,230
- - - -- ................... -- . _............--- ............... - ................
2605.8310.8037.9640:
- - - -.. .................... - - -
Const
- -- ._................... ............................... ----._...._...._....................---................---..........._._..............__...............__...................._.----.._......_..
$ 0
$ 16,000:
$
............_......._..........
16,000
.. .
2501. 8310...8 - 037... 9640 -
_
Const
- --..._..._ .............................
$ 347, 852
......._.__._.................. ................__...........__._............__......,......._.__._.................................
$ (45, 692)
$
...............................
302, 160
- - - -- ..................... ................ -- ............... .................----..........._......---._.........
2902.8310.8037.9650:
............................_..
Const
----....__................................. ...._._.__�._..................
; $ 347,852
_._......... -- ............
$ (45,692)
_.......................
$
- -- ... - --
302,160
- ---._ .......................---.._..............---..............---._...............---.......................---._....
................_.._-----
.;_.__
$ 695,704:
__. ;_.............
$ (45,154);
$
650,550
2501.8310.8037.9650:
Ins
A $ 35,000:
$ 0
$ 35,000
2902.8310.8037.9650:
Ins p.
$ 35,0001
$ 0
$
35,000
................ ----- ............... - -- ............. ._...........__.... .._.........---- ............... ---- ....................... _ .... ----
- .. - - - --
.......................---- .................. --- .............. ----...........__................._...__................----. _._....................... - - - -- ..
$ 70,195 $ 0 $ 70, 000
Total Project $ 788, 094: $ (41, 654) $ 746, 440
.............. .. .-----.......................---...............--- ................ __................---...................._ _.......................... - - -- --........ ............................... ------. ..........................;.... .................. - ._........._.__............_...._..........._..._. ....._...__._.................. - -- -- ...__..................:
Approved as to form:
ITEM_" 1o. G.
e- r 3 2c
Moorpark City Council
Agenda Report
To: The Honorable City Council
From: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
Date: April 29, 2003 (Council Meeting 5- 07 -03)
Subject: Consider Resolution Amending FY2002/2003 Budget for the
2003 Asphalt Overlay Project [Project 80111 and Approval
of the Award of a Contract for the Construction of Said
Project
DISCUSSION
A. Project Scope
Attached as Exhibit 1, is a set of maps showing the location
of the streets included in the subject asphalt overlay
project. A list of those streets is attached as Exhibit 2
(Pg. 3) .
The project requirements include:
• R & R pavement and base in selected areas;
• Grinding;
• install reinforcing fabric;
• construct asphalt overlay;
• adjust manholes (etc.) to grade;
• restripe as necessary;
• replacement of Signal loop detectors; and
• crack sealing of certain street segments in lieu of R &R or
AC Overlay.
B. Tierra Rejada Road
As mentioned in the report accompanying City Council approval
of the project design, the pavement problems along the "seam
lines" on Tierra Rejada Road will be addressed with a
combination of crack sealing and pavement ( & Base) removal
and replacement. This design approach was selected as a cost
control measure.
Ac overlay 2003 awd 0 00148
Asphalt Overlay 2003: Advertise
April 29, 2003
Page 2
C. Slurry Seal Project
It is anticipated that on May 21, 2003, the City Council will
consider approval of the award of a contract for the 2003
Slurry Seal Project. Attached as Exhibit 2 are maps and
charts showing and listing the streets to be resurfaced by
both that Slurry Seal project and the subject AC Overlay
project. The contract documents require the Slurry Seal
contractor and the AC Overlay contractor to coordinate and
cooperate.
D. Bid Results
Bids for the subject project were received and opened on
April 28. The apparent low bidder is Ruiz Engineering
Company, with a bid of $1,199,219.69. A summary of the bid
results is attached as Exhibit 3.
It has been determined that the apparent low bidder is
qualified to perform the work. Said bidder has confirmed that
their bid is valid and that they are prepared to proceed with
the construction of the project.
E. Fiscal Impact
1. Total Project Cost: The estimated total project cost is
summarized as follows:
Element
Design
Construction
Constr Contingency (10 %)
Inspection
Total
-----_._ .............. ........................._... -- --......... .............--- ..._........._.
Amount
97,000
1,199,220
119,922
100.000
1,516,142
2. Current Budget Summary: The subject project is currently
funded by the Local Transportation Fund {TDA Article 31
[Fund 2603]. A summary of the current budget for the
project [2603.8310.8011.xxxx] is as follows:
Ac Overlay 2003_awd 000149
Prior Year
FY 02/03
Total
Description
Expenses ($)
Budget
Budget
Fund 2603 - LTF
Design
28,698
58,302
87,000
Construction
1,678,600
1,678,600
Inspection
-
50.701
50,701
Total
28,698
1,787,603
1,816,301
Ac Overlay 2003_awd 000149
Asphalt Overlay 2003: Advertise
April 29, 2003
Page 3
3. Congestion Relief Fund [AB2928] : In an action taken by the
City Council last March, the AB2928 funding for this
project was deleted. That action was based on an
understanding by staff that those funds had been eliminated
by recent State Budget cuts. Since that date staff has
learned that there is $144,472 (from last fiscal year and
the current fiscal year) available for the subject project.
Apparently the State Budget cuts only affected future
years' revenues. It is recommended, therefore, that the
Budget be amended to again reflect partial project funding
from this source.
