HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 1017 CC REG ITEM 09B 71 ;2.IX,(1:2:._)
S
MOORPARK ITEM
BERNARDO M. PEREZ o,a� STEVEN KUENY
Mayor o°�elZ City Manager
SCOTT MONTGOMERY f ; CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tern i r �a City Attorney
ELOISE BROWN �rt0� �►� PATRICK RICHARDS,A.I.C.P.
Councilmember o`t : Director of
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. °°o� O Community Development
Councilmember °'ems R. DENNIS DELZEIT
PAUL W. LAWRASON,Jr. City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
LILLIAN KELLERMAN Chief of Police
City Clerk RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
t
DATE: October 11, 1990
SUBJECT: FINAL EIR FOR MISSION BELL PLAZA AND GREENLEAF APARTMENT
PROJECTS (CPD'S 89-1 AND 2, RPD-89-1, AND LDM-89-2)
The above referenced Final EIR will be delivered to you separately
on Monday, October 15, 1990 . The EIR consultant, Impact Sciences,
has identified that they need this additional time to complete the
Final EIR and provide responses to all the Council 's questions
regarding air quality and circulation. We received the
supplemental traffic analysis report from Austin-Foust yesterday,
and this information needs to be incorporated into the Final EIR.
PJR/DST
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of /0/i? 1990
ActION: 7AN e4DM sol a,
OAP •-nd f7-L1 V 4
BALI f
_ �.� 641e /Tz4� T�'/a
_ ;2.4.22z,
ed rattle G HQ a2 .
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
U
3N1 S33N313S 13VdW1
0661 'Lt .zagoPO
09£t6 vtuaoJ!I J 's3IPO puusnoils
zooid }szt3 'aniva }saM L9Z
"DUI 'saJuaijs puduzI
Aq paiedaij
IZO£6 utuaojq J 'x.zt'dbooysl
anuanV )2 d.iooJA 66L
lirc xoow jo A;tj
.io; pa.iedaid
Lt9ZT068 '°I\I HDS
Z-68-JN-U1
Z-68-QdD
1-68-Qd3
t-68-Qd2I
S1NainauVJV IV INd32IO
QNV VZV1d TIME NOISSILII
;ioda>j p duzl ptuauzuo.iinua IEuid u;u.'Q LL
•sivaauoa/sans!aofeuz asaq;;o gaea o;asuodsai a Si Molaq papnlaul
•piloid pasodold au;;o;sang►Allaa u p
palm(); s;uaptsaa Aii'Vut;stxa uo;aalojd sun woa;;lnsaa pinoM;eq; s;aeduat au;azueununS •L
•aVuega stq; ;o let;ua;od
peduut alp Aft;uenb'os JI •uzalsAs not;elaodsuea; leuot2aa 10 ;ex);aq; laedurt ;sea aq; o; pa;eaol
laafoad letaaauluzoa Sut;s!xa aq; q;!M laafoad letalaunuoa pasodoad all;Jo uogaauuoa aq; pinoM •9
-uia;sXs uopeliodsuea;
leuo!2aa s4 IJ aq; paw aa;xapulod o; peon g2noup a se ;lag X;aaq!-;;o aansola aq; mom MOH •S
•s;aedurt
Aitlenb ate leuot$aa aanpaa pinoM q;$ual dti ut uoganpaa s!'LL •paztt 0t aq MOu mom;eq;
sdp; letaaauzuioa SO4a ;q;IM pa;etaosse 1412ual du; aq;aanpac osle p;noM pue aseq lepaauzutoa
s,At'aq;aseazaut won,.haloid pasodoid stuj Aut'ai.11 utq;tM saptun;aoddo lepaaunuoa
;o rel aq; o;anp ewe aq; apis;no dogs HCl;uauna sluaptsaa vedlooyq Auetu;eq;wMopl st lI
zspaepue;s Altlenb ate pat;t;uapt Sutpaaaxa;noq;ZM padolanap aq pinoa paafoid a a$ae!
Moq pue';uaaaad SZ Aq azts ut paanpaa seM;aaload aq;;t aq fwienb ate uo;aedutt a n pinom;egM
•;uauzuoltnua Atlenb ate aq;uo pedun;ueat;tufts e aneq pinoM 'paluauzaldun;t 'paafoad snit. •£
�W3 l;e'a aq;;o suozsnlauoa aq;APM Aur ul pa;;e uopduasap;aafoad aq;ut a2uega aq;pinoM •z
•uondgasaa
;aafoad;uauna al;augaf1 •ssaaoad 2utuueld aq;g9noaq; panlona Apue;suoa seq;aafoad sq -1
•Molaq pat;tivapt ale sansst uanas -?IIH ;eut3 slq;
;o lied se paleaodaoaut uaaq seq uopaas stq; 'asuodsaa pauuoJu wow a aptnoad o; pue sansst;ue;aodurt
asaq; uo uoqual;e snao; ol, •saaleui-uotspap Alt, pue atlgnd aq; o; ;saaa;ut uouzusoa ;o aiaM ;eq;
pagpuapt aaaM?llg jeaa aq}ao/pue pafoad aql uo sluaunuoa leaanas ssaaoad Matnai atlgnd aq; 8uuna
S1N3} Vo of asNodsau of NOL DflU011NI
timed
I
•jaaj aaenbs 179S4L Alajewtxoadde Aq papnpaz uaaq seq aSejoo;
aaenbs !elm ay'Janamoq :asn;o adAi at{; ut a$uega lepuejsgns Aue ajeajsnijj jou op auauoduzoa jpa(oad
ietalauiwoa aamof aqj ;o jaed se pasodotd sasn purl •aSejooj aaenbs lejol ut aseaaaut ou jnq 'pasodoad
an ley sasn ay ut a2uegp toutuz awos sapnput juauodwoa pa(oad ietatauauioa aaddn aqy •1113 Ieutd
sigj uI pazACleue sI juauodwoa jaa(oad Ieijuaptsai ay ut aSuetp ou'pajealsuowap sy •pasodoad Apuaaanp
st jt se jpa(oad ay ;o uoijean2guoa aqj sajetjsniit v aanStd •y algey uo paptnoJd Si sasn ut aSuet p
atij Sugeijsniit xujew uosueduioa y •pasodoid A(leut$uo sem jt se jpa(oad ay o; saaedwop jt moq
pue'pasodotd AI ua.una st 1! se pa(oad alp Jo uopepgquapt aeap a st mou juejaodwt 5t wuj •juenaiai
Jou ate pue snoaawnu aae Al(epuojstg jaafoad stgj ut paunaao aneq ley saSuegp;o taguznu pue adAj atu,
•jpedwt lenjuajod Ja paau pantamad a of antsuodsaa uaaq sasea Auew ut aneq
pue 'jueatldde antjae ue o; asuodsaa ut paatnwo AlaSte{ aneg suotjepgtpow ;o aagwnu aqj 'jaa(oad sigj
gjtm pa;etposse saSuet p Aural uaaq anew azagj gSnogjly •{ensnun jou an suogept;tpow;o sada asagy
•Ajo aqj;o sjuaptsaa juape(pe
o; sjpedwt 1421 pue estou apnpaa of aajawtaad uaaasam s,jaa(oad aqj Suoie saanjptujs jo juautanow
aqj papnput suopepgtpow asagj ;o saidwex3 •sjuaptsat ease ;o spaau pat;quapt ay ajepouzuzoaDe of
pat;!pow sem jpa(oad ag; 'Apse7 -sasn apt;;o leatpaw ao aaea Rep se gpns Iepuajod jaedwt jeuttutuz Apo
anet{ pinom jegj sasn asogj of paaoltej aaam raze lepaawwop aaddn agj ut sasn;ueuaj aypads 'aidwexa
log •uotjeaedaad ut sem gid j;eaci aqj se leijuajod jaedwl pajpuapt sjt of asuodsaa ut pat;Ipow sem
jaafoad agj 'paruj ue{d jeaauaD pajdope s,'4OJ ag; gjim apuegdwop aansua of pue uopeinpap leuo!Saa
pue Iepol aajjaq aptnoad o; pauSisap sem uotlepgtpouz sig1 •aajxaputod 01 peon 42noag; a se umogs
sem ling Atiagt-I ley bans ;uauodwoa iepuaptsaa ay ;o uSlsapaa aqj sem uogeagjpow ;o ad1Cj sigj
;o aidwexa uy •spaau dj!J of puodsaa 01 ssau2utiltm a ajea;suowap of'jaed ui`ssaaoad uSisap jaa(oad aqj
jo Ind se pajeaodaopul aaam „spaau„ asata •ssapoad Sutuueid ag; jnogBnnzgj pauyap want An alp;o
„spaau.'puoaag •javetu s,uosuagly jo sjuawaatnbaa ay ajepounuoppe o; pagtpotu aiam Sutp{tnq awls
kaapoaS aqj ;o sjuawaajnbaa ssaaae apigan pue uotjejuauo 'aidwexa Jog •pa(oad stq; uI Sugedpgted
ut pa;saaa;ut aaam ;eqj s;ueua; jo spaau aqj ajepowtuoppe o; Pat;tpow sem jpa(oad aq; se pa$uegp
;ueatidde jaa(oad ay ;o spaau aqj 'jsa13 •sjuauza{a ieaanas of asuodsaa ut paaanDao seq uSisap pafoad
ut uopniona slay •ssaaoad 2upiew-uotspap pue $utuueid alp ;nogSnoagj paniona set( patoad snit'
I 3l1SSI 013SNOdS3?i
-aopdiosaa
jpa(oid;uaaatta atij autlaC •ssazoad Suiuuvjd alp q$noxip paeiona Spuelsuoa seta}pa(oid spit :j 3fissi
•
1uopvnunwwoa Fvuosiad
:;uawpvdap ;uausdgaaaa h;wnwwop xavdaooW (o h;=J :nznos
(;esodoad;uawdoianap Feu!Suo aq;woa)aSueya oN)
(0661'6Z;sn9ny)sagspris;uauwdoianaa iequapisaa
'0661 'It 113"W paivp uvld alis
,s,vaw;avdV /valuanJD, woo papdwoo "au/ 'snuaus ;avduq :aaanos
%EL"13'176 Stt'9L Supped uF Suideaspuf
%Lt a0 1;In 196'60£ easy padeaspuel
%6£1013'IN'Ong a2eiano"uawaned
%tI 10 1;ts Z69't6 a2eaano' Su;pimg !my
sands!e;o;9£;:paaanoa auo'wan aad saea z
s;uaugaede 89 rood,
Z£ (7)'bs O68)s1?un wowpaq omy
9£ ('O'bs t9S)s;;un wooapaq aup
s;Fun 30lagwnN s;Fun ao;uas
saaeds ie;o;999:;Fun aad paaanoa ony y;un sad saes£
s;uaugaede g9; ploy
Z£ (13•bs 096)spun wooapaq aaayy
Ot Cu•bs Ot8)spun wooapaq omy
ts t9S)Murk wooapaq au()
s;Fun)o aagwnN s;uauuaedy .CFnued
(0661'1Z Wall)nnsgnS;uauadoianaa Fepuap;say
uosuvduioJ 3psp eJs pa(osa
V alge7.
i I
■ 7
'0661 '6Z 7sn8ny pamem uc74 alts
,maid nag ua}ss!W, 2314 waf pa7!du o. 'auk 'snuaug padw1 :nanos
43'bs 000'95 a$eaanop Sulpling [C0j
sums ZI£ slims Sunped Ino.L
;3 'bs 000'6 ialuaj an) PI IID
;3'bs 000'61 (Aims onto aay3O leaauaO
(saanpnys om7 ul)aa;uaD aaeJ PIl4J/aay3O
13 is 000'6I (Maws onto aay3O lnauao
73'bs 000'6 aaeD .zonas/aa!33O lea!PaNI
(saanp[uls OM) u!)WED aoluas/saay3O lea R".%)1,11
(0661'6Z lenSnv)sapspns;uawdolanaa lepnwwoj iaddn
'0661 'IZ :paw pimp uald ins
vzvId Rag uoissIW, 21(7 woo pa11dwoa '-aul 'snuaus pvdug :wins
;3'bs 000'99 a2eaanop SuiPIFng Ino"
511e45 OS saaeds Supped
;3'bs 000'9 can Sulplmg
aa;uaJ aaep Xkj
suns £91 saaeds Supped
u•bs 000'0S aaeds aay3O
(saanana;s onu up saay3O lealpan
(0661'TZ tlaae3ll)sapspng;uawdolaeaa lepaaunuop raddn
uospedwo3 apspns pafoid
V MU
'0661 '6Z psn8ny mop uvld
,mold gag uo;ss!yy, waif pspdwoa '-aul 'snuaus iavdwl :ninon
suns I£6 saaeds dun(ied
;;•bs 8ZZ'I6I '7tlJ.QL
•I; •bs 00£7 tiSeM ieo/uoneig seD
'3; 'bs 0001£Z iueaneisag
'bs OZL'£6 lepaawwov pecan
3;'bs Z96'LZ aacns2niQ
3; •bs 94L'VP iaveW
(0661'6Z 4sn2nv)sagspfS ivaurdolanaQ Iepiaunnop aae+o7
'0661 'It y3avyy ppvp uvld
rigs .vzvid IPS uopssryy, woo papdwoa '•aul 'saauaus pvdwl :nanos
specs t06 saaeds 2unlaed
'3;'bs Z6L'861 "IV.L01.
7;'bs 00£1Z gseM ie'/uogng seg
>;
bs 000'8Z ;unaneisaa
00fi'86 lepaaunnoD l;eia i
7;'bs Z9dLZ aaa;s`druQ
'bs 0£9'Z6 3a�fiel�I
(0661 gafNl)sonsne3S;uawdolasaa lepzaimuo,zaMo1
uospedwop 3nsne3S palm,/
V;HU
j}uaurprdaQ;uautdojanaa Ijrunuruuo'
31zdioow alp Aq IPuno,AHD ljied:oo alp 0 paranjpp aq oi)
not;dinsau pa[oid;uaxzn,-tl am&3
A
•alts pafoad pasodoid ay;;o;sam padofaAap aq Aeuz;eq;ea.ie
jepiaunuoa an-gni aq;o;;urod uollaauuo3 pasodoad a st pasodoad uaaq seq leg;a2uega aagao kilo a a
4
-sisX(eue ;aedun „asea
;saoM„ a se paru4suoa aq p(noa pue men uteuzaa mom 2iia ;;eaa ay; ;o suotsnpuoa aq; "uot;duasap
pa(oad ut aSueua alp uzoa; ;insaa pinom ;eq; apn;tuSeui pedun ut aseaaaut ou si aaaq; ;eq; uaniD
•apn;TUSeuz
pedun ut uopanpaa te;uauzaaaut ue ;o iet}ua;od pedun ut aBuetp ;ueagtu2is ou ut s;insaa aaq;ta azis
pafoad ut uoganpaa atp;eq; sa;ea;suouzap g aige•I• •(;ueat;tu$is o; ;ueayiuSis;ou uioa; '-a i) uoisnpuoa
aaueatjiu&s ut a2uepa paeMdn ue se pauyap aaaq'Zgg;;e is aqp;o suotsnpuoa aq ut aSuega;ueaytuSis
Aue autuuaiap o; paMatnaa wank tug ani; jo suotpas ile `pasodoad ale ;eq; sa$uetp jo adAi aq; uant j
.(ease tetaaaucuzoo aaneoi aep ut aSe;oo;aaenbs ut uotpnpaa aq;Aiiedpuud'•a t) azts pa(oad ut uopanpaa
aq; pue sale pa(oad tepaauzuzoa iaddn aq; ut pasodoad sasn ui uopeuen aq; si aSuega 4ueai;tu2is
Apo aqy •uogeiraguoa pue adA4 aeinuts;o sI pa(oid pasodoad Ai uauna atp anssi uz pa;ea;suouaap sy
Z 3fISSI O.L 3SNOJS32I
12III
;pia ati;;o suotsnpuoa alp Arm Aue ui page uopdpasap pa(oid alp ui aSuetp alp pinoM Z 3nSSI
A
(Ile;aa saMo1)jQ ' 8£9'SL (Ite;as saMo-i) yay 06Z'91.
