HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0502 CC REG ITEM 08LMOORPARK ITEM
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. STEVEN KUENY
Mayor �oG��� City Manager
SCOTT MONTGOMERY F� w CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Temp City Attorney
ELOISE BROWN z PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P
Councilmember Director of
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. °o Community Development
Councilmember 9` -'E R. DENNIS DELZEIT
BERNARDO M. PEREZ City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
LILLIAN KELLERMAN Chief of Police
City Clerk RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
M E M O R A. N D U M:
TO: The Honorable City Council.
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: April 18, 1990 (CC Meeting of 5/2/90)
SUBJECT: EIR AND PLANNING SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR WESTLAND COMPANY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
Background
At the City Council's meeting of February 7, 1990, the Council
directed staff to: 1) Accept applications for the proposed Westland
Company General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development
Permit and Tentative Map; 2) Develop the scope of work for an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and proceed with the selection
of a consultant that will prepare, the EIR and provide planning
services; and 3) Return the consultant contract and agreement for
preparation of the EIR and provision. of planning services to the
City Council for approval.
Discussion
Staff has selected the Planning Corporation of Santa Barbara as the
consultant who will prepare the EIR and provide planning services.
Attached is a copy of the proposed EIR and Planning Services
Agreements. (These agreements will be attached to the standard City
contract.) The EIR cost is identified as $75,988.75 and the
Planning Services cost is identified as $29,594.00..
The Westland Company has already, filed their applications for a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and have deposited the
current fee amounts for these entitlement requests as well as a
$5,000 deposit to assist in the creation of an affordable housing
agreement. The Planning Corporation hits already circulated a
Notice of Preparation of an EIR t,-' interested agencies, and the
comment period for that Notice is )ver. Approval of the attached
contract agreements is needed to k,, =ep the project moving ahead.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
Honorable City Council,
April 20, 1990
Page 2
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Planning
Corporation of Santa Barbara as the selected consultant and
authorize the Mayor to sign the EIR and Planning Services contracts
after Westland Company has deposited the identified contract
amounts.
PJR /DST
Attachments:
1. Proposal to Prepare the Westland Company Affordable &
Market Rate Housing EIR
2. Planning Services Agreement for Westland Project
PROPOSAL TO PREPARE THE
WESTLAND COMPANY AFFORDABLE & MARKET
RATE HOi )SING IJR
FOR THE
CITY OF MOORPARK
Submitted to: City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 9 1021
(805) 529 -6864
Submitted by: The Planning Corporation of Santa Barbara
122 E. Arrellaga Street
Santa Barbara, Californiai 93101
(805) 962 -2124
FAX # (805) 564. 841.3
Revised Date: April 20, 1990
TABLE 8FL.>NTENT8
Et�
l. CoouacBcspouaibilitica---------'_
— .. ...................... ............... l
2 S�a��zouu�n[�Vork
� ............ .......................... —'
'.— — _�------------'5
3. Cos ..... ............... .......................... _
__ _ ...................... .............
4. Schedule ............................... .......................... ... '
..'� — _ ...... ............... --.......
1 Offer ..................... ............... .......................... __
____ _ ......................................
1.0 CONTRACT RESPONSIBILITIES
1.0 Contract Responsibilities
This statement of work outlines the tasks and meth000logres to be used by The Planning Corporation in
preparing the Draft and Final EIRs on the Westland (. ompany Affordable Housing & Market Rate Housing
Project for the City of Moorpark. This document will be preparcd in conformance with amended CEQA
and State and City of Moorpark Guidelines for EtR Pr •paraticm.
1.1 Subject and Scope
The proposed project is an application for a General flan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Map, and
one or, more Planned Development Permits. Tl; applicant proposes to construct both affordable
townhouses and market rate single family dwelGnss.
The proposed residential mix for this project is:
0 100 market rate single family detached residentia] units. However, the applicant
would like to provide 5 additional unit,, if design opportunities will allow;
0 10 affordable single family detached units available to moderate (120% of
Median) income households with a saic price of $'180,000. These 10 units shall not
be less than 1,400 square feet;
0 90 market rate multi- family attached t 'wnhouse units; and
0 90 affordable multi - family attached i-wnhouse units with a target sales price of
approximately $120,000 shall be made ;vailablc to lower (80% of Median) income
households.
The primary environmental issues of significance are related to impacts on the traffic circulation system
serving the City. Potential project specific and cumulative impacts are anticipated at a number of
intersections in the immediate project vicinity. In addition, the design capacity of several road segments
serving the project may be exceeded with the addition ,,i project and /or cumulative traffic. Water demand
and sewage treatment requirements may contribute to , wmulative pr oblems for municipal service providers.
A number of environmental concerns are potentially „gnificant but can potentially be mitigated through
careful planning. These issues include noise, flood I azards, geologic hazards, biological and botanical
resource impacts. Impacts anticipated to be insigni(icarr inchtdc efEt cts on cultural resources and hazardous
materials remediation.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study for this project, a determination was made that an
EIR is required. The following subjects will be address, i in the EIR:
0 Land use and planning consideration,,
o Transportation and circulation
0 Air quality
0 Noise
0 Flood hazards and flood control pianim
0 Geology and soils
0 Aesthetics and visual resources
0 Public services (water and sewer).
Impacts associated with hazardous materials, cultural resources, and other public services (police, fire,
recreation) are projected to be insignificant. The EIR % ill contain the following mandated CEQA sections:
o Summary of Cumulative Effects
o Irreversible Environmental Effects
o Short Term versus Long Term Produ, ivity
o CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Pl in
o Alternatives.
The format for this EIR will conform to the City's current Guideline requirements. The document will be
thorough and succinct. The body of the EIR will be preceded by an executive summary which will be
organized according to the level of findings (e.g., , ignificant unavoidable impacts, impacts subject to
mitigation, insignificant impacts). An impact matrix will be prepared to summarize the EIR findings and to
avail decision makers of a brief, complete overview oft rye document.
This proposal includes a work program and not -to- exceed cost estimate to produce the proposed Westland
Company EIR through the Final document. The Planning Corporation will prepare a certifiable Final EIR.
This offering includes Planning Corporation staff time to review and respond to up to 60 pages of public
comment on the draft document and to produce the f=inal EIR. If more than 60 pages of comments are
received, reponse to the additional comments will be included in a contract revision. If new studies beyond
the scope of this contract need to be performed to anss er questions raised during the public review process,
these additional study items would be subject to a cont; ict renegotiation.
12 Data Sources
The data sources which will be used for each element of the work program are discussed in Section 2. In
general, library sources, agency archives, existing studies and data on file with the applicant and public
agencies will provide baseline information for most sc .ions of ths• IIR. Supplemental field work may be
necessary for some of these sections.
