HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1985 0204 CC REG ITEM 12Ka
�1�IOORPAR�
ALBERT PRIETO
Mayor
JAMES D. WEAK
Mayor Pro Tern
THOMAS C. FERGUSON
Councilmember
DANNY A. WOOLARD
Councilmember
LETA YANCY•SUTTON
Councilmember
DORIS D. BANKUS
City Clerk
JOHN C. GEDNEY
City Treasurer
M E M O R A N D U M
ITEM -2z L,
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Niall Fritz Director of Community Development
DATE: February 4, 1985
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
City Attorney
NIALL FRITZ
Director of
Community
Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
SUBJECT: CONSULTANT CONTRACT TO PREPARE AN EIR AND PROVIDE STAFF
SERVICES FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE Z -2801/
TENTATIVE TRACT TR -3968/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
PD -1041 and PD -1042.
PROPOSED ACTION:
Enter into a contract with McClelland Engineering Inc., to prepare
an EIR for the subject project and provide staff services for the
processing of the subject entitlements. Griffin Development is
the applicant.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant is requesting the subject entitlements in order to
develop 472 single family homes, 200 apartments, one park site,
and one elementary school site on 254 acres adjacent and west of
Moorpark College.
The attached contract has been agreed to by McClelland Engineering,
the consultant. Exhibit A to the contract has been agreed to by
Griffin Development. All costs associated with the preparation
of this report and the contract staffing will be borne by the
applicant.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with McClelland Engineering
after the submission to the City of all required funds by Griffin
Development.
NF:mjr
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 �A05! 529- 686,=
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
February , 198 5 , between the CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City ", and McCLELLAND ENGINEERING, INC.
an
independent contractor, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR"
ARTICLE 1. TERM OF CONTRACT
Section 1.01. This agreement will become effective on
, 198 , and will continue until stipulated
services have been completed.
ARTICLE 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR
Specific Services
Section 2.01. Contractor agrees to perform the services
specified for General Plan Amendment and land use entitlements - for Griffin Developmen
in the "Proposal for Services" attached to this agreement and Company
designated as EXHIBIT "A ".
Method of Performinq Services
Section 2.02. Contractor will determine the method,
details and means of performing the above - described services.
Responsible Employee in Charge
Section 2.03. MEL WILLIS will serve as
the employee of Contractor principally responsible for execution
of the Contractor's obligations under this Agreement and shall serve
as principal liason between City and Contractor.
ARTICLE 3. COMPENSATION
Amount of Compensation
Section 3.01. As sole and complete consideration for the
services to be performed by Contractor, City agrees to pay Contractor
in accordance with EXHIBIT "A ". All costs are estimates not to be
exceeded.
Contractor's invoices to City shall include an itemization
of expenditures as required by City. The City shall not pay any fee
or reimburse any expense deemed by the Director of Community Develop-
ment, at his sole discretion, to be unnecessary to the completion of
the project in a competent and workmanlike manner.
Payment of Compensation
Section 3.02. Contractor shall submit to City a written
statement of services rendered in accordance with the following
payment schedule:
-- Upon distribution of the Draft EIR for public
review, 75% of actual costs incurred to date
-- Upon delivery to the City of the Screen Check
Final EIR, 75% of the outstanding costs to date
-- Upon certification of the Final EIR, all
remaining costs associated with the EIR
-- Within 30 days of final action on the entitle-
ment requests, all remaining costs associated
with processing the entitlements
City agrees to pay amount due to Contractor for services
within thirty (30) days following receipt of said statements of
services.
ARTICLE 4. OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR
Non - exclusive Representation
Section 4.01. Contractor agrees to devote the number of
hours necessary to perform the above - described services in a competent
and workmanlike manner. Contrctor may represent, perform services for,
and be employed by, such companies and governmental entities as Con-
tractor, in Contractor's sole discretion, sees fit, with the exception
of any firm or individual which has an approved permit or land use
entitlement from the City, has applied for such entitlement within
the past twelve (12) months, or has such application or entitlement
request pending, provided that such commitments entered into prior to
the effective date of this contract may be fulfilled.
Performance of On- Premises Services
Section 4.02. Contractor agrees to perform any of the
above - described services required to be performed on City's premises
during City's regular business hours, unless otherwise mutually agreed
by City and Contractor.
Leaal Responsibilities
Section 4.03. Contractor shall secure, pay for and
maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this agreement,
any City business license which the City of Moorpark may require for
the type of business activity Contractor will conduct hereunder. In
addition, Contractor shall keep himself informed of, and shall comply
with, all federal, state and local laws and regulations which in any
manner affect his performance under this agreement.