(3aa(oad asuug).Lay 866'81 (13a(oad asqug) ..Lad OS9'61
•uot;eSt;tw g;lM ;ueaylu2TS •uOl;eS!1iui glIM ;ueat;iu2is uoge[naio aQ at;;esy
Iesn;aalppiy
•uol;e$l;lul /aaelD Puy;q$r
g;lM ;UEat;Ia15 ;ON •uoT;e$WUI g;iM ;ueai;1Uals ;ON /saasnosa)LenslA,
Aep/suo;L8'SI Cep/suo;S£'9I
•uol;e2i;lui
g;IM ;ueal;tudis ;ON •uOt1e$Wui g11M Iueai;iU$IS l°N a;seM P!IoS
•uol;ell;Iul
q;IM ;ueat;tu2ls ;ON •Uol;e2q!U1 g;IM $ueaJIUSls ;oN a$euie.Ia uuo;s
Aep/sle2 165'Z6 AeP/sIe$ 16S'96
•uol;e$i;lut
g;IM ;ueaglu2ls 40N •uot1e&utul q;!M ;ueaylU%S ;oN ssaMas Ase;lues
(MV Erni)
so Aep/sla 106'011 (Mv IZ'6Z1) BeP/ste$i►5£'Si I
•uope2l;lul
g;[M ;UeJI;IU2IS 1oN •UOl1e29[UI q;iM ;Ue)!J U !S ;ON uOistnosd as;eM
•uoT;eSiliui
toot ;UeaylUSls ioN •uoge2gnu quM iueal;IuSls ;oN uopeavag 1p slaed
•uoge2gpn
g11M 1ueat;nl2Is ;oN •uol;PSI;Iw q;IM ;ueaglUSls ;ON uota;osd aallOd
•uolleSL;Iui
14;iM ;ueaulu$ls ioN uolleliIllul ql!M luealpuSls ;oN uogaalosd aa13
•;aa; aienbs 1+9s'L Aq Bela; ul
uopanpai uey;saq;o aSuega ON
•uolleSI;lm mum Iuea•T;Iu2IS •uol;eSs;tul mom ;ueat;lulls astoM
•(alga; Anununs
suotssRua sly)a alga;aas
laa;aaenbs'9S'L Aq Ile;at uT
uopanpai ueq;sagio a2UPL43 oN
•uoge$plui giIM Iueaylu$IS •uol;e&;nu q;IM 1ueaylu$IS Aitient) sly
•uol;PSplui
q;IM ;ueaglu$Is ION volle$I1IuI q;IM iUeaynl2ls ;oN lealugaaloao
ab6i'6Z isahlt UPJ a1 S 06611Z WIEN 0 mid aTTg Tirdurnenratattoptma
;o spedtui 3o slsedwwi
aigej uosuedulo,laeduq
S aigpL
A
'0661
'6Z 7snSnV Pr 066I 'IZ 2P4VW I vp uv1d ants *mid 11?8 uo}ss1W„ uao4 pnedutoD '',uI 'sus pvduI :aNnos
•;ue4nu&s ioN •1ueoglia!s ;oN sptezeH g}IeaH
•lueayru2is ;oN 1ue)yruit!s IoN $uEsnoH i uogeindod
066I'6Z;sn lINTJo uid ai!S
�o speduri ;o speduri
amyl uosgeduro,peduri
panupuoo» g aiges,
1
g
0661 '1Z ya4'W PaavP unld a;u . a1d nag uo?ssryy„ 14104J Pajuiuloa `auj 'saauaus prdwj :aainos
8L'I I 8£'Li :Aq papaaaxg paepuels
0L'£I OL'£I :paepue;S CIJdV
8y'SZ SO'IC :(;aa;a.ienbs OS6`LSI 'sdwnd se$Zi) uotpnpaSZ
LZ•QZ tL•LZ :Aq papaaaxa paepue;s
OL'£I OL'£I :paepue;S COO/
L6'££ 1717'II' :;aafoa;i pasodoad
xUN 3021
(pea(lad suo;)
pa;eaauaJ suoissiuia ploy
suotsstur3 Iepzaunnop raMO•i ezeid Hag uotsst h,
alge.L
'a pew
aq pinna gig aqi;o uotsnpuoa aii}ut a$ueya ou pue;unouie;ueaytu$ts a Aq spaepue;s 4tienb it paaaxa
lips pinoM ;aafo.id aq; 'aanaMoq :a;ts-uo suotssnua ate aanpaa .Cite;uawaaaut mom uoganpaa a tuns
'pa;e�snlit sy •;uaaaad SZ azts ut paanpai sem am;suotsstwa;sa$ae! ail;sa;eaaua$;t se;uauoduioa
;aaIoad ieta.jawwoa aaMoi alp se paut;ap wag) ;aa(oad at{; ;t anaao pinoM lop s;aedun £iienb ate
ut uotpnpaa aq4 sa;eaasniit ;eii; (J aigey);tgnixa up paaedaad aneq am uousanb;say ay; o; asuodsaa uI
Zspaepue;s X4tienb ne paaaxa;ou pinoM;ei4 papna;suoa aq pinoa;aafoad a$tq MOH
z;aafoad pasodoad au;o; paieduwoa ua1M suotsstuaa ate ut uoipnpaa;ueaytu$ts a aq aaaq
PInoM'(•;;•bs OS6'LSI O;)azis ui;uaalad SZ pampa'sem.;uauodwoD paf oad Iepaaunuoa aamoi al.i;II •
•Moiaq paulluapt st pea pue;saga;ut Iedtauud Ja aaaM satdo;
oMy •ezeid iiag uotssij au; 441M pa;etaosse s;aeduat Amenb ate Iepua;od $utpaeRaa uogeuiao;ut
Ieuoptppe patiddns ane4 aM ipunoJ A;iJ laedaooyri ;o A.4tj aq; jo ;sanbaa stq; o; asuodsaa uI
10661'£ragWao;o Supaaia aein$ar:lain ao;nauno,AT)aid 0 paiiddns sem uopettuojuT$umhoiio;aq,i•
£3l1SSI Q.L 3SNodS3 I
lspaepue;s 1tienb xte pai uapi$unpaaaxa;noip!M padoiaeap aq pinna pa(ord e
a$aei Moq pue 4uaarad SZ Aq azis ui paanpaa sem pa(oad aqi}?aq Aiienb are uo peduq aq;pi/tom;eq 4
-;uauzuonnua A genb aze am;uo peduq;uear;ru$Is a an.eq pinoM'pa;uauraiduq 3t'paiord sxgy :£311SSI
1
t
nitedtooysi
;o Ali' aqi o; pa;a np aq pinom spun; untop-Anq uotssnua 'Mo ayi un pasodoad ale imp s,;aafold
;uaaaa atom to; 'amiantus •suoissnua ieuoi2aa pue fetor yjoq Supnpas ui asn nay;lo;buaSv pea-I ay;
o; paiaasip aq Arm spun;asogi'uogegg w inroad se pasodoad an suoissnua atagm pue'0661 '1 Annuej
ta;;e ao; pagdde s,;aa(oad ao3 •ssaaoad sip woo; uoyeptap inuaad pinom;eq; uMotni sr wsmeynw ou
awp sup iv 'Aiitenb are apim-puma aanpat Aiteyuaiod pinoa;eq; spafoad o; pagdde aq pinom pue
pu;sma;uawaSeueysi Xiyen°ny Aiunoj etn;uaA ayi Aq asn ao; pa;nnp atom uope2gnu to; paypuapi
spun; umop-Anq alp 'uogeggnu se pasodoid atom ,sumop-Anq, uotssiwa uaym 'sauyapmJ pio ayi
aapun lamp;eq;tai;e pannaao ssaao.id ienoadde aq; g2nogi uana)0661 '1 Annus(o;aoud ao; paiidde
sem iaafoad ay; asneaaq paafoad say; to; pasn atom saugapinS pita agy •(,saugapin2 pio, aq; se pauyap
any) 0661 '1 Atenuef o;toud weld ui atom;etp saugapinS Mgenb tie aapun pauedatd sem;aafaid snu,
•saugapin8
A;iienb tie payguapi unppm m ate ;et; suoissnua a;eaauag pinom sdwnd set any pue >a aaenbs SSt'69
Aia;ewixotdde Suge;o; ;aafoad e 'pa;einaiea sy •sptepue;s A;iienb tie paaaxa ;ou pinom ;ey; (sasn ;o
saSeivaatad anyeiat awes ayi uani2) pa;an.nsuoa aq pint pafotd e aanei mot;payquapi imp ivauadwoa
;nfoad (eiataunuoa tamoi aqi ao;apeut tram suopeinaiea'uopsanb saga;o ued puoaas aty of asuodsaa ui
I tt
•spaau 2u!ddogs iiaq;Ajsges o; sdu; sa2uoj
2uplew s;uap!sas A;!J autos o;anp pa;esauaa Ai;uauna suo!ssnua aq;u!aseaiaap jepue;sgns e;uasasdas
Amu .iaq; ';uea!;!u2ls axe ;aafosd pasodord aq; zo; slew; suotss!wa q$notpje 'pa;es;snjj! sy •sas!xa
A1;uauna ;eq; uo!;!puoa aq; pue pafosd siq; uaaM;aq apnpu2ew pedes! ul aauasa;;!p aq; saaes;snjj!
Q ajgey •(aseasau!;uaaiad oc, e) sawn i•u o; j,•L wow; pasEaiaul sem tri2ual du;a$eaane atj; uopdwnsse
s!q; uan!D .ease ;avew $u!snoq $uipunouns aq; pue estuuaA pue `slep puesnota 'swis u! dolls
pjnoM suossad autos `sanaMoq sag!jpe; jepsawwoa asn Apeasje sa;uaa $u!ddogs Mau aq;
2u7ijpn suosiad autos ;ell; sawnsse spa •q12uaj du; saSuoj a;ng (sdui os9'6L) sd!A Apep;o sagwnu
al!! a apnpu! suogdwnsse asagZ •(ajgejtene aq Ajq!ssod ;ou Aew so) ajgej!ene ;ou s! ;eq; a;ep ;o
aauasge aq; u!apew asat suogdwnsse tesanas 's!sAjEue slit;a;ajdwoa oZ a;!s ;aafosd aq; paz!jpn Mou
pjnoM oqt s;uap!sas AID ;o to2uaj du; 2u!ddogs a2eaane aq; a;ejnajea;snw auo anss! s!q; o; puodsas
o; sapso uj •pafosd s!q; was; pur o; sdu; 411M pa;eposse gi2uaj du; atp jo anpe;uasasdas s! (sajnu
tr•L Aja;eunxosdde) quo du; s!q; ;eq; Ala xij s! ;! 'a;!s pafosd pasodosd aq; o; ,jsedsoopki u! seam
jeuuap!sas ;o ague;s!p aq; uant0 •suo!ssnua A!jenb s!e a;ejnajea o; pasn sem q;2uaj du; psepue;s
e ';a!s;s!Q jos;uoJ uognjjod s!y d;unop esn;uaA aq; Aq pags!jge;sa spsepue;s q;!M wso;uoa od,
t 3f1SSI O.L SSNIOdSIII
-s;aedt>z!A enb ire jeuo!8az aanpaz mom'Oita!tip;in uoipnpaz situ, Taz!jeaoj
aq num pjnom;etp sdp;tepratutuoa asots toll% pa;rposse tp$uaj dut alp aanpaz osje pjnoM pue aseq
jensattnaoa s�TJ atp aseazaut pjnoM;aafozd pasodozd sjq,I •A;!,aq;tr!tptnt sapjtm;soddo rrpzattttum
;o vej atp o;anp eaze atp ap!s)no dogs Apuauuv s;uapisaz nzedzooyq Aueut;etp uhtotnj sj;I afissi
I y
1 It
Table D
Air Emissions Summary Table
?II3 lrutd app;o lard st4;o sated Buintollo; uo pa;e1odioau!
sl asuodsai slgs •auj 'sa;epossy ;sned upsny Aq paaedaad sent suogsanb asau; o; asuodsa.i y
S 3f1SSI OZ vralsAs uope;sodsuex;Ieuot$ar
s,413 aq; pa;;-e ia;xapurod 03 pew q$nonp a se Ilag Ajragn ;o axnsop aq; mom Moll :s af1SSI
it so
0661 'Z iagop30
TOLZ6 e1UJoPIED 'end BUMS
anoaed m2mLL •H OZOZ
sanaossy nnod-ainnv
:Aq paiedaid
sa;oN Ie3Iutloai
SISATVAIV DI33V.L
QVOUI nag Amman
vea
'V
•0661 Awn' '•aUI `sa3epDossd 3snod-upsnV `„nsAleuV a93eiy ueld leaaup° AiabooW jo Ano, ,
add '.Lav pool pue Inv !enol alp uaam3aq aauaaa33pp ata se pa;elnalea sp 3r-I3e'1 mita 3o ssedAq
ay1 pue 'await peog pag Auagrl pa;aaloid ay; )o Alpofew alp 303 s3unoaae 3gJea3 (ewe paps)
moo./ •anuand =Ow so•I 3o quou 000'01 03 anuand ia3xapwod to g3nos 006`£ wog a8ue3
Peal/ nag Auagrl Sol lapow awea am wag suouaafoid Alpep ay; `sa3e31pm wag am sd
-ewe
raps papeqs ay; in pua .10 utdaq gapgm ppm aweal am in sdu3 apron Ile ;uasajdai sa3ewp3sa
a33ea3 feat)! mat I aJn2,3 up pale3;snllp osie suop2aafwd lay ?Tea IeaOIt, aq; aupwaa;ap
03 pasn sem ampa0ohd nuawu2psse ,ease laalas, spud •pa;aei;xa aq uea ease Aprils lapow ay1
my3pm =On pa3aajas 303 suop;aafoad 2uppuodsauoa lapow agje33 ay3 30 anneal lepaads e BmsII •I
wail ul Pa3E33snllp ale uo!sua3xa peog Ilag Auagpl ay1jo A3pupa1n alelpawwp ata m wa3sAs leuaue
aq1 303 suop3aalOad (Inv) agle33 Apep a!eiane Ueld leJauaO manna OIOZ NPv.LN a4.L
1•uoda3 slSAleurd OIJBIj ueld leiano° ay; in paunuexa opeuaas ,3aaloid
ou OIOZ ay; 303 suop3aafold dolanap t)3 Paso sem `s3uawala uo!e!nana pue asn puck ueld leaauaO
3uauna s,A3pa aq3 uo paseq sp gapgm `UO!S3an spgd -pasn sem yyd,Iyy ay; 3O UO[S3an ueld lelaua0
3uauna (OIOZ) 3noppnq aq3 spSAleue spy3 303 •Apn3s await aiepdn nekd leaaua9 8mo8-uo ay;
up asn 303 3kiediooyQ 3O Mj aq1 103 (dam') -mg `sa3epaossd 3sno3-m;snV Aq padolanap sem ppow
s!RL •(NPd.LN) lapoN spsAleud 393¢3&3ped30o141 DIV 8mm pawafwd ala% 535830103 3gJe1d
sNOL1.o3fo2Id 31AAVILL
•uo!sua3xa peog flag Auagq ay3
ao3 uopcagp;sn1 JO pap aq3 3O uopeupuaa;ap am in e;ep punoa83kaeq anpuoddns se papua;m ale
s3lnsaa stsAleue aq3 -paPanalsuo3 Sou s[ uo!sua2xa aq3 3p wawsAs repairs 8uppanOuns aq3 uo 3aedmp
am meant= o; pue uo!sua3xa aq3 3O anti leuo!8ai pue wool am;n3 aupwaa3ap t)3 s! spsAleue aq3
30 asodind aq3 •3pedaooyrl 3o MD am u! anuand aa33rapmod o; peat; flag Auagrl jo uopsuaixa
a1n3n3 lep3uaod aq3 3o spsAleue 393¢33 a 3O sllnsaa am azpemmns smog (=papal asagd
sa30NI lea!ug3ad
0661 `Z 3090330 SISKTVNNV DI33VILL QVO1I TI311 A.L?I3f111
I `
I r'
,
TOTAL ADT o
Ir
sr
12000
o HIGH
5000 5200 4400
to
0 2600 0 .4%%4•41.... 5500
'n o a rn o
4015113
ER M N ") cc=2rn
m M
o 3400
o
M o pE O SECOND
r.