4. Budget Amendment: It is recommended that the Fund 2603
appropriations be reduced to reflect the above grant
funding and the actual bid price. A Resolution for this
purpose is attached and is summarized as follows:
2610 - Congestion Relief
Construction
Total Budget
Plus Prior Years Design Costs
............... -- _ .................... -- ._....................._Total Project
- 144.472 144.472
1,787,603 (200,000) 1,587,603
28,698
1,616,301
Note: ** It is recommended that a portion of the surplus
appropriation approved in March 2003, remain
allocated to this project. Upon completion of the
project, all unexpended appropriations will be
returned to Fund 2603.
5. Fund Balances: Based on the above described Budget
adjustment, the projected FY 02/03 Year -End Fund Balances
for the Gas Tax Fund [Fund 2605] and the Local
Transportation Fund {TDA Article 81 [Fund 2603] are
summarized as follows:
--- ..._- ................................... _..__----- ....................................... _._._-._.- .................. --_ ................ -_ ............. - .............. -- ........... -- ....... ............... _.. --
2605: Gas
Description Tax Fund ($) 2603: LTF ($)
Current Unappropriated Fund Balance [6/30/03] 1,022,319 359,661
Plus Above Appropriation Crdit 344,472
Total 1,022,319 704,133 **
Ac Overlay 2003 awd
000150
.._ . ..............
Current
_._ ......... --- ............. _ ................ -__ .................................
- - -- ._....._..,
Revised'
'Description
Budget W
Change ($)
Budget
Fund 2603 - LTF
Design
58,302
38,698
97,000
Construction + 10% Cont.
1,642,361
(467,691)
1,174,670
Plus Additional Project Contingency **
-
71,461
71,461
Inspection
86.940
13,060
100.000
Sub -Total
1,787,603
(344,472)
1,443,131
2610 - Congestion Relief
Construction
Total Budget
Plus Prior Years Design Costs
............... -- _ .................... -- ._....................._Total Project
- 144.472 144.472
1,787,603 (200,000) 1,587,603
28,698
1,616,301
Note: ** It is recommended that a portion of the surplus
appropriation approved in March 2003, remain
allocated to this project. Upon completion of the
project, all unexpended appropriations will be
returned to Fund 2603.
5. Fund Balances: Based on the above described Budget
adjustment, the projected FY 02/03 Year -End Fund Balances
for the Gas Tax Fund [Fund 2605] and the Local
Transportation Fund {TDA Article 81 [Fund 2603] are
summarized as follows:
--- ..._- ................................... _..__----- ....................................... _._._-._.- .................. --_ ................ -_ ............. - .............. -- ........... -- ....... ............... _.. --
2605: Gas
Description Tax Fund ($) 2603: LTF ($)
Current Unappropriated Fund Balance [6/30/03] 1,022,319 359,661
Plus Above Appropriation Crdit 344,472
Total 1,022,319 704,133 **
Ac Overlay 2003 awd
000150
Asphalt Overlay 2003: Advertise
April 29, 2003
Page 4
Notes: * $1,645,261 less $1,285,600 appropriated in March 2003
for the AC Overlay Project [Project 80111.
** It is anticipated that the 2003 Slurry Seal project
will have a surplus of approximately $200,000 which
will be released to the Fund 2603 unappropriated Fund
Balance at the end of FY03 /04.
F. Inspection
Contract Administration and Inspection Services will be
provided by Engineering Division.
G. Schedule
It is anticipated that the project will be under construction
in June and be completed in September.
H. Administrative Actions
If the recommended action is taken by the City Council,
certain administrative actions will be undertaken by staff,
including the following:
• A contract agreement will be forwarded to Ruiz Engineering
Company, Inc., for the construction of the subject
project, for the contract price of $1,199,219.69.
• When all of the contract documents are in order, the
agreement will be executed by the City Manager.
• A construction contingency of $119,922 (100) will be set
aside for the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (Roll Call Vote)
Adopt the attached Resolution and approve the award of a
construction contract to Ruiz Engineering Company for the
construction of the project.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
AC Overlay Map
Slurry Seal & AC Overlay Maps and Lists
Bid Results
Resolution
Ac Overlay 2003_awd 000:151
i
DV
CITY OF MOORPARK
1ii
r
C T. °
u, N
�FEn
2AL B R a
LLOWaGIf
CT.
BUTTER�
MEAOCW
C` a. AV CHAPARRAL
NA a MIDDLE
1 w AV `y SCHOOL
JAVL_ le
Z HEKT. la =II W �L '°Avrti S S E LASS[ N
J = a �j a ? W AVE.
�raL�r�NrE� r./ -
CCNHfPCE' zll ?E S.. 1
�' °�= 'E'ER` _�� A
W
al E'' zl i < EVEREST
= z AVE.
AVE LOS ANGELES a
I vIGH?7tiGA E��- -1
of z
(X �I ni x
cv o > i ST.
a a
a = u N � AVc
2I J J I Z
aI~ --- - m .
l �
a z > :
LNN > W AWE. a
C `%I a` I0" Z a N –
Z
Z
> U
I� lJ =� lu a�C
J u Wm TT - -
2EEK
ARVES'ER " _ - - - -
iii -
fcv GLE^+vM
1 COTTONT ; PARK-
RD.
2 COURTNEY L.OMMUNI
LN. _- - VIST I,CR SENT M A
�(,Y� �2 GEDaR MEADOW
- W
- DR
1 FL RCREEK DR. t� 4
ATHEROALE CT. O MOORPARK
3 CLEARWOOD H.S.
3
MANORVIEV
DR.
DR. VlE
M1 Rey a
1 �
C
' WE
R
–� 1 HAVENR'DGE C C
G�
�9
(y�J/
MAILER""
CT.
n
'o
po ;
I
A
\ T1E yrS� `l
J '
1791 !L r.-lfv �_
c S T. —
6 ERRYBR 1
C T. Z
qL a.