Assignment
Section 4.04. Neither this agrement nor any duties or
obligations under this agreement may be assigned by Contractor without
the prior written consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
Cooperation of Cit
Section 5.01. City agrees to comply with all reasonable
requests of Contractor relative to, and to provide access to all
documents reasonably necessary for, the performance of Contractor's
duties under this agreement.
Place of Work
Section 5.02. City agrees to furnish space on the premises
of City Hall for use by Contractor while performing any of the above -
described services required to be performed on City's premises.
ARTICLE 6. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
Termination Upon Notice
Section 6.01. The City may terminate this Agrement upon
giving a twenty -four (24) hour written notice and the Contractor may
terminate this Agreement upon giving thirty (30) days' written notice.
In the event of such termination, Contractor shall be entitled to
reimbursement for all fees and expenses incurred prior to the
effective date of such notice.
Termination Upon Assignment
Section 6.02. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this agreement, the agreement shall terminate automatically without
prior notice upon the assignment of the agreement by the Contractor
without the prior written consent of City.
ARTICLE 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Independent Contractor
Section 7.01. Contractor is and at all times shall remain
as to City a Wholly independent contractor. Contractor shall not, at
any time or in any manner, represent that he is an officer, employee
or agent of the City. Contractor shall comply with all applicable
provisions of the Workers' Compensation Insurance and Safety Acts and
Labor Code of the State of California.
Ownership of Documents
Section 7.02. Upon completion of any writing required to
be provided by Contractor in the course of performing any of the
above - described services, or upon sooner termination of this agreement,
all original documents prepared by Contractor shall become the sole
property of City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by
City without the permission of Contractor.
Hold Harmless
Section 7.03. Contractor agrees to indemnify, save,
keep and hold harmless City and all of its officers and employees
from all claims, actions, suits, damages, costs or expenses in law
or equity, including costs of suit and expenses for legal services,
that may at any time arise or be set up because of damage to property
or injury or death to persons received or suffered by reason of, or
arising out of, any act on the part of Contractor in regard to any
function or activity carried out by contractor on behalf of City pur-
suant to the terms of this agreement.
Notices
Section 7.04. Any notice to be given hereunder by either
party to the other shall be effected either by personal delivery in
writing, or by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt re-
quested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the City in care of
the City Manager, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
and to Contactor at 2140 Eastmen Avenue
Ventura, CA 93003 ;
however, each party may change the address by written notice in
accordance with this section. Notices delivered personally will be
deemed served as of actual receipt; mailed notices will be deemed
served as of the second (2nd) day after mailing.
Entire Agreement of the Parties
Section 7.05. This agreement supersedes any and all
agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with
respect to the rendering of services by Contractor to City and contains
all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to
the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. Each party
to this agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements,
promises, or agreements, oral or otherwise, have been made by any
party or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied
herein, and that no other agreement, statement, or promise not con-
tained in this agreement shall be valid or binding. Any modification
of this agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by
the party to be charged.
Governina Law
Section 7.06. This agreement shall be governed by and con-
strued in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
Attorney's Fees
Section 7.07. Should either party hereto institute any
action or proceeding of any nature whatsoever in a court of law,
equity, or otherwise to enforce any provision of this agreement or for
a declaration of such party's rights or obligations hereunder or
for any other remedy, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
receive from the losing party its costs, including such amount as
the Court or arbitration panel may adjudge to be reasonable attorney's
fees for the services rendered the party finally prevailing in any
such action or proceeding. Unless judgment goes by default, the
attorney fee award shall not be computed in accordance with any court
schedule, but shall be such as to fully reimburse the prevailing party
for all its /their attorney's fees actually incurred in good faith,
regardless of the amount of such judgment, it being the intention of
the parties to fully compensate the prevailing party for all attorney's
fees paid or incurred in good faith.
Venue
Section 7.08. This agreement is made, entered into,
executed and is to be performed in Moorpark, Ventura County, California,
and any action filed in any court or for arbitration for the inter-
pretation, enforcement and /or otherwise of the terms, covenants and
conditions referred to herein shall be filed in the applicable court
in Ventura County, California.
City's Agent
Section 7.09. The Moorpark Director of Community Develop-
ment shall have the right to review, coordinate and approve all work
to be performed by Contractor pursuant to the terms of this agreement
and shall be the City's agent with respect to review, coordination,
and approval of the services to be performed by the Contractor.
EXECUTED in duplicate at Moorpark, California, on the date
and year first hereinabove written.
McCLELLAND ENGINEERING, INC.