3 0
o�
v
w a
m 1800
v o LASSEN
o v o a
0y o k o x
co 0
°' o ,� o a `v =
o, o
36100 44400 46800 45700 0 49100 50800 61100
LOS ANGELES
0
o o co cn
z v o o 0
fV ID CO
st1
UNIDOS '.% ••••.-___
LOCAL (SHADED AREAL ADT
0
0
N
3100
HIGH
4000 4200 3200
o
0 16°° 4300
4300
. to /
// / • //'/ // 2400
o
O i , / ,
SECOND
o
v 1800
v / EEn p LASSEN �/ x
0 cc
/
` /'/ / , / /i',,.
4300 8200 10500 10900 14100 z . 13700 18000
LOS ANGELES
0 U.10 o o O
cv c73
co
UNIDOS
Figure 1
2010 ADT VOLUMES
- WITH LIBERTY BELL ROAD
® ®AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, MC. EXTENSION
2
resulting estimate of regional bypass usage of Liberty Bell Road based on the traffic model
projections is 200 ADT.
The only other bypass route available for regional usage in the immediate vicinity of Liberty
Bell Road is the existing Shasta Avenue/Sierra Avenue connection between Los Angeles Avenue
and Poindexter Avenue. The primary users of this facility today are the residents of approximately
110 residential dwelling units located between Shasta Avenue and Sierra Avenue. The base year
(1989) version of the MTAM indicates that this residential development generates approximately
900 ADT, of which 20 percent (around 200 ADT) access the neighborhood from Poindexter
Avenue at Sierra Avenue, and 80 percent (around 700 ADT) access via Los Angeles Avenue at
Shasta Avenue.
Recent peak hour traffic counts taken at the intersection of Shasta Avenue and Los Angeles
Avenue indicate that existing volumes on Shasta Avenue north of Los Angeles Avenue are around
55 vehicles per hour (VPH) in the AM peak and 75 VPH in the PM peak. The AM peak hour
trips for a residential development are typically around eight percent of total ADT generated, and
the PM peak hour trips are typically around 10 percent of the total ADT. Based on these
relationships, the ADT estimate derived from the AM peak hour count is around 690 ADT and
the estimate derived from the PM peak hour count is around 750 ADT, both of which are
comparable to the existing 700 ADT on Shasta Avenue north of Los Angeles Avenue as projected
by the traffic model.
The 2010 current General Plan version of the traffic model shows the residential
development between Shasta Avenue and Sierra Avenue increasing to 148 dwelling units which
would generate around 1,200 ADT. As the traffic projections in Figure 1 indicate, 25 percent (300
ADT) of the residential trips access Poindexter Avenue from Sierra Avenue, 75 percent (900 ADT)
access Los Angeles Avenue from Shasta Avenue, and no regional bypass traffic is projected on the
Shasta Avenue/Sierra Avenue connection between Los Angeles Avenue and Poindexter Avenue.
In order to estimate future traffic conditions if an extension of Liberty Bell Road to
Poindexter Avenue is not constructed, a special version of the traffic model was run in with the
3
11
extension deleted. The 2010 projected total and local ADT's for this case are illustrated in Figure
2. A comparison of the total ADT volumes with and without the Liberty Bell Road extension
indicates that without the extension, increases in traffic occur on all parallel facilities in the
immediate vicinity of the extension. The most significant increases occur on Shasta Avenue and
Sierra Avenue, and the traffic model estimates indicate that virtually all of the increase in projected
traffic on these facilities is attributed to development within the local shaded area as shown on
the lower portion of Figure 2.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this analysis indicate that with or without the connection of Liberty Bell road
to Poindexter Avenue, adequate roadway capacity will be available to serve the traffic demand that
is projected to utilize the available roadway connections to Poindexter Avenue. Therefore, from
a level of service perspective, the need or justification for the Liberty Bell Road extension is not
clear. However, a perceptual impact on the Shasta Avenue/Sierra Avenue connector should be
recognized. The 2010 projections with the Liberty Bell Road extension assumed show relatively
low traffic increases on Shasta Avenue and Sierra Avenue compared with the estimated existing
volumes. Without the Liberty Bell Road extension, the 2010 traffic projections on Shasta Avenue
north of Los Angeles Avenue, increase by around 160 percent, from 900 to 2,300 ADT, and the
projections on Sierra Avenue south of Poindexter Avenue increase by around 430 percent, from
300 to 1,600 ADT. Such dramatic increases in traffic on what today is primarily a residential
roadway, could be perceived as a serious impact, particularly by the residents along Shasta Avenue
and Sierra Avenue.
4
TOTAL ADT o
12000
o HIGH
4900 4100 00o
o ig00 0 5300
o
p011yA ^ w coo
VI -4t
o m 3300
M o
o
SECOND nw ,na —
Pa = 1200
aa
o v uu) o LASSEN x
o � a c
M Cil N O 0.
O o 0 O a
_ R; d O
M ,� Qn 0y. n
(NI
36100 44500 46900 46900 0 49600 51200 61200
LOS ANGELES
0
o 0) z 0 0 o o
graa in o o o
0 N vtO
CO
UNIDOS
LOCAL [SHADED AREAL ADT
0
a
N
3000
HIGH
3800 3000 0
M
o 18p0 4200 ,n
O
ad
, m o
N
O / // /'/ / / / / / // �ra7 /i 2500
— F ' I//4r///" / / / ///%/i. /;/ o / SECOND
/ / ' ; N w // O
L° /'/ // ' /// /�/ ,/ ' CO 1200 ' / 0
m / / /• / / / / / / /,. , in
0 ////,//,//: / i'/// 0 LASSEN a
O ' //j • j;',' N O .x" /„/,. 0 O
LO i/// / ' //. / /.// / o - �� - d ' // 000
4300 8300 10600 12100 0 , 14500 14000 18000
LOS ANGELES
o O w o 0 o
a 0
-4a in N N co
ON
UNIDOS
Figure 2
2010 ADT VOLUMES
- WITHOUT LIBERTY BELL ROAD
1pIFAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC, EXTENSION
5
ISSUE 6: Would the connection of the proposed commercial project with the existing commercial project
located to the east impact the local or regional transportation system. If so, quantify the impact
potential of this change.
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 6
A response to these questions was prepared by Austin Faust Associates, Inc. This response is
incorporated on the following pages of this part of the Final EIR.
w ,
,
Draft
1VIISSION BELL PLAZA
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Technical Notes
Prepared by.
Austin-Foust Associates
2020 N. Tustin Avenue
Santa Ma, California 92701
October 10, 1990
MISSION BELL PLAZA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS October 10, 1990
Technical Notes
These technical notes present the results of a traffic analysis performed for the proposed
Mission Bell Plaza commercial development in the City of Moorpark. The purpose of the analysis
is to address specific traffic related concerns associated with the latest proposed site plan as
expressed by the City Engineer, and to supply traffic data and recommendations suitable for
inclusion in the overall FIR being prepared for the proposed project. The trip generation estimates
for the project are first presented, followed by peak hour driveway volume estimates along Liberty
Bell Road in the commercial site, and recommendations on specific acmes related concerns are
discussed in the last section of these technical notes.
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
The peak hour and daily trip generation estimates for the project as shown in the latest
proposed site plan are presented in Table 1, together with the assumed trip generation rates taken
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) "Trip Generation" (Fourth Edition). The
upper and lower commercial developments are presented separately and as a combined total. The
upper commercial development consists of day care and office uses which are estimated to generate
around 1,500 average daily trips (ADT), 200 AM peak hour trips, and 230 PM peak hour trips.
The lower commercial center is comprised of shopping center, restaurant, and service station uses
which are projected to generate approximately 17,400 ADT, 870 AM peak hour trips, and 1,330
PM peak hour trips.
A comparison of the total trip generation estimates for the full project with those presented
in the May 3, 1990 "Traffic Impact Study" prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LL&G)
indicates that the latest site plan is projected to generate somewhat higher levels of traffic than
previously estimated. The ADT is projected at just under 19,000 ADT, compared with 18,320 from
the LL&G report, and the AM and PM peak hour generation is estimated at around 1,060 and
1,560, respectively, compared with 750 and 1,340, respectively, from the LL&G report. These
increases, particularly in the peak hours, are primarily due to the amount of restaurant use assumed
which increases from 6,000 square feet in the site plan analyzed in the LL&G report to 26,500
square feet in the development plan analyzed here.
1
'410. , I
, ' Table 1
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour --
Land Use Type Units In Out Total In Out Total AOT
UPPER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1. Day Care 9.00 TSF 54 48 102 53 58 111 603
2. Medical Office 9.00 TSF 8 6 15 9 24 33 308
3. General Office 38.00 TSF 72 11 82 13 69 82 603
•
Total 134 65 199 75 151 226 1513
LOWER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
4. Shopping Center 155.73 TSF 150 64 213 339 383 723 9330
5. Sit-Down Restaurant 23.00 TSF 246 193 440 243 216 458 4621
6. Fast-Food Restaurant 3.50 TSF 98 98 195 59 57 116 2212
7. Service Station 8.00 Pump 10 7 17 18 17 35 1280
Total 503 362 865 660 672 1332 17443
TOTAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1. Day Care 9.00 TSF 54 48 102 53 58 111 603
2. Medical Office 9.00 TSF 8 6 15 9 24 33 308
. 3. General Office 38.00 TSF 72 11 82 13 69 82 603
4. Shopping Center 155.73 TSF 150 64 213 339 383 723 9330
5. Sit-Down Restaurant 23.00 TSF 246 193 440 243 216 458 4621
6. Fast-Food Restaurant 3.50 TSF 98 98 195 59 57 116 2212
7. Service Station 8.00 Pump 10 7 17 18 17 35 1280
Total 637 427 1064 735 823 1558 18956
TRIP GENERATION RATES (A)
1. Day Care TSF 6.02 5.34 11.36 5.90 6.40 12.30 67.00
2. Medical Office TSF .91 .72 1.63 .98 2.65 3.63 34.17
3. General Office (8) TSF 1.89 .28 2.17 .35 1.82 2.17 15.86
4. Shopping Center (C) TSF .96 .41 1.37 2.18 2.46 4.64 59.91
5. Sit-Down Restaurant TSF 10.70 8.41 19.11 10.56 9.37 19.93 200.90
6. Fast-Food Restaurant (0) TSF 27.92 27.92 55.84 16.96 16.30 33.26 632.13
7. Service Station (E) Pump 1.20 .90 2.10 2.27 2.09 4.36 160.00
(A) Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) "Trip Generation", Fourth Edition, 1987
(B) General Office generation rate for total upper commercial project size (56 TSF)
(C) Shopping Center generation rate for total lower commercial project size (185 TSF)
(D) With drive-thru window
(E) ITE rates increased 20% to account for wash use
Abbreviations: ADT - Average Daily Traffic
TSF - Thousand Square Feet
2
LIBERTY BELL ROAD DRIVEWAY VOLUMES
The peak hour trip generation estimates presented in the previous section were used
together with the trip distribution patterns for the upper and lower commercial sites as presented
in the LL&G report to estimate the peak hour turning movements at the three proposed driveway
locations on Liberty Bell Road between Los Angeles Avenue and Lassen Avenue. Peak hour trips
estimated to be generated by the project were allocated to the three Liberty Bell Road driveways
based on the system of site access driveways shown in the project's site plan. The driveways shown
on the site plan include a full-access entrance on Los Angeles Avenue between Liberty Bell Road
and Park Lane, a right-in/right-out entrance on Los Angeles Avenue west of Liberty Bell Road,
two full-access entrances on Park Lane between Los Angeles Avenue and Lassen Avenue, and a
full-access entrance on Lassen Avenue west of Park Lane. Since it is the city's policy to minirni?P
driveways along Los Angeles Avenue, the two driveways on Los Angeles Avenue were not
considered part of the project site access system when determining the Liberty Bell Road driveway
volumes.
The peak hour project turning volumes based on this access system without the Los Angeles
Avenue driveways were added to the background traffic volumes projected on Liberty Bell Road
under existing plus cumulative plus Part "A" (residential portion of the project) conditions as
presented in the LL&G report. The resulting peak hour turning volumes for the three Liberty Bell
Road driveway locations are illustrated in Figure 1. Based on these volumes, it is recommended
that Liberty Bell Road from Los Angeles Avenue to Lassen Avenue be designed as a two-lane
roadway (one lane in each direction) within a 40 foot curb-to-curb cross-section with a 10-12 foot
wide striped two-way left-turn lane and no on-street parking. The two-way left-turn lane would
transition into a standard left-turn pocket on the approach to the traffic signal on Los Angeles
Avenue. Eight to ten foot wide parkways should also be provided resulting in a 40 foot
curb-to-curb roadway width within 56-60 feet of right-of-way.
CIR U . ,ION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section examines two specific circulation issues related to the proposed project. The
first involves estimating the effect on the level of traffic projected for the proposed Liberty Bell
3
A 1
2
0.
i.
O0L
W
I t205 g
5
fi�`►� 385 L4
S 4ltf wo a
gx
z P o 4 x G 0
� S Pel 1 �,
Sel
P o )1f/Ii a
�lr� 10
limoiLIBERTY BELL N ..541r01
En
0
a
NINII
2
a
,0o
-.!._ 160
41i V-- 26g-
`itr'
z P F/ W
SS `� V
S to
h,it
P tn
P
0 CP
crl
Z
LIBERTY BELL
R.
C.,
a I'
1
O
Pha
IF
4
,
Road extension to Poindexter Avenue if a connection is completed between Mission Bell Plaza
and the Town Center development. Since existing buildings in Town Center are constructed just
east of Park Avenue essentially from Los Angeles Avenue to the northern boundary of the Mission
Bell Plaza site, significant remodeling of the Town Center development would be required for
construction of any type of connection between the two centers. A well integrated connection
which minimizes conflicts between parking vehicles and vehicles travelling between or through the
two centers, and which provides efficient access to the surrounding arterial system would attract the
highest level of diverted Mission Bell Plaza traffic from Liberty Bell Road.