REST :av�N1
3
4
S
IEER MEADOW ST.
ERRACE MEADOW CT.
LNRISE MEADOW CT.
I >,.:
D9_u
I
a
ST
1
rL
ui 00153
Pvr �f_aS — �+__✓'^ Nom« «v evE I��2
t EI'Cti
�- -+AVE.
Ru'h AVE
Z I
I C ?r
-!
—`SSA ,, � AVE
�� i f ��`Nh l .
ASSEN
AVE I iVQ i'�P u, > / AV 3 n
R *S AVE
Avy; .
� RCBE
�
a I, I .
> ELC�a •� ,
1, SFc RNAN P a/�
t NEW
ji <HWY. lib) I `,, AVE.
FA
_�JJJ777/ �t
i (3)
64W
S�
4
a
1 YN£ATON CT
2 L13YOLA PL.,
�E.
A
I ;rS ( /moo
2 9 R' cF � SPCE E CT /�� 5
J� 6.1 °� 1
MOORPARK COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
,2
32D ERAGAN 'CT
N
0001.55
N
'0-
r
-4t,
w
Ln
"I Yir
IF -04
I„
i
l�
=�
QI ��
k
I
.-
+—
y _!C'.._ �► " LEGEND
Slurry Seal
• rk .1 r ....... AC Overlay
_,. , � � � `y� �" • ♦ SY 11 c j
CITY
OF MOORPARK
Exhibit 2 [Page 2]
List of Slurry Seal Streets
Street Name
Alderbook St.
Amhurst St.
Annette St.
Arborhill St.
Ashtree St.
Aspen Tree St.
Auburn Ave.
Baylor Cir.
Bear Valley Rd.
Bending Oak Ct.
Berkeley Ct.
Berkley Cir.
Berrybrook Ct.
Bitner Pl.
Blacksmith Ct.
Blossomwood Ct.
Borges Ct.
Braun Ct.
Brookhurst Ct.
Bubbling Brook St.
Cambridge St.
Camden Ct.
Canyonlands Rd.
Cedar Branch Ct.
Chesterfield Dr.
Chestnut Ridge St.
Clavelle Ave.
Clavelle Ct.
Clemson St.
College Heights Dr.
Columbia Ave.
Commerce Ave.
Condor Dr.
Conejo Mesa St.
Coralcrest ct.
Cornell Cir.
Creighton Cir.
Dartmouth Cir.
Delfen St.
Doris Ct.
Dracena Ave.
Flowerwood Ct.
Freshman Ct.
Graduate Cir.
Grand Isle Rd.
Grandsen Ct.
Portion
o11 •I
Street Name
Griffith Lane
Gunsmoke Rd.
Hartford St.
Harvard St.
Hastings St.
Havencrest St.
Hearon Dr.
Hillshire Ct.
Honeybee St.
Honeybrook Ct.
Huntercrest Ct.
Inglewood St.
Kernvale Ave.
Lafayette Ct.
Laurelhurst Rd.
Linville Ct.
Loyola St.
Mahan Ct.
Mallory Ct.
Maplecrest St.
Marquette St.
Melray St.
Mill Valley Rd.
Millerton Dr.
Milne Cir.
Overly St.
Oxford Cir.
Painted Sky St.
Pepperdine Cir.
Pheasant Run St.
Pine Ridge Ct.
Purdue St.
Quailwood St.
Rains Ct.
Rivergrove Ct.
Rivergrove St.
Rolling Knoll Rd.
Rutger Cir.
Seitz Ct.
Shakespeare PI.
Silver Creek St.
Silvercrest St.
Skidmore Ct.
Skylark Ct.
Sleepy Wind St.
Sophomore Ct.
portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Street Name
Sosna Ct.
Stanford St.
Stanley Ct.
Sugar Maple Ct.
Swift Pl.
Thionet PI.
Thomasville Ct.
Timerview Ct.
Trollope Ct.
Tulane Ave.
University Dr.
Vassar Cir.
View Mesa St.
Westport St.
Westwood St.
Wildwest Cir.
Winterwood Ct.
Yale Ave.
Exhibit 2 [Page 3]
List of AC Overlay Streets
Street Name
Adlena PI.
Amberwick Lane
Avedon Rd.
Beragan St.
Brookdale Lane
Butter Creek Rd.
Butterfield Lane
Campus Park Dr.
Portion
Clearcreek Ct.
Cloverdale St.
Coralberry Ct.
Cottontail Rd.
Daisy Ct.
Deepwell Lane
Duke Street
Fairbrook Lane
Fern Valley Ct.
Fireside Lane
Gabbert Rd.
Portion
Havencrest St.
Portion
Heatherglen Ct.
Hollyglen Ct.
Hunters Grove Ct.
Isle Royale
Kernvale Ave.
Portion
Kimerwick Lane
Lantern Lane
Laurelhurst Rd.
Portion
Maplecrest St.
Portion
McBeth Ct.
Meadow Ct.
Meadow St.
Mesa Verde Dr.
Mistygrove St.
Portion
Mt. Trail St.
Portion
Pepper Mill St.
Poppyglen Ct.
Quail Summit Rd.
Rand Street
Robinwood Lane
Rolling Knoll Rd.
Talmade Rd.
Portion
Street Name
Tierra Rejada Rd.
Vista Del Valle Dr.
Vista Lavana Dr.
Vistapark Dr.
Westgate Rd.
Wildflower Ct.
Willowwood Ct.
Woodglen Dr.