13 Graphics and Public Presentation
For purposes of clear and informative public presentation, at a minimum, the following graphics will be
included in the EIR: project location, site plan, elevations of structures, and significant physical impacts
which can be mapped (view corridor effects, traffic constraints, etc.). Land use and zoning maps will also be
provided. Graphics will be produced on an AutoCAU (Computer aided design) plotter (S 1/2 x 11 or 11 x
17" formats) to assure maximum accuracy and clarity
1.4 Consultant /City Relationship
All work directly related to the EIR preparation such a field reconnaissance, literature search, consultation
with agency personnel, and library research, will bcc lie responsibility of The Planning Corporation, its
associates, and staff.
It will be the Citys responsibility to provide The Planning Corporation with reasonable access to relevant
files and documentation pertaining to the proposed project. It is also requested that the City assist as
necessary in obtaining additional project description details from the applicant that may be necessary to
complete the EIR, and in seeking the cooperation of C ^v departments and other agencies in the preparation
of the document.
1.5 Changes in Scope of Work
The following Statement of Work outlines the scope and depth of analysis proposed by The Planning
Corporation for completion of the Westland Company Affordable & Market Rate Housing EIR. Any
changes in the project description or unanticipated changes n the Stop;` of Work will constitute grounds for
contract renegotiation.
1.6 Meetings
Orientation and Pro&ress Meetings: The Planning Corporation and all subcontractors will attend meetings
with City of Moorpark planning staff and City Manager if needed to review the proposed project, provide
initial staff comments and evaluations, and other concerns, to ensure timely, accurate, and cost effective
document preparation. Periodically during the preparation City Planning staff will be updated regarding
progress on the EIR.
Pre - Public Hearing_ Conference: The Planning Corporation will attend three (3) pre - public hearing
conferences with City of Moorpark staff to finalize the Draft and to prepare and coordinate hearing
presentations.
Public Hearino: The Planning Corporation will attend three (3) public hearings to present the findings
described in the Draft EIR document. At the discretion i I the Community Development Director, selected
subcontractors maybe required to attend public hearings
1.7 Conflict of Interest Warranty
The consultant recognizes and agrees that it is a public ol[►cial subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974
and further agrees and warrants that it has no financial interests, directly or indirectly, which may be
materially affected by the project for which the EIR is being prepared The consultant further warrants that
the principal of the Planning Corporation has reviewed the Political Reform Act of 1974 and the Fair
Political Practices Commission regulations, including 1`ut not limited to, Chapter 7 to Title 2 of the
California Administrative Code, Section 18700 et seq., in order to ascertain whether any conflict of interest
would require the consultant to refrain from participating; in the making or in any way attempting to use its
official position to influence the governmental decisions ti-iderlving thy; subject EIR.
_4
2.0 STATEINIFNT OF �NORK
Work Program Contents
2.0 General Approach
2.1 Introduction, Summary and Impact Matrix
2.2 Project Description and Cumulative Projects.
2.3 Environmental Setting
2.4 Land Use and Planning Considerations
2.5 Transportation and Circulation
2.6 Air Quality
2.7 Noise
2.8 Flood Hazards and Flood Control Planning
2.9
Geology and Soils
2.10
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
2.11
Biological and Botanical Resources
2.12
Public Services Impacts
2.13
Insignificant Impacts
2.14
Other CEQA Sections
2.15 Project Alternatives
2.0 Work Program: General Approach
The preparation of this EIR will involve staff of the Planning Corporation as well as subcontractors. The
consultant has guided the selection of subcontractors which hive bra n retained by the applicant to perform
studies which are currently, in preparation including
o Soils and seismic analysis - Buena Eng Hers
o Noise evaluation - Walker & CClano
All other specialized studies (tree survey, aesthetics., (.otural resources, and biological resources) will be
performed by Planning Corporation staff.
2.1 Introduction, Summary, and Impact Matrix
The introduction will briefly describe the subject and format of the EIR. The use of CEQA Section 15150
(incorporation by reference) will be discussed. The lots base used for impact analyses will be described.
The executive summary will provide a succinct written ,ynopsis of the EIR findings in clear, non - scientific
terminology. This summary will describe significant impacts for each impact level including significant
impacts which cannot effectively be mitigated, significant impacts which can be reduced to acceptable
levels through mitigation, and insignificant impacts which will require no mitigation.
An impact matrix table will also need to be prepared which will display the various categories of unavoidably
significant and significant impacts, together with n commended mitigation measures. In addition,
insignificant impacts and recommended optional mitil °.ations will be presented. The alternatives to the
proposed project will also be displayed in this sumrnary ,bl �.
This initial summary will also contain a brief review il 'ne City`s guidelines for implementing CEQA. The
summary will also define Responsible and Trustee Aec ies, i,nd list required approvals..
22 Project Description and Cumulative Project,
The purpose of the Project Description is to present a . omprehensive overview of the proposed project and
its relation to development trends in the region (cumulative project description). The applicant will provide
most of the information relevant for the Project Description and the City will assist the consultant in
deriving the description of cumulative projects and regional development trends. A cumulative project list
Will be assembled in consultation With City staff. Thr L T,,al requirements for cumulative analysis will also be
provided in this section.
This section will contain all CEQA required components typical of EIRs prepared for the City (e.g., physical
setting, surrounding land use, existing conditions, development trends in the vicinity, lead and trustee
agencies, permits applied for, discretionary approvals s� ught, ct(.). A project synopsis will also be provided.
The project description will contain the following items a thorough synopsis of the project summarizing the
project title, proposed objective, location, legal description, applicant /landowner, current landowners
adjacent to the proposed project, engineer, current use. zoning, General Plan designation, status of permits
applied for or issued, and approvals required or rcc.un - .-nded.
A complete description of the project characteristic,, acid objectives will be written based on data provided
by the applicant_ Appropriate descriptive graphics will c prepared including regional and site vicinity maps,
project plans, and photographs of the existing physic; I virornnicnt in the project VIC1111ty.
The cumulative analysis will be based both on a list al proach and a consideration of buildout under the
ongoing General Plan update. The potential use of the :Iropert� under the proposed General Plan update
will be described and compared to the project.
Because the applicant has already made some project rc,.,sioni in response to City concerns, this section will
include a review of the original project concept and a .s,.immary of modifications already incorporated into
the project design. Design consultations will be held A lr the applicant and City staff early in the planning
process to satisfy agency concerns regarding layout, ci; c .:ti m, Lin& caging, and aesthetics.
23 Environmental Setting
A summary of the affected environment will be presented which will provide an overview of the physical,
natural and cultural environment in the vicinity of the pr posed prof :ct. This section will address:
o the natural environment;
o major landforms and relation to surf wc i ding topography;
o the natural environment (biology, bota+iy, hydrology, soils, geology);
o the cultural environment (attributes 4 f the existing population, concerned ethnic
groups and historic land use in the vsci lity of the project); and
o recent major modifications to the cnv� inim nt
The environmental setting would review prior developn,i.nt of the area, and describe the natural and cultural
resource setting within the project area. Contribute ors from specialized studies (tree survey, cultural
resource evaluation etc.,) will be incorporated into tht� 1 r oj, °ct f cscription.