(Name of Contractor)
By
Title
And by
Title
C O N T R A C T O R
(Notarial certificate attached)
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
a municipal corporation
by
ATTEST:
Its Mayor
City Clerk
C I T Y
(SEAL)
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
(Corporation)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS.
On this day of
19 ,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the
of
(title)
(name of corporation)
and whose name is subscribed to the within strument, and
acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
Notary Public in and for said
County and State
(SEAL)
U
�i
McClelland engineers,inc. /environmental services
8913 Complex Drive, Suite C, San Diego, California 92123. Tel (619) 292 -1571, Telex 659 -241
January 29, 1985
Niall Fritz
Director of Community Development
City of Moorpark RE CE I V !Z L
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021 ,i Q N 3 U IS85
Proposal to Provide Contract Planning Services City Of P!^
And An Environmental Impact Report
For A General Plan Amendment and Land Use Entitlements
(Griffin Development Co.)
Dear Niall:
we are pleased to submit this proposal to the city of Moorpark
to provide planning and environmental services. This proposal
includes a description of our scope of work, cost estimate, sched-
ule, and resumes of personnel to be assigned to the project.
Scope of Services
Our proposed scope of services includes both permit processing
and preparation of an EIR for a General Plan Amendment, Tentative
Tract Map No. 3963 and companion entitlements. These are described
below:
1. Permit Processing
To process the required entitlements, we will provide a
land use planner to work under the supervision of the
Planning Director. This person will be responsible for
coordination of the EIR and permits, and preparation of
the initial study and notice of preparation for the EIR,
conditions of approval for the tentative tract map and
companion planned development permits, staff reports, and
all legal notices required for the EIR and land use
entitlements. In addition, she will be available to meet
with the applicant, other agencies, and the general public
as determined to be needed by the Planning Director, as
well as to attend all public hearings on the project.
Our staff planner will be
available to the city of Moor-
park on a time and expenses
basis at a rate of $55 per
hour. Because the amount
of time that this person will be
used will be determined
by city needs, a precise cost
estimate is not possible.
However, we recommend that one
person -month be budaeted
(160 hours @ $55 = $8,800) plus
an additional 10 percent
for expenses. Using this pre-
liminary assumption, we would not exceed a total cost for
permit processing of $9,680
without prior written authori-
l.ation from the city. we
will also notify you immediately
should charges to this
component reach 80 percent of
$8,800, or $7,744.
ANCHORAGE • DALLAS • HOUSTON • LITTLE ROCK • NEW ORLEANS
• SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • ST I OUIS • VFNTHRA
City of Moorpark January 29, 1985
Niall Fritz Page two
2. Environmental Impact Report
Attachment 1 is a preliminary outline of the scope of work
for the FIR. The FIR shall address the project specific
and cumulative impacts of General Plan Amendment No. 85 -1,
Tentative Tract No. 3963, Residential Planned Development
Permit Nos. 1041 and 1042 and Zone Change No. 2801. These
entitlements comprise the development proposed by Griffin
Development Co.
Attachment 2 is a cost breakdown for preparation of the
FIR. We will complete the FIR scope of work for $14,595,
which includes the draft and final EIRs, and attendance at
up to two public hearings on the document.
Our schedule for completion of the FIR scope of work is as
follows:
o Administrative Draft FIR (5 copies ) - 45 calendar days
following notice to proceed. The noise and biological
reports prepared by the applicant are to be submitted to
this office within one week of the notice to proceed. The
hydrological report, to be prepared by the applicant's
engineer, is to be submitted to this office within two
weeks of the notice to proceed. Unless these reports are
provided within the time frames indicated, the deadline
for completion of the Administrative Draft cannot be met.
For every day that submittal of the reports is delayed, a
similar delay will occur in the completion of the Admin-
istrative Draft.
o Draft EIR (50 copies) - Two calendar weeks after receipt
of staff comments on administrative draft.
o Final EIR (35 copies) - Two calendar weeks after receipt
of all comments on Draft FIR.
Personnel
The Project Supervisor will be Mr. Mel Willis, Program Manager,
Planning and Environmental Services. He will be responsible for
overall supervision of the project and coordination with the city.
Contract planning services will be provided by Ms. Julie Bulla
Hunt, Senior Planner.
FIR preparation will be under the direction of Mr. J. Duane
Vander Pluym, Senior Environmental Scientist. Resumes of all
personnel who will work on the FIR are attached to the proposal.
City of Moorpark January 29, 1965
Niall Fritz Page three
If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do
not hesitate to call me. We look forward to working with you on
this project.
Very truly yours,
McCLELLAND ENGIN ERS, INC.