�` if
2003 Overlay
Bid Opening: 04/28/03
Engineer's Estimate
marks an allowance
20030 erla Project
Item #
Item Code
Item Description
Quantity
Unit of Measure
Unit Price
Item Total
1
MOBILIZATION
1
LS
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
1
LS
$37,000.00
$37,000.00
3
PUBLIC NOTICE
1
LS
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
4
GRIND EXISITING A.C. 5'X 2"
337480
SF
$0.40
$134,992.00
5
IGRIND EXISITING A.C. 2" DEEP PER SEC.
53129
SF
$0.40
$21,251.60
6
IGRIND EXISITING A.C. 2" DEEP (CAMPUS
10456
SF
$0.45
$4,705.20
7
JADJUST MANHOLE COVER TO GRADE
146
EA
$500.00
$73,000.00
8
JADJUST SURVEY MONNUMENT TO
13
LS
$385.00
$5,005.00
9
ADJUST VALVE COVER TO GRADE
186
EA
$250.00
$46,500.00
10
BLUE HYDRANT MARKER
74
EA
$10.00
$740.00
11
PAVEMENT MARKERS TYPE D AND TYPE
40
EA
$8.00
$320.00
12
PAVEMENT MARKERS TYPE A AND TYPE
140
EA
$3.00
$420.00
13
PAVEMENT FABRIC
147580
SY
$1.00
$147,580.00
14
2" AC
16000
TON
$57.50
$920,000.00
15
3" AC
230
TON
$57.50
$13,225.00
16
5" AC
1209
TON
$57.50
$69,517.50
17
10" AC (GABBERT ROAD)
2421
TON
$57.50
$13,915.00
18
STOP LEGEND
251
EA
$132.00
$3,300.00
19
BIKE LANE, LEGEND, AND ARROW
1869
LF
$0.90
$1,682.10
20
CHANNELIZING LINE
796
LF
$0.70
$557.20
21
1 CROSSWALK AND LIMIT LINE 1399 LF
$1.30
$1,818.70
22
ONE LINE 2603 LF
$0.70
$1,822.10
23
LEFT EDGELINE A20B DETAIL 27 95 LF
$0.70
$66.50
24
MEDIAN ISLAND 128 LF
$0.70
$89.60
25
DOUBLE YELLOW A20A DETAIL 21 477 LF
$0.70
$333.90
26
SAWCUT EXISTING AC 6 EA
$10.00
$60.00
27
REMOVE EXISTING AC 16621 LF
$0.83
$13,795.43
28
J
REMOVE EXISTING AC ADDENDUM NO. 1 931 CY
$26.00
$24,206.00
29
REMOVE BASE MATERIAL 903 CY
$26.00
$23,478.00
30
PLACE 3" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE 135 CY
$42.00
$5,670.00
31
PLACE 5" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE 711 CY
$42.00
$29,862.00
32
TYPE IV TURN ARROW 11 EA
$90.00
$990.00
33
TYPE I ARROW 1 EA
$90.00
$90.00
34
REPLACE TRAFFIC LOOP DETECTOR 60 EA
$250.00
$15,000.00
35
CRACK SEALING 29800 LF
$0.60
$17,880.00
36
RELEASE 1 LS
$1.00
$1.00
Z Bid
List
Total
$1,648,873.83
Total
Bid
Amount
$1,648,873.83
N
Ruiz Engineering Company
1344 Temple Ave
Long Beach, CA 90804 -2423
US
SULLY - MILLER
3555 E Vineyard Ave
Oxnard, CA 93036 -1091
US
Berry General Engineering
PO Box 1457
Ventura, CA 93002
US
Unit Price
$70,942.00
$13,810.00
$9,950.00
$0.14
$0.16
$0.18
$210.00
$255.00
$175.00
$3.00
$3.00
$1.50
$0.70
$41.90
$46.70
$45.45
$57.95
$29.00
$0.26
$0.50
$1.25
$0.21
$1.00
$1.50
$0.35
$75.00
$0.10
$32.75
$31 .75
$31.50
$36.95
$35.00
> $50.00
$210.00
$0.55
$1.00
�
Item Total
$70,942.00
$13,810.00
$9,950.00
$47,247.20
$8,500.64
$1,882.08
$30,660.00
$3,315.00
$32,550.00
$222.00
$120.00
$210.00
$103,306.00
$670,400.00
$10,741.00
$54,949.05
$14,023.90
$725.00
$485.94
$398.00
$1,748.75
$546.63
$95.00
$192.00
$166.95
$450.00
$1,662.10
$30,490.25
$28,670.25
$5, 062.50
$26,271.45
$385.00
$50.00
$12,600.00
$16,390.00
$1.00
$1,199,219.69
$1,199,219.69
Unit Price
$85,000.00
$32,500.00
$2,400.00
$0.13
$0.30
$0.30
$220.00
$205.00
$225.00
$11.50
$5.75
$3.60
$0.95
$42.95
$88.00
$59.00
$59.00
$90.00
$0.33
$0.58
$1.10
$0.24
$0.42
$1.08
$0.22
$1.52
$0.95
$38.00
$38.00
$117.00
$61.00
$80.00
$64.00
$210.00
$0.28
$1.00
Item Total
$85,000.00
$32,500.00
$2,400.00
$43,872.40
$15,938.70
$3,136.80
$32,120.00
$2,665.00
$41,850.00
$851.00
$230.00
$504.00
$140,201.00
$687,200.00
$20,240.00
$71,331.00
$14,278.00
$2,250.00
$616.77
$461.68
$1,538.90
$624.72
$39.90
$138.24
$104.94
$9.12
$15,789.95
$35,378.00
$34,314.00
$15,795.00
$43,371.00
$880.00
$64.00
$12,600.00
$8,344.00
$1.00
$1,366,639.12
$1,366,639.12
Unit Price
$12,500.93
$20,300.00
$6,300.00
$0.14
$0.34
$0.46
$255.00
$240.00
$260.00
$12.00
$6.00
$3.75
$0.72
$45.30
$78.00
$80.00
$92.50
$93.50
$0.40
$0.60
$1.20
$0.25
$0.50
$1.20
$0.30
$1.60
$0'80
$58.20
$60.20
$62.00
$65.00
$83.00
$66.00
$215.00
$0.34
$1.00
Item Total
$12,500.93
$20,300.00
$6,300.00
$47,247.20
$18,063.86
$4,809.76
$$3,230.00
$3,120.00
$48,360.00
$888.00
$240.00
$525.00
$106,257.60
$724, 800.00
$17,940.00
$96,720.00
$22,385.00
$2,337.50
$747.60
$477.60
$1,678.80
$650.75
$47.50
$153.60
$143.10
$9.60
$13,296.80
$54,184.20
$54, 360.60
$8,370.00
$46,215.00
$913.00
$66.00
$12,900.00
$10,132.00
$1.00
$1,374,372.00
$1,374,372.00
N
Nye & Nelson
Silvia Construction Co.