From the distribution of project traffic as presented in the LL&G report, approximately five
percent (around 900 ADT) of the traffic generated by Mission Bell Plaza is projected to use the
Liberty Bell Road extension and Poindexter Avenue to reach Moorpark Avenue. The arterial route
(Liberty Bell Road/Poindexter Avenue) between Mission Bell Plaza and Moorpark Avenue at
Poindexter Avenue is likely to produce fewer conflicts than a bypass route through two commercial
centers. Therefore, it is estimated that at most, 50 percent (450 ADT) of the drivers would choose
to divert from Liberty Bell Road through the commercial centers. This amounts to about a 10
percent reduction in the daily volumes projected for the Liberty Bell Road extension as presented
in the October 2, 1990 "Liberty Bell Road Traffic Analysis" prepared by Austin-Foust Associates,
Inc.
The second local access issue addressed here examines a potential connection to Liberty Bell
Road from the future Gisler Field development located north of Los Angeles Avenue directly west
of Mission Bell Plaza. A connection of this type would pass through the portion of Mission Bell
Plaza located on the northwest side of the Liberty Bell Road/Los Angeles Avenue intersection.
An east/west connection between this westernmost part of the project and the Gisler Field site is
currently shown on the site plan about 50 feet north of the Los Angeles Avenue driveway entrance
on the boundary between the two properties. The connection of the Gisler Field development to
Liberty Bell Road as currently shown, would be through the parking area to one of the two Liberty
Bell Road driveway locations which serve that portion of Mission Bell Plaza.
The connection between the Gisler Field site and Mission Bell Plaza is shown at a sub-
standard distance (50 feet) from an arterial access driveway and the connection route through the
Mission Bell Plaza parking area is lined with perpendicular stalls, which implies a high level of
5
t �
potential conflict for vehicles travelling through the parking area. As a minimum, the connection
between the Gisler Field site and Liberty Bell Road should be designated along a main aisleway
without direct access to perpendicular parking (i.e., traffic backing into the aisleway), and the access
location to the Gisler Field site for such an aisleway should be located a minimum distance of 150
feet from any potential Los Angeles Avenue driveway. This type of access design should be
integrated into the Mission Bell Plaza development site plan if a Gisler Field/Liberty Bell Road
connection is to be included.
6
ISSUE 7: Summarize the impacts that would result from this project on existing City residents located
directly west of the proposed project.
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 7
As stated in the Draft EIR,residents that occur in close proximity to the proposed project site would be
subject to both short-and long-term impacts. These residents generally occur west of the project site in
an existing residential neighborhood. A summary of the impacts to these residents is provided below.
AIR (DUALITY — Residences that exist in close proximity to the proposed project site would be subject
to both short and long-term air quality impacts as a result of project implementation. Short-term
impacts are generally associated with construction-related dust that would be generated during the
grading and construction period. These short-term air quality impacts were considered significant in
the Draft EIR due to potential respiratory system impacts,and the inconvenience the dust would cause.
Mitigation measures consistent with Ventura County APCD standards were suggested in the Draft EIR
and are proposed as conditions of project approval;however,any type of project would result in similar
short-term dust and its associated impact potential.
Long-term air quality impacts resulted from the proximity of these residents to a land use that would
generate air emissions that exceed Ventura County APCD threshold criteria. Due to the fact that
emissions generated by the project exceed APCD standards, this impact was identified as significant
and unavoidable in the Draft EIR. It should be noted that the project is consistent with the City of
Moorpark General Plan and the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan. Further, the
juxtaposition of commercial and residential uses are not unusual. However,facts identified in the Draft
EIR state that emissions generated by the proposed project would exceed standards and would impact
residents in close proximity to the project site.
NOISE — As indicated for air quality, residences that exist west of the project site would also be
subject to both short and long-term noise impacts. Short-tern noise impacts would occur during project
construction and operation. During this period,noise events would occur on-site that would result in off-
site noise levels that would exceed identified standards for residential uses (reference the noise
analysis in the Draft EIR). Again, mitigation measures were identified in the Draft EIR that would
reduce these impacts. However, the Draft EIR concluded that short-term noise impacts were
unavoidable and significantly adverse.
Long-term noise associated with the project would occur as a result of several uses on and off the project
site. Operational noise on the project site would involve uses such as parking lot vacuums,loading and
unloading of materials,vehicle noise,and human noise sources(reference the noise section of the Draft
EIR). Although these noise sources would not generally impact identified noise standards for
residential uses off the project site,they would be considered a substantial nuisance to residents located
west of the project site, when they occur. Noise in this residential neighborhood would also occur as a
result of increased vehicular traffic on local roads. Again, noise associated with this impact would not
generally exceed identified standards in the existing residential neighborhood, but they would be
considered a long-term nuisance.
TRAFFIC — The traffic section of the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would
incrementally and significantly increase local and regional traffic volumes. This increase in local
traffic congestion, particularly in the vicinity of the proposed project site, would exceed identified
standards at selected intersections and would adversely impact the current lifestyle of the existing
residents located west of the proposed project site.
AESTHETICS AND LIGHT AND GLARE.— Implementation of the proposed project as identified in
the Draft EIR would change the site from an undeveloped, open field to a retail commercial center and
residential project. This change would result in a corresponding change in vistas of the site from nearby
residents and would contribute to the urbanization of this portion of the City of Moorpark(although in
conformance with land use designations as identified in the City's General Plan). Other visual impacts
that would affect existing residences located near the proposed project site include the following: (I)
increased building illumination; (2) increased headlamp illumination; (3) loss of vistas due to the
construction of the western perimeter wall; and (4) loss of vistas due to the view-blocking effects of the
proposed commercial structures themselves. When combined, the cumulative impact of these visual
impacts was considered highly adverse in the Draft EIR, particularly for those residences that exist in
close proximity to the project site.
PART 2
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS
Provided below is a listing of those agencies, organizations, and members of the general public that
submitted written or verbal comments to the City of Moorpark in response to the Draft EIR.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
AGENCY COMMENTORS
• Charles R. White, Chief, Planning Branch, Southern District, State of California, The
Resources Agency,Department of Water Resources,memorandum dated June 15,1990.
• Dennis J. O'Bryant, Environmental Program Coordinator, State of California, The Resources
Agency of California, Department of Conservation- Office of the Director, memorandum dated
June 25,1990.
• Gary McSweeney, IGR/CEQA Coordinator, Transportation Planning and Analysis Branch,
State of California, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation, letter
dated June 25,1990.
• David C. Nunenkamp, Deputy Director, Permit Assistance, State of California, Office of
Planning and Research, letter dated July 6, 1990.
VERBAL TESTIMONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,June 4, 1990
Beulah Hayden, 538 Sierra Avenue
Ethel Sulkis, 270 Sierra Avenue
Doug Frazier,237 Sierra Avenue
Barbara A. Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue
John Galloway,338 Sierra Avenue
Ed Pam, 162 Shasta Avenue
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,June 11,1990
Ethel Sulkis, 270 Sierra Avenue
Doug Frazier,237 Sierra Avenue
Barbara A. Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue
Sylvia E. Whitaker, 461 Cornett Avenue
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,July 2, 1990
Sylvia E. Whitaker, 461 Cornett Avenue
Barbara Whitaker, 116 Sierra Avenue
Nancy Runkle,393 McFadden Avenue
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,July 25,1990
• Doug Frazier,237 Sierra Avenue
• Sylvia Whittaker, 461 Cornett Avenue
• Kenneth V.Orr,377 McFadden Avenue
• Nancy Runkle,393 McFadden Avenue
• Ron Dow,422 McFadden Avenue
• Barbara A. Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue
• Gary Wirth,444 McFadden Avenue
• Betty Sue Horrala,231 W.Los Angeles Avenue
• Colin Velazquez,476 Los Angeles Avenue
• Valarie Arvizu,377 Cornett Avenue
• John Galloway,338 Sierra Avenue
• Dan Mills,488 Cornett Avenue
• Richard Favor, 6941 Hastings Street
• Russell George,312 Sierra Avenue
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,AUGUST 1, 1990
• Sylvia Whittaker, 461 Cornett Avenue
• Doug Frazier,237 Sierra Avenue
• Barbara A. Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue
• Kathleen Lopez, 37 Shasta
• Darrel Sneed, 11919 Silvercrest Street
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,AUGUST 15,1990
• Doug Frazier,237 Sierra Avenue
• John Galloway,338 Sierra Avenue
• Barbara A. Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue
• Mela Cano, 148 Sierra Avenue
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,SEPTEMBER 19, 1990
• Doug Frazier,237 Sierra Avenue
• Barbara Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue
• Rosaleen Galloway, 338 Sierra Avenue
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
rC
/—
State of California The Resources Agency
Memorandum
Date JUN 15 1990
1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D.
To Assistant Secretary for Resources
2. City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attention: Pat Richards
From : Department of Water Resources
Los Angeles, CA 90055
Subject: DEIR for Mission Bell Plaza and Greenleaf Apartments, 236 Units, dated
May 1990, SCH 89042617
Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of Water Resources
staff. Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damage
prevention, are attached.
• After reviewing your report, we also would like to recommend that you further I
consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses
requiring high quality water supplies.
For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at
.(213) 620-3951. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
report.
Sincerely,
Charles R. White, Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments •
JUL •
3 i;70
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER RECLAMATION
To reduce water demand, implement the water conservation measures described
here.
Required
The following State laws require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in
structures:
o Health and Safety Code Section 17921.1 requires low-flush toilets and
urinals in virtually all buildings as follows:
"After January 1, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state
shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which
are water-conservation water closets as defined by American National
Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2, and urinals and associated
flushometer valves. if any, that use less than an average of 1-1/2
gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer
valves are exempt from the requirements of this section."
o Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) (Appliance
Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that give the
maximum flow rateof all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink
faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the American National
Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI
A112.18.IM-1979.
o Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1606(h) (Appliance
Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply
with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in
California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance
with the provisions of the regulations establishing applicable
efficiency standards.
o Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(b)
(California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings) prohibits
the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to
the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards.
o Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(i) and (j)
address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before
hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to
steam and steam-condensate return piping and rezirculating hot water
piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than
between floors or in interior walls. Insulation of water-heating
systems is also required.
l
o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of
residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain
conditions are satisfied. Included is the requirement that, in most
instances, the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by
water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned
water.
o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public
facilities constructed after January 1, 1985, be equipped with
self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water.
To be Implemented where applicable
Interior:
1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square
inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing
valve.
2. Drinking fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing
valves.
3. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms.*
Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower.
4. Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used.
5. Restaurants: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray
emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be
served upon request only.*
6. Ultra-low-flush toilets: 1-1/2-gallon per flush toilets be installed in
all new construction.
Exterior:*
1. Landscape with low water-using plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as
playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses.
3. Group plants of .similar water use to reduce overirrigation of
low-water-using plants.
4. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using
landscaping and sources of additional assistance.
*The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in
developing these materials or providing other information.
5. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of
soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are
often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water
needed to establish replacement vegetation.
7. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems
are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and to aid in ground water recharge.
9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
10. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or grey water for irrigation.
11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious
paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation
of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water
recharge.
13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer
recharge areas as open space.
' 3
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
In flood-prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
proposed development should be based on the following guidelines:
1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground
water should be mitigated.
2. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood.
3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the
Environmental Impact Report.
4. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a 100-year flood.
5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside
developments.
6. Revegetation of disturbed or newly constructed slopes should be done as
soon as possible (utilizing native or low-water-using plant material) .
7. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be
assessed and mitigated as required.
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
•
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM CHARLES R.WHITE,DATED JUNE 15,1990
1. It is understood that these measures would reduce on-site water demand in both the residential and
commercial project areas. Many of these measures are not applicable to this project, and/or are
required as part of the State of California Uniform Building Code and would be implemented by
law should the project be approved and constructed. Other mitigations recommended by the
Department of Water Resources are incorporated as part of this Final EIR such that they can be
considered by City of Moorpark decision-makers and potentially be incorporated as conditions of
approval.
RTC-7
State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
0 O •
Memorandum
To Date :
Dr. Gordon F. Snow June 25, 1990
Assistant Secretary for Resources
Sabred: Draft Environmental
Pat Richards Impact Report for
City of Moorpark • ,.,, Mission Bell Plaza/
799 Moorpark Avenue Greenleaf Apartments,
Moorpark, CA 93021 ricrf�,,:•; SCH# 89042617
From . Department of Conservation—Office of the Director
The Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology
(DMG) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the Mission Bell Plaza and Greenleaf Apartments, located in
the City of Moorpark, California. This Draft EIR analyzes the
environmental impacts that will result from the construction of a
38.14 acre site bounded by Poindexter Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue,
Chaparral Middle School, and a single-family residential complex.
The Draft EIR summarized geologic and geotechnical data from a
report by Westland Geological Services (April 19, 1989) , which is
appended to the Draft EIR. The report by Westland Geologic
Services appears to be incomplete, or a draft document, because
numerous references to tables and figures are left blank, none of
the pages are numbered, and the document is not signed by a
Certified Engineering Geologist. The following reports were
reviewed by DMG:
o Draft Environmental Impact Report for Mission Bell Plaza and
Greenleaf Apartments, RPD-89-1, CPD-89-1, CPD-89-2, LD-M-89-
2, Volumes I and II, prepared for City of Moorpark, prepared
by Impact Sciences, Inc. , May 22, 1990, SCH# 89042617.
o Geotechnical Evaluation, Draft E.I.R. , L.A. Ave. Shopping
Center and Greenleaf Apartments, Los Angeles Avenue, City
of Moorpark, by Westland Geological Services, Inc. , Job
No. 620-01, dated April 19, 1989.
Based on our review of these reports, we offer the following
comments:
1. The Oak Ridge Fault is located approximately 6 miles from
the project site. This Fault is considered active (Moorpark
Seismic Safety Element) and has an estimated maximum
credible earthquake (MCE) magnitude of 7 to 7-1/2
(Wesnousky, 1986; Greensfelder, 1974) . The Draft EIR does
not provide data on the MCE events for the Oak .ridge Fault,
or other nearby faults. The Draft EIR only presents data on 1
the maximum probable earthquake (MPE) for nearby faults
(Table 6) . The Final EIR should contain data on both the
MCE and MPE events, including estimates of potential strong
\/
r
Dr. Snow/Pat Richards
June 25, 1990
Page Two •
ground motion at the site, seismic-induced settlement, and IN
failure from shaking of slopes and retaining walls. Data to
support the analysis should be included in the Final EIR.
If methods of mitigation are needed, they should be
developed for inclusion in the Final EIR so that they can be
reviewed.
2. Table 6 of the Draft EIR presents data on the MPE events for
nearby faults. The table lists the ground acceleration
expected at the site as maximum "repeatable" ground
accelerations. Although the specifics of the method for
establishing the "repeatable" ground acceleration were not
discussed by Westland Geological Services or presented in
the Draft EIR, it was apparently derived by reducing the
peak ground acceleration by an arbitrary value. DMG does
not endorse the method of arbitrarily reducing peak ground
acceleration to estimate "repeatable" or "effective peak"
ground motion data (e.g. , Ploessel and Slosson, 1974) . For
any given specific structure, the effective peak
acceleration will depend on the interaction of the dynamic
characteristics of the ground motion and of the entire
structure-foundation-soil system. Thus, for a given
recorded ground motion, there cannot exist a unique
effective peak acceleration (ATC, 1984) . The methodology
for estimating "repeatable" accelerations lacks precise
definition, or standardization, to allow for dependable and
reproducible estimates. Therefore, the methodology should
not be arbitrarily applied to other areas and earthquake
conditions. The "repeatable" values should not be applied
to structural design or geotechnical evaluations.