Mel Willis
Program Manager
Planning and Environmental Services
Attachments:
1. Scope of Work
2. Cost Breakdown
3. Resumes
MW /JH:va1
ATTACHMENT 1
SCOPE OF WORK
1. GENERAL
The EIR for the General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map No. 3963,
Residential Planned Development Nos. 1041 and 1042, and Zone Change No. 2801,
will address both site specific and cumulative impacts, in accordance with
State CEQA Guidelines. Primary project issues to be addressed by the EIR
include the following:
• Land Use /Policy Analysis
• Visual Effects of Grading
• Traffic /Circulation
• Drainage
• Public Services
• School Facilities
Secondary issues include:
• Geology
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Archaeological Resources
• Noise
• Park Facilities
The following subsections describe the general content of the EIR, and
our proposed approach to addressing each issue. The environmental assessment
prepared by Elfend and Associates for the applicant will be used as a basis
for identifying project and cumulative impacts and mitigation measures. The
analysis presented in this document will be incorporated into the EIR wher-
ever possible, and additional analysis will be performed by McClelland staff
only as necessary to insure that the EIR is complete and meets the require-
ments of CEQA.
The discussion of cumulative impacts will include consideration of all
approved, proposed and probable developments in Moorpark (an updated list and
map to be provided by the city).
A Notice of Preparation, as required by Section 15082 of the Guidelines,
will also be prepared by McClelland staff. City staff will be responsible
for distribution by mail of the notice to the appropriate local and state
agencies.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project description sections of the EIR will be based upon informa-
tion furnished by the applicants in their application and environmental
assessment. This will be incorporated into the EIR using the city's EIR
1
format. Information contained in the project description will include, but
not necessarily be limited to:
o Project Site Location and Legal Description: This section will
describe the project location, list the Assessor's Parcel Num-
ber(s), and provide regional and local vicinity maps of the project
site.
o Description of Proposed Project: This section will describe the
proposed project and intended uses given approval of the specific
land use entitlements requested.
o Project Objectives: The project objectives presented in the
environmental assessment will be incorporated into the EIR. In
addition, this section will address project phasing; any requisite
extension of services; and a statement of why the proposed develop-
ment is appropriate at this time. The state and local review
necessary to accomplish project objectives will also be discussed.
o Project Characteristics: This section will include estimates of
population for the types of units proposed. The sizes of proposed
lots and structures, number and types of uses, proposed public
facilities, circulation system, and necessary utility easements
will be identified. Renderings of the floor plans and elevations
of the proposed single family and apartment units, a copy of the
tentative map, and a site plan of the apartment complex will be
included (plans to be provided by the applicant).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section will include:
o Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations: A description of
existing land use and permitted buildout under the present General
Plan and zoning designations on the project site, as well as
surrounding land uses, General Plan and zoning designations.
o Applicable Plans and Policies: Identification of all applicable
land use plans and policies pertaining to the site. Documents to
be reviewed include the Moorpark General Plan (Land Use and Cir-
culation Elements) , Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) and 208 Water Quality Management Plan.
o Public Utilities and Services Provided to the Site
o Related Projects: Any projects that have been recently completed,
approved, proposed or probable in the project area will be identi-
fied . These projects, in conjunction with the proposed develop-
ment, will be analyzed in later sections for cumulative project
impacts as they pertain to cumulative traffic flow conditions,
school facility impacts, and availability of public services.
91
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Each issue evaluated in this portion of the EIR will have an introduc-
tory paragraph explaining the methodology used in assessing the impacts.
Impacts will be quantified, where possible, and a determination of signific-
ance will be made and substantiated.
Mitigation measures will be identified for each impact. Analysis of
each measure will include degree of effectiveness, secondary impacts,
person /agency proposing measure, responsible parties, and methods of imple-
mentation. No cost estimates for necessary public improvements will be
included in the EIR, unless provided by the appropriate public agency.
The analysis presented in the environmental assessment will be heavily
relied upon for this portion of the EIR. Studies prepared for the envir-
onmental assessment will be reviewed for their adequacy, as noted below. No
new information will be generated by McClelland staff, unless the analysis
presented in either the studies, or the environmental assessment is deter-
mined to be faulty or inadequate. In reviewing the assessment, McClelland
personnel identified certain areas where no or insufficient analysis was con-
ducted. These issues, and the scope of work proposed by McClelland personnel
to adequately address them, are also discussed below.
1. Land Use /Project Consistency with Locally Adopted Plans and Policies
A review of the city's General Plan (Land Use and Circulation Elements)
and field inspection will be conducted to gather base data for this section.