1860 Eastman Ave #108
9007 Center Ave
Ventura, CA 94004
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 -5311
us
us
Unit Price
Item Total
Unit Price
Item Total
$52,000.00 $52,000.00
$81,000.00
$81,000.00
$36,160.00 $36,160.00
$65,000.00
$65,000.00
$8,729.00 $8,729.00
$7,300.00
$7,300.00
$0.15 $50,622.00
$0.12
$40,497.60
$0.30 $15,938.70
$0.17
$9,031.93
$0.30 $3,136.80
$0.41
$4,286.96
$220.00 $32,120.00
$225.00
$32,850.00
$205.00 $2,665.00
$209.00
$2,717.00
$225.00 $41,850.00
$230.00
$42,780.00,
$11.70 $865.80
$11.80
$873.20
$5.75
$230.00
$5.83
$233.20
$3.60
$504.00
$3.66
$512.40
$0.66
$97,402.80
$0.65
$95,927.00
$48.75
$780,000.00
$43.50
$696,000.00
$94.75
$21,792.50
$106.00
$24,380.00
$72.00
$87,048.00
$106.00
$128,154.00
$74.50
$18,029.00
$106.00
$25,652.00
$90.00
$2,250.00
$92.00
$2,300.00
$0.35
$654.15
$0.33
$616.77
$0.60
$477.60
$0.59
$469.64
$1.10
$1,538.90
$1.12
$1,566.88
$0.25
$650.75
$0.24
$624.72
$0.45
$42.75
$0.43
$40.85
$1.10
$140.80
$1.10
$140.80
$0.25
$119.25
$0.23
$109.71
$1.50
$9.00
$1.55
$9.30
$0.70
$11,634.70
$2.80
$46,538.80
$38.00
$35,378.00
$72.00
$67,032.00
$36.00
$32,508.00
$74.00
$66,822.00
$140.00
$18,900.00
$150.00
$20,250.00
$105.00
$74,655.00
$150.00
$106,650.00
$80.00
$880.00
$81.00
$891.00
$64.40
$64.40
$65.00
$65.00
$210.00
$12,600.00
$214.00
$12,840.00
$0.28
$8,344.00
$0.33
$9,834.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1,449,941.90
$1,593,997.76
$1,449,941.90
$1,593,997.76
w
r0.
Exhibit 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FY
2002/03 BUDGET TO REVISE THE AMOUNTS OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGET FOR PROJECT 8011:
ASPHALT OVERLAY PROJECT [TDA, ARTICLE 8 (LTF)
FUND (FUND 2603) AND CONGESTION RELIEF FUND
(FUND 2610)]
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2002, the City Council adopted the Budget
for Fiscal Year 2002/03; and
WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the City
Council requesting a budget decrease in the aggregate amount of
$200,000; and
WHEREAS, said staff report discusses certain fund transfers
approved last fiscal year and the need to adjust same; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof,
describes said budget amendment and its resultant impacts to the
budget line item(s).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That a Budget amendment in the aggregate decrease
of $200,000, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A ", is
hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed
in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
Attachment:
Exhibit 'A': Appropriation and Budget Detail
El l �r
Resolution No. 2003 -
Exhibit "A"
Revised Appropriations & Budget
For Project 8011: Asphalt Overlay Project
A. Fund Allocation
B. FY 02/03 Budget Re -Cap
C. Total Appropriations
Re -Cap
current
--_-._.........._............------ ................---................---_............---.................._-.-_......_.........._..---.----._......
........................- ______ ._._... �.................................----.......
Revised
............__.............. - --
--._........___............._.__._.................... ......-- ..-- ____.._............
FY 02/03
FY 02/03:
Prior Years;
Total;
:Account Number
Budget!
E�enditures
A ro riations
.... , ..............
2 6 0 3. 8 310.8 011. xxxx ............. -- _._..........._$_2_c._4
- ---- ..................... -- ............_.... - -._.. _ ............ _
-- -
4 3 c.._l._3.1....................
8._c.._6 9 8
_ $_ 1, 4 71, 8 2 9
2610.8310.8011.xxxx
:................ - - -- ._._..................... ._.............. ................__._.....................---... .................._--- ._.......
$ 144,472:
--- ._........_$........2
$ 0
.....__....
$ 144,472:
.......................--.-_-.....................-----.................__.................---.....................__........................__.;_..................._
$1 587 603'
r......._..........---'---._......... ...............................
--- ._..._...
$ 28 698:
---- ..._................... __.. r............__. _...........,.__............__.