2.4 Land Use and Planning Considerations
The land use analysis for the EIR will emphasize prescsiting the full range of anticipated changes in land use
which would result from the proposed project. To t`.,us cn,d, the following components will be treated in
detail:
o The present land uses in the project vicinity will nccd to be mapped and described.
A table summarizing the traffic trip Y.eneration, population composition and land
use density within adjacent zones be provided. Cumulative growth in the
region (ten year (rend) will also need No he documented and discussed briefly. A
summary of the status of the capaci ti of major elements of local infrastructure.
(schools, sewage disposal, roads, wa rr supply, °tc.) will be included to lay the
foundation for the growth induccincr .fiscussurn
o Plans and Policies Summary: Plan and policies governing land use within the
project boundaries will be reviewe and summarized. The text of pertinent
policies will be presented and disco -.sed. A table will be prepared which will
display potential project consistencv .tied inconsistLmcy with adopted environmental
goals and policies which govern Gc hiojcct A discussion of the general
compatibility of the project with - irn)unding land uses will be based on a
comparison of project plans to planning guidelines. Pertinent resource protection
policies and planning guidelines the (;cm,ral Plan will be cited where
appropriate. Any potential prr�jc(t �inlli�is wflRi local, State, or Fcderal law or
policy will also be discussed in this s< -teem Pr, rnots that will need to be issued by
Truster Aicncic,; will he idcniI -W i id cow,l,lt lien procedures for each agency
will be summarized. The relationship between this project and the City's
Residential Growth Management Ordinance will be clarified. The consistency of
the project with the housing element Wall be discussed.
o Physical Impacts of Land Use Chang_e.�: CEQA requires that full consideration be
given to the specific physical changes which would result from a proposed project.
Translating proposed land use changes into specific physical impacts on the
environment is the objective of the impact analysis for land use considerations.
Temporary and long term impacts ",Ill be analNzed in this section. Land use
impacts to be considered include land use conversion, potential loss of unique
biological resources, extension of services, property loss risks associated with
geological, slope and soil problems, avo potential impacts to view corridors.
o The Growth inducement evaluation vill focus orr CEQA required components
including extension of services, c;con(,mic and population growth and direct and
indirect effects.
o Mitigation Measures: Mitigation of land use incompatibilities will emphasize
modifications and alternatives to the proposed project which could feasibly lessen
or alleviate land use impacts while stir achieving basic development objectives.
2.5 Transportation and Circulation
The transportation analysis will be completed by Kat, a associate -s, Santa Monica, California. This firm
provided the following response to the RFP:
Task 1 - Data Collection
All available data related to the project and necessary to conduct the traffic study will be
assembled. This includes an inventory of streets and highways in the vicinity, proposed roadway
improvements which could affect traffic circulation in the study area, traffic control devices, traffic
volume counts, and adjacent land uses. Data on relevant other proposed developments and traffic
study documentation will be reviewed to the extent available.
Morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes w 11 be needed at the following intersections:
1. New Los Angeles Avenue & Spring Road
2. Los Angeles Avenue & Moorpark Avenue
3. Los Angeles Avenue & Tierra Rejada /Gabbe, it Road
4. Spring Road & High Street /Los Angeles Ave; ioe
5. Los Angeles Avenue & Maureen Lane
6. Las Angeles Avenue & Goldman Avenue
7. Los Angeles Avenue & Shasta Avenue
8. Los Angeles Avenue & Liberty Bell Road.
24 -hour traffic volume data will also be needed f( the following locations:
1. Los Angeles Avenue w/o Tierra Rejada Road Gabbert Road
2. Los Angeles Avenue between Goldman Aven , and Shasri Avenue
3. Los Angeles Avenue w/o Moorpark Avenuc.
4. Los Angeles Avenue between Millard Street ;, tid Sprint, R,)ad
5. New Los Angeles Avenue c/o Spring Road
6. Tierra Rejada Road s/o Los Angeles Avrnu+:
7. Moorpark Avenue n/o Los Angeles Avenue
8. Spring Road n/o New Los Angeles Avenue
9. Spring road s/o New Los Angeles Avenue
10. Los Angeles Avenue: e/o High Street.
Task 2 - Existing Traffic Conditions
An assessment will be made of existing operating conditions and constraints within the study area.
Peak hour levels of service will be quantified at the intersections identified in Task 1. Existinti;
traffic operational problems and congested areas will °,e idcntifit -i.
Task 3 - Forecast Future Traffic Conditions
A series of traffic projections will then be developed ..s follows:
Existing plus Cumulative condition
o Existing plus Cumulative plus Project
o Existing plus Cumulative plus Projc t plus buildout of anticipated major
generators..
As part of the above projections, the future traffic generation from the projected land uses within
the study area will be forecast and assigned to the .treet system. The future base conditions will
include traffic expected to be generated by other projects either currently under construction or
approved for development within the study area. It is assumed that the list of major traffic
generators and cumulative developments will be supplied by the EIR consultant as coordinated
with the City of Moorpark Community Devel(lt)mcnt and Public Works departments. A
cumulative project table will be assembled whicl will partition future growth as directed by
Moorpark Planning staff. The treatment of filcd General Plan Amendment requests in this
cumulative list will be resolved in consultation with ''ity staff and the City Engineer..
As necessary, Kaku Associates will also work \4 th the City Traffic Engineer and others as
appropriate to determine the methodology for fore, ;isting future traffic volumes in the study area,
whether this be by modifying Caltrans or City prop. tiom, or g.c ncrating new estimates.
Task 4 - Traffic Impact Analysis
The likely impact of project traffic on peak hour raffie conditions will be assessed. This will be
based on a methodology and standards, agreed apon with the City Traffic Engineer, which
identifies the locations where project traffic has a ,ignificant impact. It is expected that the ICU
or similar methodology will be used for intersc.aion capacity analysis. This assessment will
concentrate on impacts at the major intersectio�is and strc,Js listed above, as well as at the
proposed site access points. Overall circulation east and west 4 the project site will be considered
in the impact evaluation. The potential for creat,ng a collec�or or local strer.�t connector which
would parallel Los Angeles Avenue will be ccns�d; red
The forecast traffic conditions at site ingressic Tess points will also be evaluated within the
context of traffic accident potential.
Task S - Mitigation Measures
Possible mitigation measures will be identified where a significant project impact is projected.