The analysis contained in the environmental assessment will comprise a major
portion of this section. Issues of concern include project consistency with
all locally adopted plans and policies, land use compatibility, and
secondary /cumulative impacts to existing and proposed land uses in the proj-
ect vicinity. The land use setting description will include the following:
o Map and description of surrounding land uses;
o Discussion of all locally adopted plans, policies and ordinances
pertaining to site development.
The land use impact analysis will specifically address all of the
following:
o Project consistency with all locally adopted plans, policies and
ordinances. In particular, the project's consistency with Moorpark
General Plan policies that discourage the development of areas with
slopes greater than 20 per cent shall be addressed. This issue was
not discussed in the original environmental assessment. The
project engineer will need to prepare a tentative map showing areas
with greater than 20 percent slopes for the analysis.
o Project conflicts with on -site oil drilling easements, adjoining
land uses and resources in the project vicinity;
3
o Need for proposed housing mix.
o Precedent - setting impacts of project approval;
Mitigation measures to be evaluated may include:
o Measures to reduce land use incompatibility;
o Measures to reduce precedent- setting impacts; and
o Measures to reduce project's inconsistency with plans, policies,
and goals.
The growth- inducement analysis will be related to precedent- setting
impacts, and any needed extensions of services that remove obstacles to
growth. General growth trends in the site vicinity will be discussed.
Cumulative development in the project area will be related to growth- inducing
impacts. A discussion of the project's influence on the amount, location or
timing of growth for the site area will be included.
2. Visual Impacts
The environmental assessment does not adequately address the visual
impacts resulting from the large amount of grading necessitated by the
project. To perform an adequate assessment, a site reconnaissance and
photo - documentation of affected viewing corridors in the site vicinity will
be conducted. Issues of particular concern include consistency with develop-
ment policies contained in the Moorpark General Plan, and project visibility
from adjoining and nearby uses. In addition, the appearance of proposed
cut /fill slopes from areas within the development will be addressed. The
degree to which the proposed project obstructs views will be presented by
superimposing the proposed development concept onto photographs taken from
nearby residential areas, locations within the proposed development, and /or
viewing areas.
ing:
A general description of the visual setting of the project will include:
o Views of project site (photo- documentation);
o Discussion of development policies pertaining to the project site;
and
o Visual characterization of the project site and general vicinity.
The assessment of visual impacts will specifically address the follow-
0 Review of the preliminary grading plan shown on the tentative tract
map;
o Identification of viewing corridors affected by the proposed
project;
4
• Project impact to representative viewing corridors (photo docu-
mentation); and
• Discussions of project impact on visual character of the general
vicinity.
Potential mitigation measures may include:
• Alternative grading concepts;
• Redesign of portions of the development;
o Landscaping of exposed slopes;
o Change in density or housing types proposed.
3. Traffic and Circulation
The traffic study prepared by Weber and Associates, Inc. (November,
1984) for the environmental assessment will be reviewed to determine whether
it adequately describes the existing traffic flow characteristics-of the
project area, and the site - specific and cumulative traffic impacts. No new
data will be generated unless information contained in the study is insuf-
ficient.
For the most part, discussion in this section will be derived from the
traffic study. The environmental setting will include:
• ADT (not addressed in traffic study) , peak -hour counts, roadway
geometrics and capacities, existing levels of service for roadways
in the project vicinity;
• Identification of planned roadway improvements for the project
area, particularly the future extension of the Simi Valley Freeway
and provision of an interchange with Collins Drive.
• Discussion of existing traffic safety hazards based on sight
distance /approach speeds and available accident data (not addressed
in traffic study); and
• Discussion of existing and proposed transit service to employment
centers and Moorpark College and ridership (not addressed in
traffic study) .
The traffic impact analysis will address the following:
• Calculation of daily (not addressed in traffic study) and peak -hour
traffic generation for the proposed project;
• Summary of traffic distribution;
5
• Project- specific and cumulative traffic impacts for roadways and
intersections impacted by the proposed project;
• Calculation of trip generation associated with other planned
projects in the immediate vicinity;
• Resultant levels of service, ADT, and peak -hour volumes after
completion of the proposed project;
• Relationship (e.g., timing) of project and cumulative project -
generated road fees and the implementation of roadway improvements;
• Sight distance analysis of streets in proposed development to
determine ingress /egress and safety hazards;
• Analysis of private access to proposed estate lots and lots
361 -363.
Mitigation measures for traffic impacts will incorporate those iden-
tified in the traffic study and may include the following:
o Identify measures necessary to mitigate project impacts at local
streets and intersections (e.g., LOS C or better);
o Level of service (degree of effectiveness) after implementation of
improvements;
o On and off -site improvements necessary_ to ensure acceptable traffic
flow and safety; and
o Alternative trip reduction methods.