__..........
$ 1,616,301
D. Distribution of Appropriations to Expense Accounts
Approved as to form:
current
subject
Revised
FY 02/03
;Appropriation
FY 02/03
:Account Number
..........:.............._._...
Budget_
/
(Reducta.on)
Bud et :
2603.8310.8011.9601:
_..__ .................. ......._.__._.................. --............._.-.................._..........................._........................__._._..............:......._$..............._........__...._......
Design
58,302
38,698
97,000
;2603 8310.8011.9640:
Const.
_..............................
$1,642,361
(396,4230)
.
$1,246,131
2 610 8 310.8 011.9 6 4._0....:.........
:............................----..........................__..... ..............._.........__._.. .. __..
-C o n s t....:......
0:
$
14 4 '....4.72............__$......
...........1.4.4..,_..4.7.2_..;
2603.8310.8011.9650:
........................._... -- .....................---...................._._...... ........._.__.................. -- ........................
.....'_.__$...._
Ins p.
............... _._._ ..............:..............._
$ 86 940;
$
..................._................._..............._._. ............._.__..............
13 060
-- ..................... ................_......._._.__:
$ 100 000;
,
$1, 787, 603
$
(200, 000)
$1, 587, 603
Approved as to form:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Honorable City Council
'A'C
Walter Brown, City Engineer LJV'�
Prepared By:Clara Magana, Assistant Engineer(.i
March 13, 2003
SUBJECT: Consider Bond
Parcel Map 5242
the Intersection
Rejada Road
BACKGROUND
(Meeting of May 7, 2003)
Reduction and Bond Exoneration for
(Moorpark Partners LLC) , Located at
of Mountain Trail Street and Tierra
Parcel Map No. 5242 is a two lot commercial development located
within the Mountain Meadows shopping center at the intersection
of Tierra Rejada Road and Mountain Trail Street. A vicinity map
has been attached for reference.
Parcel Map No. 5242 represents a land division of 1.56 acres
into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 is comprised of 1.09 acres and Parcel
2 is comprised of 0.47 acres.
DISCUSSION
The developer has requested reduction of the improvement
surety, Bond # 127307, in the amount of $36,837.00, and
exoneration of the grading security deposit in the amount of
$3,085.06. These sureties are on file with the City Clerk.
These sureties were required to guarantee construction of onsite
and offsite improvements. All work covered under these sureties
has been completed. Bond #127307, Performance and Payment Bond
should be reduced to 100, for a total of $3,684, and the Grading
Security Deposit in the amount of $3,085.06 should be exonerated
and the deposit returned.
Honorable City Council
May 07, 2003
Page 2
STAFF RECOD24ENDATION
1. Authorize the City Clerk to reduce surety #127307 to 100,
for a total of $3,684.
2. Authorize the City Clerk to exonerate Grading Security
Deposit in the amount of $3,085.06.
3. Authorize the City Clerk to fully exonerate surety #127307
for Parcel Map 5242 one year after this approval of the
reduction of surety bond, and upon written confirmation
from the City Engineer that no warranty work is required.
ATTACHMENT:
Vicinity Map
01166
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL ,._
AGENDA REPORT BY
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk 5
DATE: April 29, 2003 (CC Meeting of 5/7/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Rejection of Claim: Amanda Zopfi
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2003, the City received the above referenced claim for
damages. The claim was forwarded to the City's claims adjuster for
review.
DISCUSSION
The claim is for personal injury and damages from a vehicle
accident on October 15, 2002, at or near the intersection of Campus
Park Drive and Delfen Street. Generally, the claim states the
design, construction, and maintenance of the roadway constituted a
dangerous condition and that the failure to warn and adequately
place traffic devices in the construction area constituted a
dangerous condition of the roadway.
The City of Moorpark's claims adjuster has recommended that a
standard rejection letter be sent to the claimant. The City did
not have any construction activity occurring in the vicinity of the
accident area on October 15, 2002.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Reject the claim and direct staff to send a standard rejection
letter to the claimant.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
ITEM
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2003 (CC Meeting of 5/7/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Initiation of Amendment to California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) Contract
BACKGROUND
Staff has researched the City's existing contract with CalPERS and
has found that the City's current contract does not allow the City
to avail itself of what is commonly known as the "Golden
Handshake." This benefit is intended to be utilized by CalPERS
contracting agencies to encourage reduction of staffing levels when
needed due to impending curtailment of or change in the manner of
performing service. The provisions for the Golden Handshake are
contained in Section 20903 of the State Government Code (see
Attachment 1). The benefit currently offered by the Golden
Handshake is two years of additional service credit.
DISCUSSION
Section 20903(j) of the Government Code provides that an agency may
elect to be subject to the provision of this section by amendment
to its contract. Staff has already written to CalPERS requesting
the contract amendment documents (including resolution and
ordinance), and with the Council's concurrence, will schedule
consideration of the contract amendment, including required public
notice, following receipt of the contract amendment documents.
Following amendment of the CalPERS contract to allow the "Golden
Handshake ", further City Council action (adoption of a resolution)
would be required to "open the window period" to allow employees in
designated job classifications, departments, and /or other
organizational units, as identified in the resolution of the
Council, to receive the two years of additional service credit for
retirement within the designated time period of not less than 90
days nor more than 180 days.
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003 Regular Meeting
Page 2
STAFF RECOMDONDATION
Direct staff to schedule City Council consideration of adoption of
a CalPERS contract amendment consistent with the requirements of
Government Code Section 20903.