3. The Draft EIR states that the project site has a potential
for liquefaction based on the shallow depth of ground water
and the type of underlying soils. However, the Draft EIR
proposes to mitigate • liquefaction at the project site by use
of future site-specific geotechnical studies. The proposal
to use future studies to determine the methods of mitigation
for liquefaction is inconsistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . A recent court ruling
(Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, Z
1988) determined that future studies are not considered
appropriate mitigation under CEQA, since the reliance on
future studies improperly removes review of the studies from
the CEQA process, andprecludes public scrutiny and review
by other agencies . The proposed additional investigation
should be completed before preparation of the Final EIR. If
methods of mitigation are needed, they should be developed
for inclusion in the Final EIR so that they can be reviewed. V
Dr. Snow/Pat Richards
June 25, 1990
Page Three
•
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please Z
contact Zoe McCrea, Division of Mines and Geology Environmental
Review Officer, at (916) 322-2562.
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Environmental Program Coordinator
DJO:KC:skk
cc: Zoe McCrea, Division of Mines and Geology
Kit Custis, Division of Mines and Geology
References:
Applied Technology Council, 1984 , Tentative Provisions for the
Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, ATC 3-06.
Greensfelder, R.W. , 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from
Earthquakes in California, DMG Map Sheet 23 .
Ploessel, M.R. , and Slosson, J.E. , 1974, Repeatable High Ground
Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology, vol. 27 ,
no. 9, pgs. 195-199.
Wesnousky, S.G. , 1986, Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and
Seismic Hazard in California, Journal of Geophysical Research,
vol. 91, no. B12, pgs. 12, 587-12, 631.
r
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM DENNIS J.OBRYANT,DATED JUNE 25,1990
1. Construction on the proposed project site would be in accordance with standards identified in the
Uniform Building Code (UBC). Similar construction has occurred in the vicinity of the project site
and non-significant building restrictions and/or design standards were imposed in order to comply
with earthquake standards.
2. Standard procedures employed by the City of Moorpark would require the review and approval of
a project specific soils and foundation investigation once the proposed project is approved. These
investigations are possible only when the configuration,size and use of the proposed structures on
the project site are known. Should the results of these investigations result in significant changes in
the proposed project description, the Final EIR would be recirculated to the public and would
require a further Planning Commission review as well as subsequent City Council review and action.
RTC-11
7 ``1
�
i STATE OG CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRAM �RTATION AGENCY 9Ord c'/ GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 "•
TDD (213) 6213
)620-2376
June 25, 1990
IGR/CEQA •
City of Moorpark
DEIR; Mission Bell Plaza -
Greenleaf Apartments
Vic. VEN-118-R17.33
Ms. Pat Richards
City of Moorpark
Planning Department
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Ms. Richards:
Caltrans has reviewed the above referenced document. Based on the
information received we have the following comments:
* The report should reflect State highway standard lane widths
of 12'- 0", for all proposed mitigations. This also includes
left/right turn lanes.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please call
Wilford Melton at (213)620-6160.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Gary McSweeney
IGR/CEQA Coordinator
Transportation Planning and
Analysis Branch
cc: State Clearinghouse
SHL 9 ,
Mppenuix r See NO1i below
Alai)no;hint.Clentloliunnn,MINI'I Filth Svent,Anetanrnnln,('A 931114 916/443.0613 SCH A %CFO.41 D41-7
P►nJ.sl Tilt., Mission Bell Pli )Greenle_af Apartments
?
1,o.iAe....vt City of Moorpark Corned Pence: PA t•_tirhards
SorntAdkns; 299 Ito.ocpark..A.vnile.. .. ._. Phnnet (8051529-6864
Moo p.ark__._....__�.._._..—__ 7.1 93021 County: Ventura
City' --. p —.-
P role at Location
Calmly? ..._ atura._._.... Cliy/Nasseri Comenreity: Moorpark
on„i' r Los.Angeles Ayentoe/?its k__pene Total Acton 7A-14
Amewri s Meted Me. .N/A Steilms -- - Tep._ -- Range: -- Dec
Wlthkr 1 Mee Suss Ilwy A._118 Watetwayet No _
AlcyoneNo Rallonym S.P. school,: Chaparral Middle
O aawnanl Type
CEOA: ❑NU► altipplemenr/SuIwped NEPA: QNO( Otho: Moine Document
Q Early nee (,.J NIR(I kn SCII Nn,) ORA p MA,meal,
•
0Noy Deo t_(arhrt U Dish US gOther
atheft RIR OfONSI i�`4
1101/11/
N---Leant Aetlen Type
O tl.retal Dm Uplift [J SiwcUk Mass Q Remtw " fi
J(1'41.44 nes Antnwhes M Uµa►Nt Phe 13erc
Pie J�}+R 4
o,enteral Plan Etoneen iU Manned Unit I)eednMnmM ❑the Penn* '1•
0 Cmrmmmhy Plan Ii ilia Man ®lead Didelce(Subdhria nR• •: ,t 11 �a
Pec.IMop.Tram Mop. —!_ dbr—r_
D evelopment Typelli-O1
I Nnaklndlab• Nits 236 Array 15_14 0 Warr pael9dea: Type NCD t
r(Mira, SO. Artie Empinyert 0 Trrrportetkmtt Tyre
I'mnrustrlakS1,82 7192lrrrt 23.0 E,pinyrn 1rUUS Q MidnO Nine?.(
0 Imhnmlab Sq/t. Arrre Etpinyray Q Poem Type Want
CJ twin otkmd ._..____ _r . Q Waste Tenement Type
U Ntrr.nhmal .__t_
0 Hvardoae Woo=Type
Q
Pfeil/el I DI d In Doeum.nl
In Ai'hatlrrybu.l (a Mkmmi M.kt/Ilaaling CJ Schneb/Ihdeenhlu Q Water Quality
v Altku1i.Fal taut U Totem Landing.Iletrd (3 Sepik S u.u 0 Warr SupplyfOtountheee
EJ Ah Quell/ (A tlenbgk/Sdamis 41 Saws,Cap.rYy Q Watland(R(prhn
El AtiMokrgk.WIlaimkal U Minerals ®Son Etaioe/ConpsctIonOteding 0 Wl7 lfs
[]Cotatel Time Di Nnda. to Solid Waste Ea tkowi i inducing
ID Ihein.ge/Abso.pke (a revelation/Housing:lone. Q Totk/Ila=ardotoLinchne
03 Economie/lobs ®Puhlk SerktitTteiihiee $)Ttatflr/Cheoiarion 0]Cumubtiw Effect.
0 Meal Ja Rectank nifteke Q Vegaut:on Q Other
Present LAMA Usaftonlnp/ttenatal Plan Use 1
Residential/Commercial.
ProI•et Deectlptlen Mixed Use High Density Residential and Retail Commercial
Center.
CLsaatucIOOsz tairmett wiii/ass-aa11
Q4 Mir CST IIT
BARBARA CERAN ,%Iteeearree Ageeey
sun1ivtzv saws. -2 ..2 2
____MIK
Din PLY TO ACV/Cy: 6-�
11 !All
SCT Inv TO !C �jI r /_l// �..Caaa.rwatloe -_ • CA Vast. Pjwt 14
7_ •/, ' • i ca
MA n
1 COMfL2AleCz t E
ar a i lac/Oif
ftsaiI 1STtA/ SIViii ALL ! _
Apse/AfCDI 3' (lssoccessr 5/r6) •_per —!- -leg. NCII S •
bltraas I — f I+
a►
• *math
l-1• - teat br lead I ...pent by 3C1)—
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM GARY MCSWEENEY,DATED JUNE 25,1990
1. Conditions of approval have been modified to include these standard lane widths of twelve feet as
recommended the California Department of Transportation.
RTC-14
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH j.,;
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814i '
July 6, 1990
Pat Richards
City of Moorpark
299 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, cA 93021
Subject: Mission Bell Plaza/Greenleaf Apartments
SCH# 89042617
Dear Ms. Richards:
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period
is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are)
enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the
Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the
Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the
comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse
immediately: Remember to refer to the project's eight-digit State
Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required
that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only
make substantive comments regarding those activities
involved in a project which are within an area of expertise
of the agency or which are required to be carried out or
approved by the agency. "
•
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments
with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for your use in
preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification.
we recommend that you contact the commenting agency(ies) .
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Barbara Ceran at (916)
445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Permit Assistance - RECEIVED -
Enclosures JUL 91990
rr, Recnurree Aaenry rih, of Mnnrnark
f i
1 �
RESPONSE TO WR1TFEN COMMENTS FROM DAVID C.NUNENICAMP,DATED JULY 61990
1. This letter provides general information on the CEQA process and is incorporated for reference
purposes in this Final EIR. Given this information, the City of Moorpark City Council and general
public will be permitted more complete information and can better make an informed decision on the
proposed project.
RTC-16
RESPONSE TO VERBAL TESTIMONY
Many of the comments associated with the public review process were oriented towards the
configuration and/or acceptance or rejection of the proposed project rather than on the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR. City of Moorpark Community Development Department staff indicated
that Impact Sciences, Inc. should emphasize the response to comments that involved completeness of
the Draft EIR. However, City of Moorpark staff have indicated that the Final EIR should, at a
minimum,acknowledge all comments taken during the public review process.
To remove the potential for interpretation, verbal testimony was derived directly from meeting minutes
supplied to Impact Sciences,Inc.by the City of Moorpark Community Development Department.
RTC-18
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,JUNE 4,1990
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM BEULAH HAYDEN,538 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Spoke in favor of the Mission Bell Plaza project.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony indicates the commentors acceptance of the proposed project. No
comment was provided that would affect the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR and no
further response is necessary or required.` This information is included in this EIR such that
City decision-makers are provided all relevant data upon which to make and informed
decision.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM ETHEL SULIQS, 270 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated her concerns regarding traffic circulation, proposed project would provide
continuous traffic surrounding her residence.
RESPONSE: As stated in the Draft EIR, traffic associated with the proposed project is expected to
have a significant impact on certain local intersections post mitigation and given design year
conditions (reference the Traffic Section of the Draft EIR — Volume I, and Appendix H of
Volume II of the Draft EIR). In addition, the Draft EIR did indicate that in the vicinity of
Sierra Avenue traffic levels would increase should the proposed project become operational in
its original configuration. Traffic estimates on Sierra Avenue indicate that current traffic
volumes are approximately 800 trips per day, and that subsequent to project implementation
this total could be increased by approximately 200 trips per day (one percent of the traffic was
distributed to the west along this roadway). This resultant traffic volume would not exceed the
theoretical volume of this roadway,but would result in a perceptible change in the amount of
traffic on this roadway and an incremental nuisance to area residents.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM DOUG FRAZIER,237 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Concerned about the structures and loading docks within 30' of adjacent residential
property.
RTC-19
RESPONSE: Page 6-57 of the Draft FIR indicates that loading docks were proposed as part of the
original project submittal, and that the loading docks were situated in close proximity to
residents located west of the proposed project site and did not incorporate full noise screening.
The Draft EIR further stated, that noise generated at similar facilities in similar shopping
centers generated noise events as high as 70 d13(A) within 50 feet of the noise source, and that
this noise may result in a substantial intermittent noise nuisance to residents located in
proximity to these areas.
As currently proposed, only one Ioading dock is proposed near the western perimeter of the
proposed project site. As designed, this facility would be enclosed such that noise levels would
be reduced and would not significantly impact the existing residential areas located to the
west.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM BARBARA SCHULTZ,116 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Proposed building No. 3 provides for a sound wall of 8' in height and sits 2' higher than
the adjacent residence which would increase the wall height to 10 feet.
Ms. Schultz further stated that she has surveyed some retail shops and did not understand how
Moorpark could support any more commercial with the current vacancy rate.
RESPONSE: Page 6-57 of the Draft EIR indicates that loading docks were proposed as part of the
original project submittal, and that the loading docks were situated in close proximity to
residents located west of the proposed project site and did not incorporate full noise screening.
The Draft EIR further stated, that noise generated at similar facilities in similar shopping
centers generated noise events as high as 70 dB(A) within 50 feet of the noise source, and that
this noise may result in a substantial intermittent noise nuisance to residents located in
proximity to these areas.
As currently proposed, only one loading dock is proposed near the western perimeter of the
proposed project site. As designed,this facility would be enclosed such that noise levels would
be reduced and would not significantly impact the existing residential areas located to the
west.
Economic analysis is not a required component of the environmental review process and was not
required by the City of Moorpark for this project. Fiscal data has been provided by the
RTC-20
applicant to the City Council that may justify the construction of this project at this time. This
data is public information and is available at the City of Moorpark Community Development
Department.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM JOHN GALLOWAY,338 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Mr. Galloway requested that staff provide the Commission with the 1987(map)proposal
for Giesler Field access.
RESPONSE: This map was provided to the City Council for their review. That historic proposal was
not part of this project application and as such was not evaluated as part of this EIR.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM ED PARO,162 SHASTA AVENUE
COMMENT: Mr.Pam addressed the Commission with the following concerns:
a. Has staff provided an impact study in relation to the Southern Pacific
Railroad?
b. Emergency response.
c. Economic study-can Moorpark support another shopping center.
d. Flood control and water flow, is there a sufficient drainage system?
e. Traffic speed on Shasta Avenue.
RESPONSE: A. The Draft EIR did indicate that a park is proposed north of the site and the existing
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Given the location of the proposed park, it is expected that
children in this local area would pass over the tracks in transit to the park. This is considered
a potentially dangerous condition. In response to this potential impact the Draft EIR and the
conditions of project approval required an applicant-funded study to determine the feasibility
of a bridge over the railroad tracks to ensure safe passage over the tracks.
Should the applicant propose his original development plan for the residential component, a
park is incorporated as part of that project design. This facility would provide opportunities
for areas children and may incrementally eliminate the need for children to cross over the
railroad tracks.
RTC-21
,
B. Both the City of Moorpark Police and Fire Departments have indicated that; (1) facilities
and manpower are currently available to provide service to this portion of the City; (2) each
department is constantly assessing their needs for all portions of the City; and (3) given their
required conditions of project approval,no significant impact to fire or police protection services
would occur due to this project,either on-site or in the surrounding neighborhood.
C. An economic analysis is not a required component of the environmental review process and
was not required by the City of Moorpark for this project. Fiscal data has been provided by the
applicant to the City Council that indicates justification for the construction of this project at
this time. This data is public information and is available at the City of Moorpark-City Hall;
Community Development Department.
D. Hydrologic studies have been completed that are incorporated as part of the Draft EIR
(Section 6.9 Storm Drainage). These evaluations have indicated that storm water can be
transmitted off the project site via the City's existing storm drain infrastructure without
significant impact.
E. As stated in the Draft EIR, traffic associated with the proposed project is expected to have a
significant impact on certain local intersections, considering post-mitigation and given design
year conditions (reference the Traffic Section of the Draft EIR -- Volume I, and Appendix H of
Volume II of the Draft EIR). In addition, the Draft EIR did indicate that in the vicinity of
Sierra Avenue traffic levels would increase should the proposed project become operational in
its original configuration. Traffic estimates on Sierra Avenue indicate that current traffic
volumes are approximately 800 trips per day, and that subsequent to project implementation
this total could be increased by approximately 200 trips per day (one percent of the traffic was
distributed to the west along this roadway). This resultant traffic volume would not exceed the
theoretical volume of this roadway,but would result in a perceptible change in the amount of
traffic on this roadway and an incremental nuisance to area residents.