4. Drainage
The environmental assessment does not fully address the drainage issues
associated with the proposed project. The assessment does not identify the
amount of increase in storm runoff that will result from development of the
project site, nor does it determine the cumulative downstream drainage
impacts that will result from runoff from the project and other Moorpark
developments. The assessment indicates that the potential need for a reten-
tion basin on site to mitigate the project's contribution to downstream
runoff will be evaluated in a final hydrology study. However, the need for a
retention basin should be addressed in the EIR for the proposal, so that the
project may be redesigned if necessary to accommodate the basin.
Hydrologic information for this section will be obtained from a prelimi-
nary hydrologic study, to be prepared by the project engineer; the cumulative
drainage analyses presented in the EIRs prepared for Planned Community Nos. 3
(Urban West Communities), and No. 4 (Carlsberg Construction Company), and
Tentative Tract Map No. 2851 (Griffin Development Company); and communication
with the County Flood Control District. It should be noted that the cost
associated with preparation of the drainage section (see Attachment 2) is
accurate only if a hydrologic study acceptable to this office and the City
Engineer is submitted. The study should address the issues identified below.
The description of general drainage conditions of the project site will
include:
o Discussion of existing project area and downstream drainage con-
ditions, including direction of runoff and present storm flow and
peak flow in cubic feet per second (cfs).
o Identification of existing on -site and off -site drainage facil-
ities; existing capacities; adequacy of facilities;
The drainage impact analysis will address the following:
o Impact of the proposed development on existing drainage patterns;
increase in storm flow;
o Ability of existing flood control improvements to accommodate
increase in storm flow;
o Cumulative downstream impacts of proposed project in conjunction
with other Moorpark development.
Mitigation measures to be evaluated include:
o Effectiveness of drainage improvements proposed by applicant to
accommodate existing and project runoff;
o Additional facilities necessary to mitigate cumulative downstream
drainage impacts, such as on -site retention basins.
5. Public Services
This section of the EIR will provide a project- specific and cumulative
assessment of public service impacts addressing water, wastewater disposal,
law enforcement, fire projection, and solid waste disposal.
The analysis contained in this section of the EIR will draw heavily from
the discussion of project impact on public services presented in the environ-
mental assessment. This information will be reviewed for accuracy and
adequacy. Additional analysis concerning cumulative impacts on public
services will be developed through contact with the appropriate public
service agencies and review of relevant documents.
General information to be provided in this section includes:
o Identification of purveyor and jurisdictional boundaries; descrip-
tion of service provided;
o Discussion of existing facilities, including their location,
capacities, staffing levels and existing service capabilities;
7
o Identification of existing service deficiencies;
The impact analysis will specifically address the following issues:
o Project- related demands for additional service and /or additional
facilities;
• Identification of public service impacts relative to cumulative
development within the facility service area;
• Discussion of project - related impact on existing and proposed
public service facilities.
Mitigation measures to be addressed include:
• Collection of developer fees to finance capital construction;
• Necessary redesign of project to alleviate fire hazards to the
site, improve access and increase surveillance of all portions of
the development;
• Installation of water conserving appliances and landscaping;
• Formation of assessment district to finance expansion of facilities
to service cumulative development.
6. School Facilities
The discussion in the environmental assessment of project impacts on
existing school facilities will be reviewed for its adequacy, and the infor-
mation presented incorporated in this section. In addition, an analysis of
the cumulative impacts of development in Moorpark on school facilities will
be provided. This section will also address the appropriateness of the
location of the elementary school site proposed by the developer, the need
for a school in the Campus Park neighborhood, and the ability of the local
school district to finance construction of another school.
The discussion of existing conditions will include:
o Existing Moorpark school facilities, design capacities, and current
enrollment;
o Location of existing and proposed facilities; need for additional
schools;
The impact analysis will address the following issues:
• Project student generation for all grade levels;
• Contribution of project to need for additional classroom space;
• Impact of students generated by cumulative development on existing
school facilities;
Q
• Design capacity of school to be built at project school site;
appropriateness of location; number of students to be accommodated
from project and surrounding neighborhood;
• Need for project - generated students to attend existing elementary
schools during construction of new school.
Mitigation measures to be evaluated include:
o Contribution of developer fees for construction of additional
school facilities;
o Use of portable school facilities;
o Ability of school district to finance construction of elementary
school on proposed school site;
o Adequacy of new school facility to accommodate students generated
by project and adjacent neighborhood.