The analyses of mitigation alternatives shall include ! ne fcllowin,;:
o Physical mitigation (e.g., street widening nr restr'iping) will be evaluated at
appropriate locations.
o Warrants for traffic signal installation v, ill be evaluated at up to four intersections
and the appropriate location for a futur • signal ( either Maureen or Goldman) will
be discussed.
o Up to four alternative site access plans, such as direct access to Los Angeles
Avenue or access to Maureen Lane anc9 'or Liberty Bell Road.
The projected improvement in traffic operation, from such mitigation will be quantified.
Potential mitigation measures will be examined o determine their physical and operational
feasibility and effectiveness, and a recommended plan will be developed. Recommended physical
improvements will be evaluated from a conceptual planning perspective only (preliminary
engineering drawings are not included as part of tits work scone). Any unavoidable impacts will
be identified.
Task 6 - On -Site Circulation Review
The proposed site plan will be reviewed to determine the adequacy of proposed internal lane
widths, parking supply, and intersection desigm, This review will be conducted with the
perspective and objective of identifying "fatal flay+,," to insure that the proposed project meets
City of Moorpark and /or other generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Where
necessary and feasible, alternative designs will K. > ;[;gcsfcd to nitigate anticipated deficiencies.
Task 7 - Documentation
The results of our analysis will be documentcet in a report which will be appropriate for
incorporation into the EIR as a technical appendix and submitted for review. If necessary, the
draft report will be revised and then finalized. We will also assist the EIR consultant as needed to
summarize the findings within the EIR. The '!raft`; study will be consistent with City Guidelines
for Preparing Traffic Circulation Studies.
Task 8 - Response to Comments
Upon close of the public review period, we will assist the environmental consultant as needed in
responding to comments related to the work products prepared by our office. This work will
include clarification of points covered in this scop.° of work. Addressing additional issues raised
which are not within our scope of work may requir a contract amendment.
We estimate that the work can be completed " rthin 6 to " weeks. Since you have already
authorized us to proceed, we will commence work -nmcdiatck-
Our fee for completion of the study will be S15,`00.W, plus 53,400.00 in direct costs for traffic
counts. This budget includes completion of the traffic study and up to three meetings during
preparation. This budget also assumes that data � � i i cumulative; developments can be obtained in a
timely manner. Our staff will also be avadahh to provide support at additional meetings or
subsequent public hearings, if necessary, 1ch be billed for time & materials
required.
2.6 Air Quality
The air quality impacts of the proposed project will bc evaluated for both long term and short term effects.
The consultant will use the recently adopted 1989 Air r:luality Impact Guidelines prepared by the County of
Ventura in computing impacts. The following tasks wAiEi br.: (omplctcd by the consultant:
o Using the County Guidelines, the r,pacts Iron additional vehicle use resulting
from approval of the project will be . rnputed.
o Required mitigation measures will hey identified including computation of the per
unit fee for offsite mitigation require 1 under reNYticd County Guidelines.
o The construction emissions associatr.A with development of the project will be
computed. These computations will address bath construction vehicle emissions
and the generation of particulate rnai er
o Construction emissions mitigation ne; sun.: s ,ill be conceived using recently
adopted Guidelines.
2.7 Noise
The accoustic engineering firm Walker- Celano will �naiyce the noise impacts of the project and provide
guidance on mitigation design.
The noise evaluation will consist of the following act i% I res
o Visit the project site and area ano obtain acoustic data and concurrent traffic
counts during representative times (,' 1av and night.
o Obtain traffic flow and projection d.,ta from Caltrans for Highway 118 and from
City or County transportation depart nents for of her roadways in the area.
o Based on the measurements and _'altrans /City /County information, compute
existing and future noise contours (CNEL) on the project site. Assess noise
impacts on indoor and outdoor ;)j :e('t areas relative to State and local noise
exposure criteria.
o Based on results of traffic studies t, r the project, compute noise increments on
surrounding roadways which will n .uh from projcct generated traffic. Assess
noise impacts relative to State, luc.il yid FHWA traffic noise criteria.
o Recommend noise control measurr is rrquircc to mitigate any significant noise
impacts.
o Prepare a report which presents ,,;t findings :end recommendations in a form
suitable, for the purpose of incorporo ,on into the, E:IR for the project.
o Attend and testify at hearings a,, ri, y irc�L
2.8 Flood Hazards and Flood Control Planning
The drainage channel located immediately adjacent .o the project is improved along its entire segment.
However there are a number of outstanding; qucstrw which need to be resolved regarding the capacity of
this channel. The following work needs to be accor I hid 10 :rrrrplete flood control planning:
o The County of Ventura Flood Contrril Department will be consulted to determine
if the flood design flows planned for the segment adjacent to the project can
accommodate increased flows from t' a! project runoff.
o The County will be consulted to determine if any downstream effects would result
from approval of this project. Any irnprovemenfis required in the channel will also
be established by the County.
o An existing Corps of Engineer easement traverses the boundary of the project.
The significance of this easement aria ,tnv associated constraints will be identified.
o A schematic drainage plan will b,. prepared and any issues of significance
associated with this plan will be identified by the City s consulting engineer and the
County. The established flood limit lines for the adjacent arroyo will be placed on
the drainage plan and mitigation mc,:t,ures required to diminish flood hazards will
be determined.
o Any effects on surface or groundwater quality associated with discharging urban
runoff into the adjacent arroyo will be identified
The applicant's civil engineer (Hawks and Associates, Carl Rowley) is responsible for obtaining the data
required to answer questions related to flood control planning. The consultant will be relying primarily on
the engineering judgement of the County Flood Consrol agency in the preparation of this section. The
consultant will retain an independent civil enginer t o r( view n he calculations and the mitigation plan
submitted by the applicant.
2.9 Geology and Soils
Based on existing data, no known faults traverse the project. Sewer discharges have increased groundwater
topography to the degree that there is some possibility high groundwater conditions exist within the project
boundary. There is also limited potential for amplification of seismic waves in the event of an earthquake.
A certified and registered engineering geologist will evaluate soil conditions, depth to groundwater, and
seismic design criteria for the project and the result, of this analysis will be included in the EIR. The
engineering consultants, Buena Engineers, provided the following work proposal:
"The scope of services for the Reconnaissat ce Engineering Geology and Geotechnical
Engineering Report will include the following
A. We will explore the subsurface sit( conditions and materials by drilling and
sampling approximately ten (10) bot rags. The maximum planned drill depth is
forty -one (41) feet. Depth to groundwater will be recorded. Relatively
undisturbed samples will be taken from the borings and sealed in containers, and
bulk samples from the auger cuttings will be secured in bags. The samples will be
returned to our laboratory for t(-si cig. A geOlogist will supervise the field
investigation.
B. Laboratory testing of soil samples , onsidered reasonably representative of the
materials obtained from the field ext,loration will be done to help identify and
evaluate subsurface site charactcristics. 'rests . hould include, but will not be
limited to, in -place moisture and density, maximum density- optimum moisture,
direct shear, consolidation, expansion ndcx and gi ain size analysis.