Traffic speeds on this roadway were not assessed. The Moorpark Police Department has not
identified this area of the roadway as having a speeding problem; however, it can be expected
that periodic episodes of excessive vehicle speed would occur on this or any roadway within
the City. It is the responsibility of the City of Moorpark Police Department to adequately
enforce speed limit laws,and to ensure that vehicle speed compliance occurs on all roadways in
the City.
RTC-22
1
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 11,1990
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM SYLVIA E.WHITTAKER,461 CORNETT AVENUE
COMMENT: Spoke in opposition to the development and special concerns to the intersection of
Poindexter Avenue and Moorpark Avenue which now provides for only two lanes.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony(in part)indicates the commentors rejection of the proposed project.
This information is included in this EIR such that City decision-makers are provided all
relevant data upon which to make and informed decision.
The Draft EIR did assess the intersection of Poindexter Avenue and Moorpark Avenue. The EIR
concluded that this intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) A in the morning
peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour. Subsequent to design year growth and project
implementation LOS at this intersection would be reduced to LOS E (an unacceptable traffic
condition) during the evening peak hour,and LOS C in the morning peak hour(the upper limit
of traffic acceptability). No feasible mitigation was identified in the EIR that would rectify
this traffic condition and as such it was listed in the EIR as an unavoidable and adverse
environmental impact.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM BARBARA SCHULTZ,116 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated that the project is located within the redevelopment area. Asked that the
Commission give consideration to the surrounding property owners as they are now property
owners adjacent to the existing commercial and industrial facilities and was concerned of
further impacts this proposal would provide.
Proposed building no. 3 provides for a sound wall of 8' in height and sits 2' higher than the
adjacent residence which would increase the wall height to 10'. Ms. Schultz stated that she
has surveyed some retail shops and did not understand how Moorpark could support any more
commercial with the current vacancy rate.
RESPONSE: Comments regarding the redevelopment area are not pertinent to the adequacy or
completeness of this Draft or Final EIR. The information provided by the commentary is
RTC-23
•
incorporated into this EIR such that in can be made part of the permanent record and is
available to City decision-makers.
Page 6-57 of the Draft EIR indicates that loading docks were proposed as part of the original
project submittal. The loading docks were situated in dose proximity to residences located west
of the proposed project site and did not incorporate full noise screening. The Draft EIR further
stated, that noise generated at similar facilities in similar shopping centers generated noise
events as high as 70 dB(A) within 50 feet of the noise source,and that this noise may result in a
substantial intermittent noise nuisance to residences located in proximity to these areas.
As currently proposed, only one loading dock is proposed near the western perimeter of the
proposed project site. As designed, this facility would be enclosed such that noise levels would
be reduced and would not significantly impact the existing residential areas located to the
west.
An economic analysis is not a required component of the environmental review process and was
not required by the City of Moorpark for this project. Fiscal data has been provided by the
applicant to the City Council that may justify the construction of this project at this time. This
data is public information and is available at the City of Moorpark Community Development
Department.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM DOUG FRAZIER,237 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated concerns about the structures and loading docks within 30' of adjacent residential
property. Requested that some consideration be given to air quality control measures,11 tons of
pollution will be provided by this proposal.
RESPONSE: Page 6-57 of the Draft EIR indicates that loading docks were proposed as part of the
original project submittal. The loading docks were situated in close proximity to residences
located west of the proposed project site and did not incorporate full noise screening. The Draft
EIR further stated, that noise generated at similar facilities in similar shopping centers
generated noise events as high as 70 dB(A) within 50 feet of the noise source, and that this
noise may result in a substantial intermittent noise nuisance to residences located in proximity
to these areas.
RTC-24
1 I 1
As currently proposed, only one loading dock is proposed near the western perimeter of the
proposed project site. As designed,this facility would be enclosed such that noise levels would
be reduced and would not significantly impact the existing residential areas located to the
west.
Section 6.2 of the Draft EIR indicated that this project was consistent with the County AQMP;
however, project emissions would be in excess of air quality thresholds as identified by the
APCD. For this reason, air quality impacts were identified in the EIR as being unavoidable,
adverse and significant.
For additional information regarding air quality issues,as they relate to total project emissions
and potential impacts on residences near the proposed project site, please reference Part I of
this Final EIR(Introduction to Response to Comments Issue Numbers 3,4 and 7).
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM ETHEL SULIQS,270 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated her concerns regarding traffic circulation, proposed project would provide
continuous traffic surrounding her residence.
RESPONSE: As stated in the Draft EIR, traffic associated with the proposed project is expected to
have a significant impact on certain local intersections, considering post-mitigation and given
design year conditions (reference the Traffic Section of the Draft EIR--Volume I,and Appendix
H of Volume II of the Draft EIR). In addition, the Draft EIR did indicate that in the vicinity
of Sierra Avenue traffic levels would increase should the proposed project become operational
in its original configuration. Traffic estimates on Sierra Avenue indicate that current traffic
volumes are approximately 800 trips per day, and that subsequent to project implementation
this total could be increased by approximately 200 trips per day (one percent of the traffic was
distributed to the west along this roadway). This resultant traffic volume would not exceed the
theoretical volume of this roadway,but would result in a perceptible change in the amount of
traffic on this roadway and an incremental nuisance to area residents.
RTC-25
, t .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,JULY 2,1990
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM SYLVIA WHITAKER, 461 CORNETT AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated opposition to the development. Expressed concern with the inadequate traffic
circulation.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony(in part) indicates the commentors rejection of the proposed project.
This information is included in this EIR such that City decision-makers are provided all
relevant data upon which to make and informed decision.
The Draft FIR did indicate that the propose project would result in significant adverse traffic
impacts, and selected impacts would occur to residents located in close proximity to the
proposed project site. For example, as stated in the Draft EIR, traffic associated with the
proposed project is expected to have a significant impact on certain local intersections,
considering post-mitigation and given design year conditions (reference the Traffic Section of
the Draft EIR — Volume I, and Appendix H of Volume II of the Draft EIR). In addition the
Draft EIR did indicate that in the vicinity of Sierra Avenue (Cornett Avenue included) traffic
levels would increase should the proposed project become operational in its original
configuration. Traffic estimates on Sierra Avenue (and these may be representative of Cornett
Avenue) indicate that current traffic volumes are approximately 800 trips per day, and that
subsequent to project implementation this total could be increased by approximately 200 trips
per day (one percent of the traffic was distributed to the west along this roadway). This
resultant traffic volume would not exceed the theoretical volume of this roadway, but would
result in a perceptible change in the amount of traffic on this roadway and an incremental
nuisance to area residents.
Further, the Draft EIR did assess the intersection of Poindexter Avenue and Moorpark Avenue.
The EIR concluded that this intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) A in the
morning peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour. Subsequent to design year growth and
project implementation LOS at this intersection would be reduced to LOS E (an unacceptable
traffic condition)during the evening peak hour,and LOS C in the morning peak hour(the upper
limit of traffic acceptability). No feasible mitigation was identified in the FIR that would
rectify this traffic condition and as such it was listed in the EIR as an unavoidable and adverse
environmental impact.
RTC-26
, 7 t
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM BARBARA SCHULTZ,116 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Opposed to the development and expressed concern with tenant vacancy within the
Moorpark Town Center; setback and fencing to the adjacent residential area; Air Pollution
Control District agency comments related to air quality.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony(in part)indicates the commentors rejection of the proposed project.
This information is included in this EIR such that City decision-makers are provided all
relevant data upon which to make and informed decision.
The aesthetics section of the EIR did indicate that vistas from residential units located west of
the project site would be largely and/or completely eliminated as a result of the fence that is
proposed along the western site perimeter. Further, it is likely that in the vicinity of the
commercial development,small portions of the upper building are would be visible to residences
that exist in this area.
Section 6.2 of the Draft EIR indicated that this project was consistent with the County AQMP;
however, project emissions would be in excess of air quality thresholds as identified by the
APCD. For this reason, air quality impacts were identified in the EIR as being unavoidable,
adverse and significant.
For additional information regarding air quality issues,as they relate to total project emissions
and potential impacts on residences near the proposed project site, please reference Part 1 of
this Final EIR(Introduction to Response to Comments Issue Numbers 3,4 and 7).
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM NANCY RUNKLE,393 MCFADDEN AVENUE
COMMENT: Expressed opposition to the EIR.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony indicates a general dissatisfaction with the project EIR. This
information is included in this EIR such that City decision-makers are provided all relevant
data upon which to make and informed decision.
COMMENT: Stated her concern regarding the closing of the public hearing. She also expressed
dissatisfaction with many points of the proposed project as it is currently proposed.
RTC-27
r
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony(in part) indicates the commentors rejection of the proposed project.
This information is included in this EIR such that City decision-makers are provided all
relevant data upon which to make and informed decision.
Other comments are noted and are incorporated as part of the Final EIR
RTC-28
r t
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,JULY 25,1990
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM DOUG FRAZIER,237 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Thanked Mr. Macleod for the time and attentiveness they have given to the citizens of
Moorpark and continued by expressing various concerns about the downtown park,the placement
of lights, widening of Liberty Bell Road, the extension of Lassen Avenue, traffic circulation and
the safety of children due to increased traffic.
RESPONSE: Comments thanking Mr. Macleod for his efforts towards making a better project are noted
and are hereby incorporated as part of the permanent record. As such, this comment will be
made available to City decision makers prior to any action on the proposed project
Other comments indicate the commentors continuing objections to selected aspects of the project
where impacts are considered too great. As such, this verbal testimony indicates a general
dissatisfaction with selected aspects of the proposed project. This information is included in
this EIR such that City decision makers are provided all relevant data upon which to make an
informed decision.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM SYLVIA WHITTAKER,461 CORNETT AVENUE
COMMENT: Indicated that Poindexter has become an alternate route for many drivers and she
encouraged the City Council to stop development that will contribute to making the problem
worse.
RESPONSE: Further, the Draft EIR did assess the intersection of Poindexter Avenue and Moorpark
Avenue. The EIR concluded that this intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS)
A in the morning peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour(acceptable traffic conditions).
Subsequent to design year growth and project implementation,LOS at this intersection would be
reduced to LOS E(an unacceptable traffic condition)during the evening peak hour,and LOS C in
the morning peak hour (the upper limit of traffic acceptability). No feasible mitigation was
identified in the EIR that would rectify this traffic condition and as such it was listed in the
EIR as an unavoidable and adverse environmental impact.
RTC-29
r
It can be assumed that a corresponding increase in traffic volumes on Poindexter Avenue would
also result from project implementation.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM KENNETH V.ORR,377 MCFADDEN AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated his concerns about the building of Mission Bell Plaza. His primary objections are
the increased traffic and the impact such a development will have on the sewer system.
RESPONSE: As stated in the Draft EIR, traffic associated with the proposed project is expected to
have a significant impact on certain local intersections, considering post-mitigation and given
design year conditions (reference the Traffic Section of the Draft EIR--Volume I,and Appendix
H of Volume II of the Draft EIR).
The Draft EIR did indicate that this project combined with cumulative projects, had the
potential to exceed the current and planned capacity of the City's sewage treatment system.
Subsequent to the preparation of the Draft EIR, studies have been conducted by the Ventura
County Waterworks District Number 1, that indicate that future capacity is expected to be
available, and that the department would continue close monitoring of current and projected
wastewater flows.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM NANCY RUNKLE,393 MCFADDEN AVENUE
COMMENT: Spoke in opposition to the Mission Bell Plaza project.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony(in part)indicates the commentors rejection of the proposed project.
This information is included in this FIR such that City decision-makers are provided all
relevant data upon which to make and informed decision.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM RON DOW,422 MCFADDEN AVENUE
COMMENT: Expressed his concern with the already numerous vacancies in Moorpark.
RESPONSE: AN economic analysis is not a required component of the environmental review process and
was not required by the City of Moorpark for this project. Fiscal data has been provided by the
RTC-30
, r ,
applicant to the City Council that may justify the construction of this project at this time. This
data is public information and is available at the City of Moorpark Community Development
Department.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM BARBARA A.SHULTZ,116 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Complimented the Planning Commission for their efforts. However, she mentioned that
the Environmental Impact Report was late in coming and that the citizens were only given
three days to review it.
RESPONSE: The proposed project was prepared in accordance the Guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act. As such, the EIR was made available to surrounding residents at
least 30 days in advance of the Planning Commission hearings.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM GARY WIRTH,444 MCFADDEN AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated his concern about the air quality when the traffic increases with the development
of Mission Bell Plaza.
RESPONSE: Section 6.2 of the Draft EIR indicated that this project was consistent with the County
AQMP;however,project emissions would be in excess of air quality thresholds as identified by
the APCD. For this reason, air quality impacts were identified in the EIR as being
unavoidable, adverse and significant.
For additional information regarding air quality issues, as they relate to total project emissions
and potential impacts on residents near the proposed project site,please reference Part 1 of this
Final EIR(Introduction to Response to Comments Issue Numbers 3,4 and 7).
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM BETTY SUE HORRALA, 231 W. LOS ANGELES
AVENUE
COMMENT: Spoke in favor of the shopping center portion of Missions Bell Plaza connecting to the
existing Town Center.
RTC-31
1 �r
RESPONSE: For further information regarding the traffic impacts associate with the connection of the
two shopping centers, please reference Part 1 of this Final EIR (Introduction to Response to
Comments,Issue Number 6).
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM COLIN VELAZQUEZ,476 LOS ANGELES AVENUE
COMMENT: Spoke in favor of Mission Bell Plaza, although he stated he does not like the style of
architecture that is being proposed.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony indicates (in part) the commentors acceptance of the proposed
project. No comment was provided that would affect the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR and no further response is necessary or required. This information is included in this EIR
such that City decision-makers are provided all relevant data upon which to make an
informed decision.
Section 6.11 of the Draft EIR did identify other architectural styles that could be employed on
the proposed project site. Further, the Draft EIR concluded that selected alternative design
styles may be more in keeping with the rural theme of the City of Moorpark.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM VALARIE ARVIZU,377 CORNETT AVENUE
COMMENT: Indicated her opposition to the Mission Bell Plaza project. Her concern is the traffic that
will be generated and she said the applicants original request to build owner-occupied homes
should be adhered to.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony(in part) indicates the commentors rejection of the proposed project.
This information is included in this EIR such that City decision-makers are provided all
relevant data upon which to make an informed decision.
The Draft EIR did indicate that the propose project would result in significant adverse traffic
impacts, and selected impacts would occur to residents located in close proximity to the
proposed project site. For example, as stated in the Draft EIR, traffic associated with the
proposed project is expected to have a significant impact on certain local intersections,
considering post-mitigation and given design year conditions (reference the Traffic Section of
the Draft EIR -- Volume I, and Appendix H of Volume II of the Draft EIR). In addition, the
RTC-32
,
Draft EIR did indicate that in the vicinity of Sierra Avenue (Cornett Avenue included) traffic
levels would increase should the proposed project become operational in its original
configuration. Traffic estimates on Sierra Avenue (and these may be representative of Cornett
Avenue) indicate that current traffic volumes are approximately 800 trips per day, and that
subsequent to project implementation this total could be increased by approximately 200 trips
per day (one percent of the traffic was distributed to the west along this roadway). This
resultant traffic volume would not exceed the theoretical volume of this roadway, but would
result in a perceptible change in the amount of traffic on this roadway and an incremental
nuisance to area residents.
Further, the Draft EIR did assess the intersection of Poindexter Avenue and Moorpark Avenue.