7. Geology
A geotechnical investigation of the project site, prepared by Gorian and
Associates (May 1984), was used to generate the analysis presented in the
environmental assessment. Both the assessment and geotechnical study will be
reviewed for adequacy. It is anticipated that this section of the document
will incorporate the previous analysis, and no new information will be
generated, unless necessary.
The description of general geologic conditions on the project site will
include:
o Discussion of existing geologic conditions (e.g., seismic capabil-
ities, soils, surface structure, landform, etc.);
o Identification of potential on -site geologic hazard (e.g., liqui-
faction, high groundwater table, shrink - swell, erosion, etc.) and
regional seismic characteristics.
The geologic impact analysis will specifically address the following:
o Discussion of the proposed grading concepts and landform altera-
tions;
o Evaluation of the effect of on -site geologic hazards on project
development (e.g., liquifaction, seismic, erosion, high ground-
water, etc.);
o Determination of the adequacy of existing soils data with regard to
project design.
I
If necessary, mitigation measures may include:
• Measures to mitigate on -site geologic hazards;
• Alternative grading concepts:
• Additional soil analysis that may be necessary to ensure adequate
mitigation of geologic hazards;
• Evaluation of mitigation measure effectiveness.
8. Air Quality
This discussion will use the background information on regional air
quality presented in the environmental assessment. The analysis of the
impact on air quality of project - generated traffic, and the consistency of
the project with adopted growth projections under the county's Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) , will be reviewed for accuracy. In particular, this
section will discuss in greater detail than provided in the environmental
assessment the available measures to reduce air quality impacts, as suggested
in the AQMP.
The air quality impact analyses will be prepared in accordance with the
Ventura County APCD Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact
Analyses.
A general description of the air quality setting will include:
• Reference to the County AQMP planning policies that pertain to site
development;
• Discussion of methodology for AQMP consistency determination;
• Existing air emissions inventory relative to state standards and
number of days exceeding adopted standards.
The assessment of air quality impacts will specifically address the
following:
• Calculate air emissions (mobile and stationary) resulting from
maximum buildout;
• Calculate short -term construction impacts;
• Determine consistency with the County AQMP;
• Identify project related air quality impacts based on County and
State Air Resources Board criteria.
Potential mitigation measures may include:
o Indicate project characteristics that alleviate air quality
impacts;
10
o Incorporate mitigation measures indicated in the AQMP into the EIR;
o Identify additional measures to alleviate impacts of the proposed
project (if available).
9. Biological Resources
A reconnaissance site visit by a staff biologist, and a review of the
biological survey prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services in August
1984 will be completed to determine the study's accuracy and adequacy. The
full biological survey will be provided by the project applicant (the envir-
onmental supplement only provides a summary of the survey, and a listing of
the plant and animal species observed on- site). The analysis in this section
of the EIR will incorporate the environmental assessment's discussion of
existing biological conditions, investigate the impacts of the project on
vegetation and animal life, and provided appropriate mitigation measures in
addition to those indicated in the assessment. In particular, this section
will address the significance of the on -site drainage courses, shown as "blue
line" streams on the USGS quad sheet for the area. The State Department of
Fish and Game will be requested to provide comments on the project's impacts
on these streams and to identify all state permits required by the applicant.
10. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological report on the site was prepared in 1980 for previously
approved Tract 3439.T he city will provide a copy of the report. The findings
of this study will be summarized and incorporated into the EIR. No new
literature search or site survey will be conducted(per the city planning
director). Measures to mitigate any potential impacts, as discussed in the
report, will be identified in the EIR.
11. Noise
The noise study prepared by Mestre -Greve Associates, as incorporated
into the environmental assessment, will be reviewed for its adequacy. The
analysis contained in this study will comprise the majority of the noise
section of the EIR. It is anticipated at this time that no new information
will need to be generated, unless portions of the study are determined to be
erroneous or incomplete.
ings:
A general description of the noise setting will include:
o Identification of sensitive uses within the project vicinity, if
any;
o Identification of existing noise problems, if any;
The assessment of noise impacts will specifically address the follow-
o Post - project noise levels;
11
o Itemization of any noise problems related to construction of the
project or project - generated traffic.
o Review of development areas as they relate to projected noise
levels;
o Discussion of human perception of noise level increases (e.g.,
perceived as a doubling, three -fold increase etc.).
Potential mitigation measures may include:
o Site planning /design methods to reduce noise levels and acoustical
impacts;
o Alternative routes for construction vehicles;
o Analysis of the effectiveness of proposed mitigation.