Attachment: Government Code Section 20903
DST c:\n\staffrpts \cc990303 PC PRC 000169
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 20903
20903. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, when the
governing body of a contracting agency determines that because of an
impending curtailment of, or change in the manner of performing
service, the best interests of the agency would be served, a local
member shall be eligible to receive additional service credit if the
following conditions exist:
(a) The member is employed in a job classification, department, or
other organizational unit designated by the governing body of the
contracting agency and retires within any period designated in and
subsequent to the effective date of the contract amendment, or any
additional period or periods designated in any subsequently adopted
resolution of the governing body of the contracting agency, provided
the period is not less than 9.0 days nor more than 180 days.
(b) The governing body transmits to the retirement fund an amount
determined by the board which is equal to the actuarial equivalent of
the difference between the allowance the member receives after the
receipt of service credit under this section and the amount he or she
would have received without that service credit. The transfer to
the retirement fund shall be made in a manner and time period
acceptable to the employer and the board.
(c) The governing body shall certify that it is electing to
exercise the provisions of this section, because of impending
mandatory transfers, demotions, and layoffs that constitute at least
1 percent of the job classification, department, or organizational
unit as designated by the governing board, resulting from the
curtailment of, or change in the manner of performing, its services.
(d) The governing body shall certify that it is its intention at
the time that this section is made operative that if any early
retirements are granted after receipt of service credit pursuant to
this section, that any vacancies thus created or at least one vacancy
in any position in any department or other organizational unit shall
remain permanently unfilled thereby resulting in an overall
reduction in the workforce of the department or organizational unit.
(e) The amount of additional service credit shall be two years
regardless of credited service.
(f) A governing body that elects to make the payment prescribed by
subdivision (b) shall make the payment with respect to all eligible
employees who retire during the specified period.
(g) This section shall not be applicable to any member otherwise
eligible if the member receives any unemployment insurance payments
during the specified period.
5/1/03 0 00110 0
(h) Any member who qualifies under this section, upon subsequent
reentry to this system shall forfeit the service credit acquired
under this section.
(i) This section shall not apply to any member who is not employed
by the contracting agency during the period designated in
subdivision (a) and who has less than five years of service credit.
(j) This section shall not apply to any contracting agency unless
and until the agency elects to be subject to the provision of this
section by amendment to its contract made in the manner prescribed
for approval of contracts, except an election among the employees is
not required, or, in the case of contracts made after January 1,
2000, by express provision in the contract making the contracting
agency subject to the provisions of this section.
Before adopting this provision, the governing body of a
contracting agency shall, with timely public notice, place the
consideration of this section on the agenda of a public meeting of
the governing body, at which time disclosure shall be made of the
additional employer contributions, and the funding therefor, and
members of the public shall be given the opportunity to be heard.
The matter shall not be placed on the agenda as a consent item. Only
after the public meeting may the governing body adopt this section.
The governing body shall also comply with the requirements of
Section 7507. The employer shall notify the board of the employer's
compliance with this subdivision at the time of the governing body's
application to adopt this section.
(k) The contracts of contracting agencies that adopted the
provisions of former Section 20903, prior to the repeal of that
section on January 1, 1999, shall remain in full force and effect in
accordance with their terms and the terms of this section.
Notwithstanding subdivision (j), those contracting agencies need not
amend their contracts or otherwise comply with the requirements of
subdivision (j) to be subject to this section. Without limiting the
foregoing, eligibility periods under subdivision (a) of former
Section 20903, designated by the governing body of a contracting
agency by resolution pursuant to the terms of its contract or
contract amendment, shall remain in effect in accordance with their
terms as if designated pursuant to this section.
(1) Notwithstanding Section 20790, an election to become subject
to this section shall not exclude an agency from the definition of
"employer" for purposes of Section 20790.
5/1/03 000111-e- 1„
TO:
FROM:
ITEM 10-K_
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL'
AGENDA REPORT
The Honorable City Council
John Hartnett, Recreation Manager a�A
Peggy Rothschild, Senior Center Coordinato
DATE: April 25, 2003 (CC Meeting of May 7, 2003)
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the
Submittal of a Ventura County Area Agency on Aging
Grant Application for Older Americans Act and Older
Californians Act Funds and Authorizing City Manager to
Sign All Related Agreements
DISCUSSION
The City Council is being asked to
(Attachment A) approving and authorizing
grant application to the Ventura County
(VCAAA) for an annual renewal of $6,700 i
Older Californians Act funds for the City
Program.
adopt a resolution
the submittal of a
Area Agency on Aging
n Older Americans and
of Moorpark Lifeline
The VCAAA has issued a Request for Proposals renewing previously
funded programs that assist aging in place within Ventura
County. To be eligible, agencies must be able to spend the funds
by the end of the next fiscal year (June 30, 2004) . These funds
are being awarded through the Older Americans Act Title III B.
The City of Moorpark Senior Center has participated in the
Lifeline Program since July 1991, providing public information,
intake, applications and devices to frail, low- income senior
citizens. The City has partnered with Simi Valley Hospital to
provide volunteers, equipment and support for at -risk elders. A
senior activates the Lifeline device by pressing a button. When
activated, the device places a call to the Hospital's emergency
room and a designated person responds to the call. By linking
frail seniors to the Lifeline Program, residents achieve a
greater sense of security, knowing they can immediately call for
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page 2
assistance if they experience an emergency while continuing to
live independently at home.
The grant money will be used to expand Moorpark Senior Center's
Lifeline Service by purchasing nine new Lifeline devices to lend
out to qualified Moorpark residents. These additional devices
will bring the City's total inventory to thirty -four.
The senior population continues to grow, increasing requests to
participate in the Lifeline Program. The addition of nine new
devices will have a very positive effect on the Moorpark arm of
the Lifeline Program.