-1`
C. An Engineering Geologist will analyve thc seismicity of the region within which
the project is located. Seismic desrrzn criteria will be provided for use by the
Structural Engineer based on this analvsi.s.
D. Once field and laboratory tests are complete, the data will be organized and
analyzed by a member of our profc��,,Ional staff in order to develop conclusions
and recommendations relevant to sit, development feasibility as we understand it.
Particular attention will be paid to evaluating the potential for liquefaction and
how it may affect feasibility of the pr, 00sed subdivision.
E. General recommendations pertim nt to site development feasibility and
construction will be set forth in a wr aten report based on evaluation of the data
obtained from the exploration and testing programs, and on experience and
judgment. Recommendations provided typically relate to anticipated foundation
types, estimated ranges of bearmLe pressures and vertical and lateral earth
pressures, and criteria for grading.'
The content of this sect; m will be coordinated with .ind reviewed by the City Engineer. No additional
engineering review will be provided by the consultant.
2.10 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The aesthetics and visual resources section of the Elk will be prepared in close cooperation with City staff.
In the early stages of EIR preparation, the consultant w1ll coordinate design review of the project in
consultation with City staff and the applicant. The ultimate objective of the aesthetic section will be to
derive a set of design guidelines to assure that the prolcct includes adequate urban landscaping, open space,
and design consistency which emphasizes the regional architecture in the Moorpark area. Issues related to
light and glare that may be generated by the projL cf. A l be discussed in consultation with City staff.
The visual resource evaluation will consider view corridor impacts, visual compatibility and dominance, and
general effects on the semi -rural landscape. General mitigation planning will be provided for significant
effects (e.g., landscaping screening recommendations, building height construction limitations, height
setback ratios, etc.). The applicant will be consult; d about integrating consultant suggestions into the
ultimate design configuration for the project
The Planning Corporation visual resources and desigr7 ,pccialist, C .A. Rowley, will prepare this section. Mr.
Rowley is an expert in visual analysis. In addition o photographic renderings of view corridor effects,
several AutoCAD three dimensional renderings may be prepared using an AutoCAD program and artist
renderings. The need to prepare three dimensional cnderings i,, based on the significance of the effects
that may result from the development. These rend. Tint's would be an extra work item which would be
funded through a contract amendment at the discrf:.trr of the ( "onimunity Development Director_
The primary standards used to evaluate the visuai i ounce impacts will be County General Guidelines,
aspects of the City of Moorpark's Downtown Study. .d professional standards for visual resource analvsis.
The consultant will discuss aesthetic considerations .�.ith the Community Development Director prior to
undertaking the visual resource analysis. The existirit, md0lons nottion of the analysis will contain:
o a review of the general landscap, and scenic character of the area under
consideration - -to the extent neccs,,a the prolc t area could be partitioned into
subunits and ecological tvpcs;
0 recent landscape modifications will I des( rih:•d
o the on- street and surrounding hillside view corridors will be described and
illustrated - -an inventory will be madt of all developed areas that may be impacted
by the project;
potentially relevant regulations and policies will he described and summ�trizecl -at
a minimum, the State Department 0 Parks and Recreation, State Department of
Transportation, and Ventura Countti visual resource policies will be enumerated
and any conflicts with these policies will be specified.
A series of black and white and two color photos (phoi o offset quality) will be presented to illustrate existing
conditions. These same photos will again appear ;r rhe iirnpaC analysis section with accurately rendered
view corridor effects.
The impact analysis will be preceded by a clarificati on of the significance thresholds applicable to visual
analysis. Then, impacts will be described both in tent and photographically. The types of impacts to be
evaluated include:
o elimination of scenic resources;
o impacts associated with project visibilety from all impacted view corridors;
o visual dominance effects on residentiA, trail, highway, and open lands;
o visual compatibility with existing lane: tscs;
o impacts to the historic landscape cl?ar yctcr
o adverse visual effects on existing com .iwmties
Mitigation measures will be conceived for significan, effects. Mitigation planning will also be done to
minimize the adverse effects of project traffic on existing residences. The character and landscape detailing
at project entrance points will be considered and mitigating the effects of increased traffic on the
neighborhood from an aesthetics standpoint will lye wog -ider --d
2.11 Biological and Botanical Resources
The sensitivity of the foothills and riparian corridor, in the project vicinity have been defined in prior
environmental documents. A general biological base line inventory has been obtained as a result of prior
studies and the type of raptors using the area arc w, l! known. All existing biological inventory data will be
mapped.
The baseline data will be assembled to focus on tl-c !,)+ wing, :
o An accurate characterization of tht habitat values present within the project
boundary will be presented and an a, essment of the degree to which this habitat
has been degraded will be provided
o Several specimen trees and relativel, senile native and introduced species are
present on the perimeter of the prole t. An inventory of existing trees and shrubs
will be prepared and a soundness c,,al itiorb will he ,made only of mature specimen
trees.
o The existing arroyo appears to be a completely degraded environment. The extent
to which this arroyo satisfies the definitions of a wetland in County General Plan
policies will be clarified.
Once this inventory is completed, an impact assessment Lvill be pertormed which focuses on the following
issues (assuming biological habitats are determined so be ignilicant'
o Construction impacts from tree removal, clearing, grubbing, materials assembly,
parking and transportation, footinv,, con,1 ruction, anal utility line installation;
o Indirect or secondary effects of incw . ased acec ,s to remote habitats in the
surrounding area will be evaluated ,, well as ,tcneral effects from increased
human presence and recreational .act .v, :�s
o Impacts to raptors from changes in hah sat and torage will be evaluated;
o Changes in stream gradients, ;resi- r, siltanor, and other grading related
problems will be evaluated; and
o Secondary effects (ancillary constructi(�n, rccreatiion, etc.) will be reviewed.
Mitigation planning will emphasize construction timmk�„ offsets to improve habitats, erosion control and
revegetation, and long term monitoring activities. Empt ;esis will be placed on arranging some aspects of the
site plan around the existing mature trees.
2.12 Public Service Impacts
With exception of road networks, public infrastructure appears to tie adequate to meet the demands of the
project. The consultant will review both the project specific and cumulative effects of regional growth on
Sewer capacity school capacity, and lonE,, term water supply Based on the ongoing General Plan update,
there appears to be some potential for capacity constraint of the regional sewer system with full cumulative
buildout. This issue in particular needs to be discussed in the EIR. The local Moorpark Unified School
District and regional Community College capacities will be determined. Long term water supply will be
discussed in consultation with the Calleguas District The water supply section will describe the extent to
which this provider is dependent on local versus regional water sources.