12. Park Facilities
The applicant proposes to provide a park site adjacent and to the south
of the school site (shown as open space on the tentative map). This facility
will be for the joint use of students attending the school and residents of
the project and surrounding neighborhood. While the park site will augment
the existing acreage allocated for park facilities in the city, it will also
add to the existing financial burden on the city to develop and maintain
those facilities. No analysis of the economic impact on the city of the
addition of a park is presented in the environmental assessment, nor is the
appropriateness of the location of the site addressed. The proposed park
site also will be reviewed for its consistency with the development standards
in the city's park acquisition and dedication ordinance (Quimby ordinance).
The discussion of available park facilities will include:
o Location and size of, and type of improvements to existing park
facilities in the project vicinity;
o Accessibility of existing facilities to proposed development;
The impact analysis will specifically address the following:
o Demand created by proposed project on existing park facilities;
o Need for new park facility created by project;
o Appropriateness of park location;
o Financial impact on the city of improvement and maintenance of
additional park facility.
12
a
Mitigation measures to be evaluated include:
o Construction by developer of improvements to park site;
o Relocation of park site if necessary to comply with development
standards of Quimby ordinance.
SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS /GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS
Unavoidable adverse impacts will be summarized separately for the
proposed project, as well as for cumulative impacts. This analysis will
incorporate the summary of adverse impacts presented in the environmental
assessment, as appropriate, in addition to the additional adverse impacts
identified in the EIR, though not addressed in the assessment. This section
will compile all of the significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified
for the subject areas into one section, thereby highlighting significant
residual impacts. In addition, any growth- inducement effects on surrounding
properties and /or the city resulting from project development will be dis-
cussed.
IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
The irreversible impacts of each project component will be addressed
separately as well as cumulatively. Irreversible impacts will be summarized
from other sections of the document. Uses of non - renewable resources during
the initial and continued phases of development will be briefly discussed.
The discussion of irreversible impacts presented in the environmental
assessment will be incorporated into this section of the EIR.
LONG -TERM VS. SHORT -TERM IMPACTS
The short -term versus long -term impacts of the project will be itemized
separately as well as cumulatively. The analysis presented in the environ-
mental assessment will be used as a basis for this discussion. An evaluation
of the cumulative and long -term effects of the project which may adversely
affect the environment will be discussed including impacts which narrow the
range of beneficial uses of the environment, or pose long -term risks to
health and safety. Additionally, the reasons the project is believed by the
sponsor to be justified at this time, rather than as an option for future
alternatives, will be explored.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives section of the EIR will be prepared in accordance with
the State CEQA Guidelines and will focus on the alternatives presented in the
environmental assessment, and any other alternatives capable of eliminating
or reducing significant adverse environmental effects. In addition, the
"environmentally superior" alternative identified in the assessment will be
examined to determine whether it is superior to the other alternatives. If
the environmentally superior alternative is determined to be the "no project"
13
alternative, the EIR shall identify the environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives analyzed. The EIR will address the following
alternatives:
• No project;
• Alternative location for the proposed projects;
• Existing General Plan and zoning designations;
• Alternative development appropriate for specific project sites
(including project previously approved on the site).
14
ATTACHMENT 2
EIR COST BREAKDOWN
TOTAL EIR COST = $14,595.00
*Additional meetings will be attended on a time and expenses basis. The
estimated cost per meeting is $825, assuming two persons in attendance.
15
Cost
Hours
1.
Project Description
360.00
8
2.
Environmental Impact Analysis
a. Land [Ise /Plan Consistency/
540.00
12
Growth Inducement
b. Visual Effects
1,080.00
24
c. Traffic /Circulation
880.00
16
d. Drainage
1,200.00
16
e. Public Services
630.00
16
f. School Facilities
280.00
8
g. Geology
600.00
8
h. Air Quality
540.00
12
i. Biological Resources
720.00
16
j. Archaeological Resources
105.00
3
k. Noise
360.00
8
i. Park Facilities
280.00
8
3.
Alternatives
360.00
8
4.
Draft EIR Preparation
900.00
20
5.
Final EIR Preparation
810.00
18
6.
Word Processing
1,600.00
64
7.
Graphics
850.00
34
8.
Printing
Draft EIR (50 Copies)
750.00
N/A
Final EIR (35 Copies)
525.00
N/A
9.
Miscellaneous (Supplies, Travel, etc.)
400.00
N/A
10.
Public Hearing Attendance (2)*
825.00
15
TOTAL EIR COST = $14,595.00
*Additional meetings will be attended on a time and expenses basis. The
estimated cost per meeting is $825, assuming two persons in attendance.
15