The EIR concluded that this intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) A in the
morning peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour. Subsequent to design year growth and
project implementation LOS at this intersection would be reduced to LOS E (an unacceptable
traffic condition)during the evening peak hour,and LOS C in the morning peak hour(the upper
limit of traffic acceptability). No feasible mitigation was identified in the EIR that would
rectify this traffic condition and as such it was listed in the EIR as an unavoidable and adverse
environmental impact.
Comments regarding support of a historic proposal for owner occupied homes is noted and is
incorporated as part of this Final EIR.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM JOHN GALLOWAY,338 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Spoke in support of the configuration that was originally submitted by Macleod
Construction. He stated that the original submission was significantly different than what is
currently being considered.
RESPONSE: Comments regarding support of the original EIR proposal (i.e., no through access of
Liberty Bell and the incorporation of a three acre park site) is noted and is incorporated as part
of this Final EIR.
RTC-33
1
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM DAN MILLS,488 CORNETT AVENUE
COMMENT: Spoke in opposition to the proposed Mission Bell Plaza project.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony indicates the commentors rejection of the proposed project. This
information is included in this EIR such that City decision-makers are provided all relevant
data upon which to make an informed decision.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM RICHARD FAVOR,6941 HASTINGS STREET
COMMENT: Expressed his concerns for the development and for the landowners, but he also stated
that Moorpark needs additional retail stores.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony indicates the commentors general acceptance of the proposed
project. No comment was provided that would affect the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR and no further response is necessary or required. This information is included in this EIR
such that City decision-makers are provided all relevant data upon which to make an
informed decision.
RESPONSE TO VERBAL COMMENTS FROM RUSSELL GEORGE,312 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Indicated his concern about the traffic,noise, and pollution if the proposed Missions Bell
Plaza is allowed to be constructed.
RESPONSE: The Draft EIR did indicate that unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the
traffic, air quality, and short-term noise environment would occur should the project be
approved and implemented.
RTC-34
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,AUGUST 1,1990
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM SYLVIA WHITTAKER,461 CORNETT AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated that she is concerned with increasing traffic on Poindexter Avenue and the
capacity of the sewer system to accommodate the increased demand if the project is approved
and built.
RESPONSE: As stated in the Draft EIR, traffic associated with the proposed project is expected to
have a significant impact on certain local intersections, considering post-mitigation and given
design year conditions (reference the Traffic Section of the Draft EIR—Volume I,and Appendix
H of Volume II of the Draft EIR).
The Draft EIR did assess the intersection of Poindexter Avenue and Moorpark Avenue. The EIR
concluded that this intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) A in the morning
peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour (acceptable traffic conditions). Subsequent to
design year growth and project implementation, LOS at this intersection would be reduced to
LOS E (an unacceptable traffic condition) during the evening peak hour, and LOS C in the
morning peak hour (the upper limit of traffic acceptability). No feasible mitigation was
identified in the EIR that would rectify this traffic condition and as such it was listed in the
EIR as an unavoidable and adverse environmental impact.
The Draft EIR did indicate that this project combined with cumulative projects, had the
potential to exceed the current and planned capacity of the City's sewage treatment system.
Subsequent to the preparation of the Draft EIR, studies have been conducted by the Ventura
County Waterworks District Number I, that indicate that future capacity is expected to be
available, and that the department would continue close monitoring of current and projected
wastewater flows.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM DOUG FRAZIER,237 SIERRA
COMMENT: Expressed concerns regarding worsening air quality if Mission Bell Plaza is constructed.
RESPONSE: Section 6.2 of the Draft EIR indicated that this project was consistent with the County
AQMP;however, project emissions would be in excess of air quality thresholds as identified by
RTC-35
, �y
the APCD. For this reason, air quality impacts were identified in the EIR as being
unavoidable, adverse and significant.
For additional information regarding air quality issues,as they relate to total project emissions
and potential impacts on residents near the proposed project site(please reference Part 1 of this
Final EIR,Introduction to Response to Comments Issue Numbers 3,4 and 7).
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM BARBARA A.SHULTZ,116 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Indicated her dislike of having a restaurant west of Liberty Bell Road and she indicated
she didn't like the location of the proposed child care center.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony identifies concerns regarding the siting of restaurants near the
western perimeter of the site and the location of the proposed child care center. This
information does not effect the adequacy or completeness of the EIR but is included such that
City decision-makers are provided all relevant data upon which to make an informed decision.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM KATHLEEN LOPEZ,37 SHASTA
COMMENT: Said she is concerned that the plans now being presented are so different from the
original ones that citizens viewed.
RESPONSE: Please reference Part 1 of this Final EIR; Introduction to Response to Comments; Issue
Numbers 1 and 2.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM DARRELL SNEED,11919 SILVERCREST STREET
COMMENT: Expressed support for the retail shopping area of the Mission Bell Plaza.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony indicates the commentors acceptance of the proposed project. No
comment was provided that would affect the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR and no
further response is necessary or required. This information is included in this EIR such that
City decision-makers are provided all relevant data upon which to make an informed decision.
RTC-36
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,AUGUST 15,1990
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM DOUG FRAZIER,737 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Praised Mr. Macleod for the way he has worked with citizens.
RESPONSE: Comments thanking Mr. Macleod for his efforts towards making a better project are noted
and are hereby incorporated as part of the permanent record. As such this comment will be
made available to City decision-makers prior to any action on the proposed project.
COMMENT: He expressed concern about the impact on existing retail stores if this project is approved
and requested another fiscal study be conducted to evaluate the impact on current retail stores in
Moorpark.
RESPONSE: Economic analysis is not a required component of the environmental review process and
was not required by the City of Moorpark for this project. Fiscal data has been provided by the
applicant to the City Council that may justify the construction of this project at this time. This
data is public information and is available at the City of Moorpark Community Development
Department.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM JOHN GALLOWAY,338 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Asked what reasoning the City Planners used that caused the original plans of this
project to be redrawn. He expressed support of the plan as it was submitted originally.
RESPONSE: Comments regarding support of the original EIR proposal (i.e., no through access of
Liberty Bell and the incorporation of a three acre park site) is noted and is incorporated as part
of this Final EIR.
Plans originally submitted were withdrawn by the applicant based on meetings and input from
the City of Moorpark staff.
COMMENT: It was never the intent of the project to to put a major thoroughfare next to adjoining
homes.
RTC-37
r
RESPONSE: This comment is noted and is incorporated as part of the Final EIR.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM BARBARA A.SHULTZ,116 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Presented petitions to the City Clerk that were collected in July. She outlined conditions
that she would like met prior to giving her support to the project as proposed. She read a
recommendation from her physician that a history of respiratory problems warrants a central
air conditioning system be installed. She said a security system was warranted to alleviate
stress from a possible increased crime rate. She also requested that public hearing notices for
the meeting to be held on September 19th be sent to property owners within 1000 feet of the
proposed project.
RESPONSE: These comments do not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the EIR. They are
incorporated into this Final EIR such that City decision-makers can be informed of all concerns
of area residents prior to making a final decision on the proposed project.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM MELA CANO,148 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Also had a recommendation from her physician to have an air conditioning system
installed in her home due to the increased air pollution that will possibly result from the
completion of the project.
RESPONSE: These comments do not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the EIR. They are
incorporated into this Final EIR such that City decision-makers can be informed of all concerns
of area residents prior to making a final decision on the proposed project.
RTC-38
S
4 .
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,SEPTEMBER 19,1990
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM DOUG FRAZIER,237 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Spoke supporting the new version of the project.
RESPONSE: This verbal testimony indicates the commentors acceptance of the proposed project. No
comment was provided that would affect the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR and no
further response is necessary or required. This information is included in this EIR such that
City decision-makers are provided all relevant data upon which to make an informed decision.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM BARBARA SHULTZ,116 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Stated her concern regarding the closing of the public hearing. She also expressed
dissatisfaction with many points of the proposed project as it is currently proposed.
RESPONSE: These comments are directed to the commentors rejection of the proposed project and
selected design elements. The comments do not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the
EIR. They are incorporated into this Final EIR such that City decision-makers can be informed
of all concerns of area residents prior to making a final decision on the proposed project.
VERBAL TESTIMONY FROM ROSALEEN GALLOWAY,338 SIERRA AVENUE
COMMENT: Asked what will the elevation of the land be with regard to the residential homes that
are adjacent to it on the west side.
RESPONSE: Post grading, the homes located west of the project site would be at a slightly lower
elevation (approximately two feet lower).
RTC-39
• 1
PART 3
ERRATA/CLARIFICATION
• f
In response to the Draft EIR comments were received by the City staff. These comments did not
significantly affect the conclusions of the EIR but are incorporated for review by City decision-makers
and document completeness.
•
RTC-41
I
• It should be noted that the Initial Study is incorporated as Appendix A of Volume II of this EIR.
• It should be noted that not all impacts associated with this project have been mitigated to levels of
insignificance. Therefore,prior to approving this project,the City of Moorpark City Council must make
a statement of overriding considerations.
• Where the Draft EIR indicate "the developer should"; the document should read "the developer
shall".
• Mitigation measure Number 27 should be corrected to read"7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m."
• Conversation with the Ventura County Waterworks District indicates that water required during
site grading (as identified in Mitigation Measure Number 3) would not pose a significant use of water
and would not affect City water supplies.
• Transportation System Managements Plans (reference Mitigation Measure 13) are prepared to State
of California standards and are designed to reduce project vehicle trips.
• Mitigation Measure 15 was suggested by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District as a
means of reducing vehicle trips by placing an array of uses in one location. This method would reduce
vehicle trips and the associated emissions.
• Traffic volumes identified in Tables 13 and 14 represent peak hour trips as counted by the traffic
engineer.
• The following mitigation measures should be included in the Traffic and Circulation section of the
EIR
- A special contribution to the City shall be made for project expenses associated with the
installation of a traffic signal and the intersection of Moorpark Avenue and Poindexter Avenue.
- A westbound left turn lane shall be added at the Tierra Rejada Road/Los Angeles Avenue
intersection to provide dual westbound left turn lanes.
- A southbound left turn lane shall be added at the Spring Road/New Los Angeles Avenue.
intersection to provide dual southbound left turn lanes.
RTC-42
t; 1
4014 P4
• Figure 4 should illustrate that the continuous alignment of Liberty Bell Avenue through the entire
project site.
• Any reference to Mission Bell Road or mission Bell Plaza Road shall be modified to Liberty Bell
Road.
RTC-43
Ir
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
,
Mission Bell Plaza and Greenleaf Apartments
RPD-89-1, CPD-89-1, CPD-89-2, LD-M-89-2
SCH No. 89042617
The Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 89042617)consists of the following documents: (1)
Volumes 1 and 2 of the Draft EIR (currently on file with the City of Moorpark); and (2) this Final
Environmental Impact Report Addendum. This Final EIR (dated October 17, 1990) consists of three
parts:(1)the Introduction to Response to Comments;(2)a Response to Agency and Public Comments on
the Draft EIR; and (3) an Errata Sheet for the Draft EIR. Each component of the Draft and Final EIRs
were prepared under the direction and supervision of City of Moorpark Community Development staff.
The project site consists of approximately 38.14 acres of land in the central portion of the City of
Moorpark. The site is generally bounded by Poindexter Avenue to the north,Los Angeles Avenue to the
south, a single-family residential development to the west, and the Chaparral Middle School and a
retail commercial complex to the east. The project consists of the following entitlement applications:
RPD-89-1, CPD-89-1, CPD-89-2,and LD-M-89-2.
This environmental review process has been conducted in accordance with all applicable provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requirements of the City of Moorpark
Community Development Department. The intent of an EIR is to serve as an informational document
that identifies the physical environmental impacts associated with the proposed project (indicating
significance where necessary) and to identify mitigation measures and alternatives. The EIR must
make a good faith effort at providing full disclosure. Disagreement among experts does not constitute
inadequacy of an EIR.
The environmental review process was initiated by City staff with the completion of an "Initial
Study" on March 29, 1989. Based on this document it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) should be prepared. The original Draft EIR was circulated in the spring of 1990 to State
Agencies and members of the general public pursuant to City of Moorpark environmental review
requirements. Written comments were received during this agency and public review period,and verbal
testimony was taken before the City of Moorpark Planning Commission on June 4, June 11, and July 2,
1990;and before the City Council on July 25, August 1, August 15, and September 19, 1990. This Final
EIR consists of responses to the written and verbal comments received on the Draft LIR as well as to the
concerns of the City of Moorpark City Council.
MOORPARK
BERNARDO M. PEREZ aPP" �,� STEVEN KUENY
Mayor o°LeAdirt\ CityManager
SCOTT MONTGOMERY twee a CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tern fir' >. City Attorney
ELOISE BROWN irat li. etr PATRICK RICHARDS,A.I.C.P.
Councilmember o � ` a" Director of
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. � Community Development
Councilmember ,rso ,J' R. DENNIS DELZEIT
PAUL W. LAWRASON,Jr. City Engineer
Councilmember MEMORANDUM JOHN V. GPolice Chief of Poli
LLESPIE
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development(
DATE: October 15, 1990 (CC meeting of October 17, 1990)
SUBJECT: OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO CPD89-1 AND -2 (MISSION
BELL PLAZA)
Background
At the August 15 and September 19, 1990 City Council meetings for
the above referenced commercial project, the Council requested
additional information on air quality impacts. An information
paper from Impact Sciences which provided a response was provided
to the City Council at the City Council meeting of October 3, 1990.
Impact Sciences is to provide a response to the following request
for this City Council meeting:
Clarify the air quality impacts of the Mission Bell Plaza
development taking into consideration the fact that this
project will reduce trips currently made to Simi Valley
and Thousand Oaks for commercial services .
As of the writing of this memorandum, this information has not yet
been received from Impact Sciences; however, this information will
be provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report which will be
available to the City Council for the October 17 , 1990 City Council
meeting.
On August 14, 1990, the applicants signed a stipulation related to
RPD-89-1, CPD-89-1, CPD-89-2, LDM-89-2 and related EIR. This
stipulation states that the last day upon which the City may
complete and certify the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 211151.5 and approve or disapprove the project requested by
the applications is Friday, November 16, 1990, which date is
inclusive of the 90 day extension of time authorized by Government
Code section 65957 .
1
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
Discussion
During the public review process several comments on the projects
and/or the Draft EIR were identified that were common interest to
the public and City decision makers . The key topics which have
been incorporated in the Final EIR are identified below:
• Configuration of the project that the City of Moorpark
City Council will act upon is still an outstanding issue
that needs to be addressed.
▪ Would a change in the project description affect in any
way the conclusions of the draft EIR?
▪ This project, if implemented would have a significant
impact on the air quality environment. What would the
impact on air quality be if the project was reduced in
size by 75 percent; and how large a project could be
developed without exceeding identified air quality
standards?
▪ It is known that many Moorpark residents currently shop
outside the area due to the lack of commercial
opportunities within the City. This proposed project
would increase the City's commercial base and would
reduce the trip length associated with those commercial
trips that would now be localized. The reduction in trip
length would reduce regional air quality impacts .
Qualify this reduction in emissions.
▪ How would the closure of Liberty Bell Road as a through
road to Poindexter Avenue affect the City's regional
transportation system?
• Would the connection of the proposed commercial project
with the existing commercial project located to the east
impact the local or regional transportation system?
▪ Summarize the impacts that would result from this project
on existing City residents located directly west of the
proposed project.
There are a number of issues related to the conditions of approval
for these projects that have yet to be resolved (see attachment No.