2.13 Other Impacts
Several impacts have been determined to be minor or ire likely to be insignificant based on the results of a
field evaluation conducted in preparation of the Imt ! Study 'Ihcse impacts only need to be discussed
briefly.
Issue 1: Hazardous Materials
A Phase II hazardous materials assessment was conducted of this property by Lockman and Associates
(January 1990). The results of this study indicate that Icss than 10 yards of contaminated soil are present on
the property. A remedial plan has been conceived for i he disposal of this material. A brief discussion of the
assessment and proposed mitigation measures will be cludcd in she EIR.
Issue 2: Cultural Resources
The project is located in an area with some potential for prehistoric cultural deposits. Although an initial
inspection of the property did not yield evidence of �.rtive Amencan occupation, a Phase I archaeological
evaluation of the propcov will be conducted and the r -ills; 4011'. ',urvev will be incorporated into the EIR.
2.14 Other CEQA Sections
This section will address the following topics:
o Summary of Cumutative Effects
o Irreversible Environmental Effect;
o Short Term Uses versus Long Term P, duct svia v
o CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
Growth inducement and cumulative effects will be dr,,cussed in )ther portions of the document where
relevant. In this section of the EIR, the consultants will assemhle and review cumulative and growth
inducing effects and discuss how these two issues are t e+ +red.
A mitigation monitoring plan will be recommended. This section will summarize all mitigation measures in
a matrix and define what types of monitoring are rccom i nendod for °ach measure.
2.15 Project Alternatives
The alternatives analysis will be based on a review of the constraints maps for the project and the
identification of critical environmental problems. Retaining existing trees will be given special consideration
in the alternatives analysis. Several alternative devclr,pment scenarios will be described and illustrated.
Although the alternatives cannot be defined with terra, bty at this time, probable alternatives to be included
will be:
o No project,
o Reduced density in either the affordal, c or marker rate portions of the project,
o Redesign of the project configuration without a ch,inge in density,
o Redesign of the project configuration �_ith a chanee in density,
o Mixed one and two story development in the single family residential portions of
the project with a zero lot line .-onfr, urati on in ;ome portions of the project to
create additional open space,
o Phased development of various portr, rrs A the project linked to improvement of
traffic conditions at critical interseciW
o Alternative locations.
The probable environmental effects of each alternate +e will be described in a summary manner. The
alternative analysis will be preceded by a brief review of case law concerning alternatives. The consultant
will describe at least one environrnentally superior alter native to tht project.
The Alternatives analysis will begin with a review of >,k fiat project specific impacts need to be mitigated to
reduce effects to insignificance. A summary of cumul tivc effects will also be provided at the beginning of
this section.
The structure of the alternatives analysis will triable the comparison of the effects of the proposed project
and at least three of the most viable alternatives. In ca,cs where impacts can be quantified (levels of service,
air quality impacts, public service demands, etc) umerical impact evaluation will be provided in a
summary table to enable easy comparison of the l'rir,L- wirh (%cr l �Jable alternatives.
3.0 COST PROPOSAL
3.0 Cost Proposal
Fee Proposal
This offering is a proposal to prepare this docum :nw to ough coml,letion of the Final EIR
Activity
L1('11r,
Rate
Cost
2.1
Introduction
$88.00
$440.00
Summary Narrative
t
$88.00
352.00
Impact Matrix
It?
588.00
1,408.00
2.2
Project Description
12
$88.00
1,056.00
Cumulative Projects
tti
$88.00
1,408.00
2.3
Environmental Setting
8
$88.00
704.00
2.4
Land Use and Planning Considerations
12
$88.00
1,056.00
2.5
Transportation and Circulation
'_2
$88.00
1,936.00
(incorporation into the EIR)
Kaku Subcontract
15,900.00
Traffic counts
3,400.00
2.6
Air Quality
12
$88.00
1,056.00
2.7
Noise
t
$88.00
792.00
(incorporation into the EIR)
2.8
Flood Control Planning}
l
SWOO
792.00
(incorporation into the EIR)
Peer review by engineer
16
$110.00
1,760.00
2.9
Geology and Soils
)
$88.00
792.00
2.10
Aesthetics and
l3
$88.00
1,144.00
Visual Resources
lrl
$50.00
2,000.00
2.11
Biological and Botanical Resources
'0
$88.00
1,760.00
Field Survey /Background
�
$50.00
600.00
Certified Arborist
950.00
2.12
Public Services
�y
$88.00
1,408.00
2.13
Other Impacts
4
$88.00
1,232.00
2.14
Other CEQA Sections
$88.00
792.00
2.15
Project Alternatives
0
$88.00
880.00
Subtotal
$43,618.00
Other Direct Labor
AutoCAD Programming/ Data Base Assembly '0 $60.00 $1,800.00
Graphics $40.00 2,600.00
Word Processing e 0 $35.00 3,850.00
Subtotal $81-150.00
Revisions /Comments /Responses to Comments
Activi
Hours
Rate
Cost
Revisions to ADEIR
4
$58.00
$3,960.00
Revisions to Screen Check EIR
3
$88.00
1,144.00
Revisions to Draft EIR
6
$88.00
4,840.00
Revisions to AFEIR
3
$88.00
1,144.00
Final EIR Comments & Responses
iti
$88.00
3,960.00
Subtotal $15,048.00
Publication Costs
Draft EIRs ... 65 @ $30.00 /copy
$1,950.00
Final EIRs ... 45 @ $40.00 /copy
1,800.00
Moorpark staff ... 12 @ $30.00 /copy
360.00
12 @ $40.00 /copy
480.00
Screen check ... 15 copies @ $35.00 /copy
525.00
Subtotal $5,115.00
Other Charges
Meetings with City Staff - 20 hours @ $88.00 /hr.
$1,760.00
FAX Charges, 200 pages @ $2.50 per page
500.00
Cover Photos, 115 @ $2.25 each
258.75
Hearings (8 hours @ $88.00 /hr.)
704.00
Travel Expenses (2,000 miles @ $.28 /mile)
560.00
AutoCAD CPU Plot Charge
175.00
Subtotal $3,957.75
TOTAL PREPARATION COSTS $75,988.75
4.0 SCHEDULE
4.0 Schedule of Deliverables and Payments
Deliverable Products
The deliverables for this EIR include:
o A preliminary Administrative Drrtr i r staff -cvt� w:
o A pre -print screen check draft to cn.iole staff to , ontirm all requested changes and
response to Administrative Dratt cor:„u,ms:
o Public Draft EIR;
o Preliminary Administrative Final FI1, and response to comments for staff review;
o A pre -print screen check Final I ?IR enahlc sti f to confirm all required changes
and response to comments; and
o A public Final EIR.
The consultant will also submit to the City all computer tiles, traffic model outputs, graphics, one
reproducible hard copy and one 3 1/T computer diskette containing the EIR, and all materials loaned to the
consultant during the preparation period. IBM cowpatibile. W'.7rd Perfect 5.0 software will be used for
word processed submittals to the City.