Grant applications were due April 16, 2003 at 4:00 p.m., and
staff submitted applications for renewal of Lifeline Program
funding by that date. As a result, there was not sufficient time
to present the City Council with the necessary resolution. As
has been the case in the past, VCAAA has agreed to accept an
adopted resolution by the City after the application due date.
In the event the Council does not approve the proposed
resolution, staff will withdraw the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 2003-
Attachment: A - Resolution
Honorable City Council
May 7, 2003
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
ATTACHMENT A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A GRANT
APPLICATION REQUESTING MONIES FROM THE VENTURA
COUNTY AREA AGENCY ON AGING (VCAAA) FOR OLDER
AMERICANS ACT AND OLDER CALIFORNIANS ACT
FUNDING
WHEREAS, the City Council is dedicated to the support of
quality programs for older Americans in the City of Moorpark;
and
WHEREAS, participation in the Moorpark Senior Center
Lifeline Program continues to grow; and
WHEREAS, funds to purchase essential equipment for the
Senior Center Lifeline Program are available in the form of a
grant through the Ventura County Area Agency on Aging.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HERESY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and
authorizes the grant application through the Ventura County Area
Agency on Aging to secure funds for the Senior Center Lifeline
Program to purchase additional devices. Further, the City
Council hereby authorizes Steven Kueny, City Manager, to serve
as signatory for the City Council on all matters related to the
administration of this grant.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of the resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be
filed in the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 7TH day of May, 2003.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
ITEM
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: John Hartnett, Recreation Manager g %
Peggy Rothschild, Senior Center Coordinato
DATE: April 25, 2003 (CC Meeting of May 7, 2003)
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the
Submittal of a Ventura County Area Agency on Aging
Grant Application for Older Americans Act Title III B
Funds for Senior Center Support and Authorizing City
Manager to Sign All Related Agreements
DISCUSSION
The City Council is being asked to adopt a resolution
(Attachment A) approving and authorizing the submittal of a
grant application to the Ventura County Area Agency on Aging
(VCAAA) for $40,300 in Older Americans Act Title III B funds for
Senior Center Support.
The VCAAA has issued a Request for Proposals to Ventura County
senior centers to submit proposals for program funding. To be
eligible, senior center programs must have a target to maintain
or improve the well -being of persons age 60 and above, and funds
must be expended by the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2004) .
These funds are being awarded through the Older Americans Act
Title III B. Two grant proposals submitted by cities within the
County will be funded by the VCAAA and may be renewable for two
additional years.
If awarded, the proposed grant funds will be used to expand
Moorpark Senior Center's current programs, supporting activities
that emphasize creativity and exercise. Grant funds will be used
to provide services in four component areas: Creativity, Health
Screenings, Health Education, and Fitness. Proposed Creativity
Programs will feature a rotating series of art classes; Health
Screenings will be offered for carotid artery, peripheral artery
blockage, and bone density; Health Education materials will
include information on diet, cholesterol and stress reduction;
and Fitness Programs will include an introductory strength -
training class for older adults led by a certified instructor,
plus purchase of fitness - related equipment. These grant- funded
services will be available to persons age 60 and older and
offered free of charge.
Grant applications were due May 7, at 4:00 p.m., and staff
submitted applications for Senior Center Support funding by that
date. As a result, there was not sufficient time to present the
City Council with the necessary resolution. As has been the case
in the past, VCAAA has agreed to accept an adopted resolution by
the City after the application due date. In the event the
Council does not approve the proposed resolution, staff will
withdraw the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 2003-
Attachment: A - Resolution
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A GRANT
APPLICATION REQUESTING MONIES FROM THE VENTURA
COUNTY AREA AGENCY ON AGING (VCAAA) FOR OLDER
AMERICANS ACT TITLE III B FUNDING
WHEREAS, the City Council is dedicated to the support of
quality programs for older Americans in the City of Moorpark;
and
WHEREAS, participation at the Moorpark Senior Center
continues to grow; and
WHEREAS, funds to provide essential services and programs
for the Senior Center are available in the form of a grant
through the Ventura County Area Agency on Aging.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and
authorizes the grant application through the Ventura County Area
Agency on Aging to secure funds for Senior Center Support.
Further, the City Council hereby authorizes Steven Kueny, City
Manager, to serve as signatory for the City Council on all
matters related to the administration of this grant.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of the resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be
filed in the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
0 00 -0 . -t 7
ITEM 10 -M.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Honorable City Council
FROM:
Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manj
DATE:
April 23, 2003 (CC Meeting of 5/7/2003)
SUBJECT:
Consider the Setting of a Special Joint City
Council/
Planning Commission /Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting to Tour the North Park Specific Plan Project
Site (General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05,
Specific
Plan No. 2001 -01 and Zone Change No. 2001 -02
and the
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan Project Site
(General
Plan Amendment No. 1999 -01, Zone Change No.
1999 -01,
Specific Plan No. 1995 -02, Residential
Planned
Development No. 2002 -01, Tentative Tract
Map No.
5045) .
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
At the February 26, 2003 Special Joint Meeting of the City
Council and Planning Commission, a tour of the North Park
project site was requested. Staff has coordinated an
approximate two to three (2 -3) hour tour of the site on May 17,
2003, staring at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall. Transportation will be
provided for Councilmembers, Commissioners, staff, the press,
and members of the public. Staff is also recommending a stop to
view the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan site as part of the
tour.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to schedule a Special Joint City Council /Planning
Commission /Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to tour the
North Park Specific Plan project site and the Moorpark Highlands
Specific Plan project site for Saturday, May 17, 2003, to begin
at 9:00 AM at City Hall.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \030507 CC Setting of
Tour.doc
00011-t8