4.1 Administrative Draft EIR, Screen Check Elk Draft EIR (DEIR), and Final EIR
Timeline
Ten (10) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR will he prepared, published and delivered to the Moorpark
Community Development Department within about 'iftcen weeks of receipt of a contract and a formal
notice to proceed from the City. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of City staff comments, three (3)
copies of the screen check Draft EIR will be prepared, published and submitted to the City upon approval of
the screen check draft, 60 copies of the Public Draft will be published and delivered to the City. The
submitted documents will be v_elo or spiral bound. Aft(-,r responding to comments on the Draft and after the
final review of the screen check document is completc.l, sixty (60) copies of the Final EIR will be published
and delivered to the City. One unbound Draft and Fin 1i FIR will I,e provided to the City.
4.2 Payment
The schedule of payments shall be as follows:
o Progress billings not to exceed 60`nr ,fter value until submission of the
ADEIR to the City for review;
0 15% of the contract value upon public �tion of the Draft EIR; and
0 The remaining 25% shall be paid pe r iiN
5.0 OFFER
5.0 Offer
5.1 This statement of work constitutes The P anning Corporation proposed scope of work and
deliverables. It represents a firm offer to pn,ti-ide the services described on the time lines indicated
at a cost not to exceed 575,988.75. This oftc i , - ,dld ?or L period of thirty (30) days from this date
(April 20, 1990)
5.2 Significant changes in the project descripti� ,ri � )r unanticipated change, in the Scope of Work
required by the City shall constitute grounds i r contract l enegotiation.
53 The persons authorized to represent Tht Piac�ning Corporation are:
Steven Craig, President
122 E �rrellaga
Santa Barbar .t, CA 9310
(805) 9r
!1
P .
Steve C'raii President
6.0 EIR DOCUMENT STYLI; GUIDE
THE PLANNING CORPORAITON OF SANTA BARBARA
Revised:.IAN I ;ARY I'M)
Title and Author
Please title your section so it is consistent with the aoachcd EIR Outline. And be certain to follow the
document title with your name, relevant academic qual�l'icati,)ns, and /or title.
Sections
Please utilize the following three section headings in .our report The headings should be all caps, bold
print.
Existing Conditions
This section should include a description of all relc�ant baseline data relating to the project site in its
presently existing physical condition. This discussion should include an historical literature search where
appropriate to identify factors or events which may assist in determining levels of project impacts for the
following section.
The Existing Conditions section should also include a I cview of thresholds of significance or other standards
that will be used to determine levels of impact (avoidahle, unavoidable, etc.). The baseline data provided in
this section should review the relevant physical, soy ial, or economic attributes of the site. Any field
measurements made to define baseline conditions (le acoustic measurements, archaeological or biological
surveys, etc.) should be summarized. If approlina n orc kictailed technical information should be
provided in a technical report which should accompan nd supper your EIR text.
Impacts
This section should include a detailed discussion of predicted environmental impacts resulting from the
proposed project. The consultant should identify all project related direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
and determine whether they are thought to be significant or insignificant. In many disciplines, such as traffic
assessment and water quality, there are generally accclsted standards from which to quantify "thresholds of
significance ". In others, such as archaeology and biology, the determination of significance is made by the
independent judgement of the qualified consulting professional. The impact description should include all
relevant threshold data (ie., State, County, or City Guidelines, prolessional engineering standards, etc.) and
technical observations, and should reflect the sound re � onmg whh,4 led to the consultants' conclusion.
Any unavoidable impacts, (that is, an impact for whi. h
separately identified in the conclusion of your impact
state what mitigations were ruled )ut as infeasib1c, h
unavoidable.
Ou bclicve i.hcre is no adequate mitigation), must be
,nalyr�is. This concluding section should also clearly
intormahwi is necessary to conclude an impact was
All conclusive statements regard,nr ry icrniln Oior of significance or insignificance
should be in bold print.
o Provide a summary list of all project i! .pact;
o Highlight impacts by indenting «!Ih h: :lot, is den onstratcd in this section.
�t
Mitigations
For any impacts which are determined to be significant, some Dorm of reasonable and implementable
mitigation measure must be provided. Multiple mitigation measures can and should (where possible) be
conceived for each impact. Please identify the source for the mitigation concept 0c., statutory and required
by law, departmental guidelines, CEQA mandated, onceived by the consultant, etc.). If any impact is
determined to be insignificant, be sure your conclusion is dcfensil,le and logical_ Please prepare a summary
pairing impacts and mitigations to prevent oversii,ht• your an,jk i,,
1. Provide a summary list of all recomn ended enita,,alion measures at the end of the
section.
2. Highlight mitigation measures by nw :ocring and identifying them
EIR Text Length and Style
The text length for the EIR sections should not ex( red 15 pages, single spaced. The EIR should be a
summary of your technical report. The text must be readable, brief, and to the point. Reference should be
made, where necessary, to your technical report which will be published in a separate volume.
Technical Report
In addition to the EIR text, each consultant shall be responsible for producing a technical memorandum
describing the time and date of field work, fully doc.rmented existing condition information, summary of
background research, all relevant computations, graphs, statistical analyses, etc. The report should be
prepared to meet the standards and guidelines for technical reports prepared within your discipline. This
report should be submitted at the same time as the EIR text. This report will not be altered or edited so be
sure it is clean, clear, and complete. Technical report with significant errors or omissions will be returned
to the consultant for revisions.
Editing, and Final EIR Text: Subcontractor Review
The content of your EIR text, after editing, reriew end comment, will be returned for your review and
comment.
Tables, Figures and Maps
Please indicate date, source, scale, and north arrow, approln late
Order of Headings
DOCUMENT TITLE -- Centered, all caps, bold.
FIRST HEADING (EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, MITIGATIONS) — All caps, bold.
Second Heading -- Cap /lower case, bold.
Third Order of Heading -- Underlined, cap /lower c.rs no fold
Fourth Order of Heading -- Cap /lower case, no I of
ATTACHMENT TO PLANNING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR WESTLAND
PRO,{ I;CT
The following information should be included iu thi a r%iccs for the c,ise planning work to he
provided for the Westland Company project:
1.0 Staff Reports, Resolutions/Ordinances, and `, leetings
1.1 Prepare separate staff reports and + onditions i f Approval for the single - family
and multi - family residential projects or Planning Commission and City Council
consistent with the City Commurlit4 I velepmcv Department standard format.
1.2 Prepare Planning Commission and :_Av Council resolutions for the E1R and
Mitigation Reporting and momtorinf 'rogi am and for the entitlement requests.
13 Prepare City Council Ordinance for me Chang(.
1.4 Prepare public hearing notices and ni id notices trl all residents within 1,000 feet of
project boundaries for each schedule public hcw ing.
1.5 Attend meetings with the Plannim,, epaitment staff to discuss design (4), and
with the applicant (4, if necessar�i
1.6 Attend and make presentation at t'l. ,aing Commission (3), and City Council (2)
hearings.
2.0 Project Design Review and Analysis
2.1 Analyze the project in accordance •vith sound planning principles, and make
recommendations to City and appii ant regarding appropriate design for site
plans, elevations, floor plans, colors , i d materials, and conceptual landscaping and
lighting plans.
2.2 Analyze the project to determine: err. As n v with the City's General Plan, Zoning
Code, and policies.
2.3 Analyze the project to deter mine application completeness. Make
recommendation to City regarding; , ny items determined necessary to complete
application. Prepare letter to applic nt for Community Development Director's
signature identifying any inforinr! i � vliich must be submitted to complete
application.
2.4 Work with applicant to finalize applicanon. 1'repare letter to applicant for
Community Development Director � gnawrr when application is determined to
be complete.
2.5 Work with City Engineer's Office ti determine appropriate onsite and off -site
circulation. Work with the Colivi , Flood ('ontrol District to coordinate
appropriate desic;n of any neces >Ar% II god cmiro,! ,mprovcments.
2.6 Work with applicant to ensurr �h FIR <.utnested mitigation measures arc
incorporated ink the project do >I�Tl r
2.7 Work with the applicant to save a, i ynv on -,itc trees as possible.
2.8 Prepare Conditions of Approval, n , ,Iew these conditions with City staff, present
proposed Conditions of Appro,,,A is + ftv _ouni 1, and prepare final Conditions.
2.9 If the RFD Permit and Tentative act %Iap ore approved by the City Council,
work with the applicant to chllui compli, no- with conditions of approval as
needed to allow City Council ��lyro�al ut a Final Map and Community
Development Department ap>rr � i' "on �yt�, C,Icaranec for the residential
units.
2.10 Mitigation Monitoring: Momtor iye implementation of conditions during the
preliminary grading and site dcv� iopment st,rge. When the project is near
completion, monitor all requirements specified in the Conditions of Approval to
determine if requirements have beery met. Ensure enforcement of all conditions
through negotiation and report norcompliance to the City as necessary. At the
conclusion of the project, prepare m Ligation monitoring report to the City.
3.0 Timing, Processing, and Noticing
3.1 Make recommendation to Dircci,�r of Community Development regarding
application completeness three we( ks after initial or any subsequent RPD and
Tentative Tract Map application sul mittals are received by the City.
3.2 Complete and mail letter identitving whether application is complete or
incomplete prior to the 25th day a(r r .in, ;ipplk ation submittal is received by the
Citv.
3.3 Provide draft Conditions of Appr; 4al to the City six weeks prior to the first
Planning Commission hearing, and ) the applicant three weeks prior to (lie first
Planning Commission hearing.
3.4 Provide draft Planning Commis."W Statf Pep,)rn one month prior to the first
hearing.
3.5 Initiate EIR circulation 30 days pr ( o lust Planning Commission hearing.
3.6 Provide Planning Commission publr, hearing and EIR circulation Public Notice
Form to City three weeks prior to it ' :adorn of Ff R circulation.
3.7 Notify applicant to post the proic s,tc sic o ceks prior to the first Planning
Commission hearing and three wrc prior to .rny subsequently scheduled public
hearings. City policy requires r101 b�. :M,tcd on the site three weeks prior to
initial public hearing and two Nv-(.4 < inr o ,,n� ,uhsequent public hearing.
3.8 Mail the Public Notice Form to ,: r,,tsidents within 1,000 feet of the project
boundaries at least two weeks pr'Wi arry schcor,led public hearing.
39 Provide Final ,Staff Reports to ca� wo .%cck: prior to any scheduled Planning
Commission or City Council llc:rrn.r
4.0 Additional Services
4.1 Provide the City of Moorpark with 3. , -inch diskettes using IBM compatible, Word
Perfect 5.0 software for all staff reports, public notices, resolutions, ordinances,
and other written project corre,p ndcrice a, requestcd by the: Community
Development Department.
4.2 Provide staff support services as dirc rA by the itv.
5.0 Budget
The Planning Corporation of Santa Barbara
will complete the Scope of Services on a time -and-
materials basis for a not -to- exceed fee of $29,594.110, including expenses.
The estimated itemized
costs for each activity are provided beloN :
1.1
$1,960.00
1.2
540.00
1.3
350.00
1.4
800.00
1.5
2,ir.00
1.6
11x M-00
Subtotal
$7,610.00
2.1
$1,450.00
2.2
)90.00
2.3
1 25.00
2.4
; 32.00
2.5
- +80.00
2.6
1, 30.00
2.7
X5.00
2.8
1,()t )0.00
2.9
1,(,)'5.00
2.10
_11W )0.00
Subtotal
$13,497.011
3.1
$.; 12.00
3.2
-�5 00
3.3
0,0.00
3.4
1, 00.00
3.5
:5.00
3.6
3.7w5.(K)
3.8
�'t 10.00
3.9
1 .110 00
Subtotal
$5,087.110
4.1
$4u 10.00
4.2
W(1_00
Subtotal
$1,200.00
Word Proccssinc
TOTAL
2200.0(1
RECEIVED
$29,;94.00
•-
APR 2 3 1990
_ _
City of Moorpam
6.0 Project Personnel
The individuals participating in this wor': ii ,c ,sic
Steve Craig, Ph.d.c.,
Lisa Knox Burns, M.A., AICP
C. A. Rowley, H.A.
Rita Tacadena.
Steve Craig will be primarily responsible for the staff support described in this contract. Lisa Burns,
who has had ten years experience in both comprehensive planning and current planning functions in
several Southern California jurisdictions, will participate in the preparation of staff reports and in
assuring that all activities proceed on schedule. C.A. Rowley, the Planning Corporation design
consultant, will assist in project design review and analysis and in mitigation monitoring. Word
processing related tasks will be completed he !Z11 ,t Tacadf na.
7.0 Statement of Offer
7.1 This statement of work constitutes t he Planning Corporation proposed scope of
work and deliverables. It represent .r firm offer to provide the services described
on the time lines indicated at a co,t not to exceed $29,594.00 which should be
deposited with the City of MoorparF 'I his offcr is valid for a period of sixty (60)
days from this date (April 19, 11)90)
7.2 Significant changes in the project tescnphon or unanticipated changes in the
Scope of Work required by [h.° it,� shrill constitute grounds for contract
renegotiation.
7.3 The persons authorized to reprcx n: I'he I'lannirng Corporation are:
Steven Craig, President
112F. rrell.iga
Santa Bart o ,, ('i, ()31 ^'t
(805
�
Stcvc (i I, [Ir c , do Ill