1 - Memorandum from City Engineer dated October 10, 1990 and
Attachment No. 2 - letter from MacCleod Construction Company dated
October 10, 1990 . All of these issues should be resolved by the
City Council prior to approval of the project. Certification of
the EIR for the project should be done as soon as possible. As
long as the project is not more intense than the project described
in the EIR, the City Council can Certify the EIR.
2
Resolution of the other issues could be done after the EIR is
Certified.
Other than reaching consensus on the conditions of approval for
these projects, the City Council needs to consider the following
actions prior to approval of these projects :
• Certification of the Environmental Impact Report,
▪ Take action on the proposed amendment to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan,
Recommended Action
1. Certify the EIR;
2 . Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
3 . Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve an
amendment to the Circulation Element to Change Gisler Avenue
to Liberty Bell Road and to identify that Liberty Bell Road
shall not serve as a direct connector road between Los Angeles
and Poindexter Avenues;
4 . Determine the configuration of the Commercial Project; and
5 . Finalize any outstanding issues related to Conditions of
Approval .
Attachments:
1. List of Outstanding City Engineer Concerns dated October 10,
1990
2 . Letter from MacCleod Construction Co. dated October 10, 1990
3
Resolution of the other issues could be done after the EIR is
Certified.
Other than reaching consensus on the conditions of approval for
these projects, the City Council needs to consider the following
actions prior to approval of these projects:
▪ Certification of the Environmental Impact Report,
▪ Take action on the proposed amendment to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan,
Recommended Action
1. Certify the EIR;
2 . Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
3 . Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve an
amendment to the Circulation Element to Change Gisler Avenue
to Liberty Bell Road and to identify that Liberty Bell Road
shall not serve as a direct connector road between Los Angeles
and Poindexter Avenues;
4 . Determine the configuration of the Commercial Project; and
5. Finalize any outstanding issues related to Conditions of
Approval.
Attachments:
1. List of Outstanding City Engineer Concerns dated October 10,
1990
2 . Letter from MacCleod Construction Co. dated October 10, 1990
3
„ _ c,j6r,i532(4)ii
tJId - Mnbakcep\i‘
/-ar\LO Cf_s r\ka-X-ri (\14ru_
EQIN-Vtij\IG,
'YIN/KG &'a.,3 •{_i_
ci
4--iAl\ort -.1.10\90 -AY\LO' c .Ot\brl t
rN.10 ki& ,51V(NCAWi
--c-;-01NQ N\
t\Lea. \4---1 N-cD YD
tawi. --ruNikA4G N 0 Yitt
ga \i ---T1_-t-T04-T.
i\Lo ( _v(vL6aAYtk2. (\1\34-1
CUCrei -71.5•2 Jr-7
-13(306
NL on-f\Lexv
- -
.en"t\LJ la_i_0(9-CiNtoe;( CIL
(NLOttNteLit.07\_a Akaa.94r1 6).
9,0 (NLSA-Nti CLL.
NGU:z..e'NT\LO' 9n.ncgluz:1 R.0-i <V--7
2- es c:tci/ 6G No N/A001\tioe3
es) N trvve, (Nz.)-D e) r\t TO •
94- of-rai
st!oLzg gOP 4-VVINOA NV017IM 06-0L-Oi: .W.1.N9A NVOTIM:).k0 it3S
GEORGIC MACLEOD - FOUND.. KENNETH G. MACLEOD
118110-1•70) PIRCn10ENT
MACLEOD CONSTRUCTION CO.
GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS — RECEiVED —
uC •231203
PHONE(805)555-5200 0i:I 1 2 1990
4262 Telegraph Road
POST OFFICE BOX 3677
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93006 City of Moorpark
October 10, 1990
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Attention: Mr. Patrick Richards, AICP, Director of Community Development
Re: CPD 89-1 and CPD 89-2 - Mission Bell Plaza
Dear Pat:
This will constitute our reflection upon and reconsideration of one of the matters
discussed at the meeting Tuesday October 9, 1990 at the City conference room.
Those present were Reno Spondello, the City Engineer, John Knipe, you, Council
Members Eloise Brown and Clint Harper, acting as the Community Development Com-
mittee of the City Council, and the undersigned.
When I rebuested the opportunity to meet with the referenced Council committee
members, I had mentioned to both of them that further discussion of the type and
mix of the residential units vas my main objective. Also it was my understanding
from previous meetings that our concerns relating to engineering conditions-and
more particularly to street and highway design requirements- would be reviewed by
another Council Committee. I was not personally aware that the main subject of
the 10-9-90 meeting would involve the improvements in Los Angeles Avenue exten-
ding across the frontage of the proposed Mission Bell Plaza. Had I realized this
I would have stipulated that either a representative of Ramseyer Engineers or our
personal consultant on subdivision engineering be present. Inasmuch as a repre-
sentative of Ventura Pacific Capital Co. vas advised that we should not have our
engineer present we concluded that engineering related matters would not be dis-
cussed.
During a recent conference involving City representatives and the respective
applicants, Eddie Ramseyer, as the subdivision engineer for the applicants,
suggested a potential alternative arrangement to the City Engineer's Approval
Condition 4a (paragraph 2). His proposal was that the applicants fund the cost
of a single paved traffic lane on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue in lieu
of being required to provide an acceleration and a deceleration lane on Los
Angeles Avenue in connection with the City's permission to allow a driveway to
create the main entrance into Mission Bell Plaza.
At the referenced 10-9-90 meeting it became obvious to Mr. Spondello and myself
that Mr. Knipe was interpreting Mr. Ramseyer's suggestion as an offer to fund
a full pave-out of the south side of Los Angeles Ave.-presumably including
curbs and gutters-at our expense as a trade-off for not being required to pro-
vide the referenced acceleration and deceleration lane. As requested by the
October 10, 1990
City of Moorpark
Attention: Mr. Patrick Richards
Page Two
City our engineers were not present and Mr. Spondello and myself were at the
meeting trying our best-as we have throughout this lengthy approval process-to
be as sensitive and responsive to the needs of the City as possible. I will
personally accept the responsibility and offer my apology for not immnediately
bringing out at the meeting this major discrepancy between the proposal as made
by Mr. Ramseyer and its interpretation by Mr. Knipe. We respectfully contend
that our original offer to fund the cost of paving one lane of the south portion
of Los Angeles Avenue-without curbs and gutters-is a fair and equitable trade
for the permission not to construct the acceleration/deceleration lane on the
north side of Los Angeles Avenue.
We herewith respectfully request that the applicants be permitted to make a
monetary contribution to the Los Angeles Avenue A.O.C. funding mechanism for
the fair cost value of the referenced one (1) paved lane on the south side of Los
Angeles Avenue. Mr. Ramseyer's proposal did not anticipate that we as appli-
cants would become involved in the process of obtaining any property dedications
necessary to allow for the additional paved lane. Such contribution is in con-
sideration that the applicants will grant an irrevocable easement for the bene-
fit of the City within the setback area of the applicable portions of Mission
Bell Plaza which front on Los Angeles Avenue. The easement would permit the
City, at its expense and at some future date, to provide an additional traffic
lane to augment the widening of Los Angeles Avenue which will occur as a re-
sult of this development. The concept of the easement arrangement being con-
sidered now follows from the City's determination that the curb line on the
north side of Los Angeles Avenue across the frontage of Mission Bell Plaza
will be as a straight line projection of the existing curb line across the
Los Angeles Avenue frontage of the Towne Center. The setback requirementsof
thirty eight feet (38'-0") from the referenced curb line are greater than we
had previously anticipated but apparently will enable us to meet the City's
present and future requirements. We hope that this can be accomplished within
the parameters and intent of our original proposal as we have tried to clarify
herein.
Sincerely yours,
Ansta
Kenneth G. Macleod
for Macleod Construction Co. and
Ventura Pacific Development Co.
cc: Eloise Brown
Clint Harper, PHD
John Knipe, Willdan Associates
Ramseyer & Associates
Ventura Pacific Development Co.
Summary of Applicants' Understanding, Stipulations, Remaining Questions and
Unresolved Resolutions Pertaining to City of Moorpark Conditions of Approval
Applicants: Macleod Construction Co. and Ventura Pacific Development Co.
Applications: CPD 89-1 b CPD 89-2 - Mission Bell Plaza
Stipulations and Requested Development Conditions Modifications
1. Applicants have offered to fund to the Los Angeles Avenue A.O.C. the cost
equivalent of paving one (1) traffic lane on the south side of Los Angeles
Avenue from Park Lane to the west ECR of Liberty Bell Avenue with an appro-
priate westerly transition. Lanes shall be created by striping and work
approved by CALTRANS. Reference funding offer is in lieu of applicants ROr
being required to provide at their cost additional lanes beyond the 51 foot
pavement width north of the centerline of Los Angeles Avenue and across the
frontage of the project. Applicants shall provide an irrevocable easement
within a total setback area of 38 feet for future construction, at the City's
cost, of traffic lanes if required.
2. The Right-of-Way point at the frontage of Mission Bell Plaza shall be estab-
lished 8'-0" inside the curb line and the 30'-0" landscape setback area shall
be measured from the point for a total setback of 38'-0" from curb line. The
distance from the Right-of-Way point to the centerline of Los Angeles Avenue
shall be 59'-0". Meandering six foot wide sidewalks shall be constructed
within applicable portions of the total setback areas. The irrevocable ease-
ment for a potential future traffic lane shall be designated and recorded
within the setback area as directed by the City. A bike lane may be estab-
lished, as directed by the City, within the setback area. The referenced
curb line at the Los Angeles Avenue frontage of Mission Bell Plaza shall
follow the same alignment as the existing curb line for the Towne Center.
3. Re: Modified Conditions 4b. (1-2-3)-6/26/90 Revise to Add
Add following provision:
The construction of Liberty Bell Road from the first set of driveways to
the second set of driveways may include a transition from 68 feet of pave-
ment width to 58 feet. The portion from the second set of driveways to the
third set of driveways may include a transition from 52 feet of pavement
width to 40 feet. The remaining portion of Liberty Bell to Lassen Avenue
shall be 44 feet wide. The transitional configuration is per a suggested
design by the City Engineer.
References to 8 foot sidewalks should be modified to permit 6 foot meandering
sidewalks throughout.
4. Re: Condition NO. 9-per Modifications dated 6/26/90
Revise wording and add following language:
Prior to submission of building construction plans for plan check or ini-
tiation of any construction activity a zoning clearance shall be obtained
from the Department of Community Development.
-- RECEIVED -
2 i3't1u
City of Moorpa:
-2-
4. Condition NO. 9-per Modifications dated 6/26/90 (Continued)
A stage grading permit may be issued to the applicant by the City Staff prior
to recordation of the final map for the resubdivision for CPD 89-1 & CPD 89-2.
The developer may submit building plans for plan check prior to zone clea-
rance to accomplish the division of the property into parcels. In consid-
eration of the above, the City will be held harmless.
5. Other Conditions Requested or Revisions Proposed
A. Allow Developer to record the final map for parcelization of CPD 89-1 and
CPD 89-2 prior to securing a CALTRANS permit.
B. Allow building permits to be issued before CALTRANS warrants and permits
a traffice signal at the intersection of Liberty Bell Avenue and Los
Angeles Avenue. Occupancy of the first building shall not occur until
the traffic signal is installed and in operation.
C. RE: Modified Condition 134, 6/26/90 - Revise to read
On-site detention basins should be incorporated into the proposed site
plan. If the Moorpark Avenue drain is permitted by CALTRANS this con-
dition is not applicable.
D. RE: Modified Condition 43, 6/26/90 - Revise to read
All existing and proposed utilities are required to be underground to the
nearest off-site utility pole except through transmission lines. Prior
to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan
for review and approval to the Director of Community Development which
identifies how compliance with the underground requirement will be met.
E. RE: Modified Condition 48, 6/26/90 - Revise to read
The applicant shall make a one time monetary contribution to the City's
Traffic Management System Fund, consistent with the "buy-down" calcu-
lations given in the Environmental Impact Report. However, "buy-downs"
shall not exceed those required under the Environmental Impact Report,
and adjusted to final square footage of approved building plans.
F. RE: Modified Conditions 146, 156 & 166, 6/26/90 - Revise to read
Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 6 feet wide at all points.
G. RE: Modified Conditions 20, 21 & 22, 6/26/90 - Revise to read
Applicant shall make a special contribution to the City of the Applicant's
pro-rata share of the cost of intersection improvements. The pro-rata
share shall be established as a percentage of the total cost determined
by the ratio of trafficq impact on the intersection from the Applicant's
project as compared to the traffic impact from the cumulative projects
which impact the intersection. Traffic volumes indicated in the ICD
tables, appendix H of the Elk may be used to determine the pro-rata
percentage impact by the Applicant's project on the intersection. Appli-
cant will cooperate with others in some combination of financing, con-
G. RE: Modified Conditions 20, 21 & 22, 6/26/90 - Revise to read (Continued)
struction or fees to the City (on a traffic impact pro-rata basis) as
necessary to effect the improvements as acceptable to the City and to
CALTRANS. Applicant's total participation shall be limited to the ref-
erenced pro-rata or percentage traffic impact as compared to the cumu-
lative traffic impact of all other projects creating the necessity for
the improvements.
H. RE: Modified Condition 22C, 6/26/90 - Revise to read
A 20-foot-wide landscape area measured from the face of curb shall be
provided along Liberty Bell Avenue, Lassen Avenue and Park Lane. A
38-foot-vide landscape area measured from the face of curb shall be
provided along Los Angeles Avenue. The landscape area shall include
meandering walks. See attached Exhibit "A"
Add Condition 22E. - Building setbacks, measured from the right-of-way
line, shall be 20-feet along Liberty Bell Avenue, Lassen Avenue and
Park Lane, and 38-feet along Los Angeles Avenue.
I. Condition 16 -Per 6/26/90 Modifications - Revise
(Delete as written and substitute the following:)
Providing that Applicant shall file site plans, elevations and supporting
data sufficient to satisy the Director of Community Development regarding
the extent and characteristics of the proposed upper commercial develop-
ment, a major modification to CPD 89-1 and 2 shall not be required.
J. RE: Condition 26-6/26/90 Modifications-Landscaping of Upper Commercial
area
Add as a third sentence: Landscaping that may be placed as seeded growth
by such methods as hydroseeding will be acceptable as the principal ground
cover.
R. RE: Condition 105, 6/26/90; Off-site Traffic Circulation Improvements
This requirement would be met by Applicant's contribution on a traffic
impact pro-rata basis to the costs of roads and intersections referenced
in Engineer's Conditions 19-20-21 and 22. (See preceding Item 5G.)
L. RE: Condition 134-6/26/90 Modification-On-site Detention Basins
Revise to read: On-site detention basins should be incorporated into the
proposed site if the Moorpark Avenue drain is not complete prior to con-
struction plan approval.
M. City Engineer's Conditon 37, 6/26/90 Modification-Completion of Traffic
Signals and Intersection Improvements Prior to Occupancy
Delete sub-headings c-d-e Per preceding Item 5G. Applicant has proposed
to make a pro-rata monetary contribution toward the cost of these inter-
sections and accordingly should not have their completion tied to the
occupancy of Mission Bell Plaza.
-4-
M. City Engineer's Condition 37, 6/26/90 etc. (Continued)
Sub-heading b: Applicant understood that occupancy could be allowed with-
out the Los Angeles Avenue-Park Lane Avenue signal being operational pro-
viding that a schedule was established and bonding for the work accomplished.
N. Conditions 17-24-25-26-36 & 43, 6/26/90 Modifications
These Conditions are presently listed under the heading of PRIOR TO ISSU-
ANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
In the interest of effecting the commencement of the project work on a
timely basis Applicant requests that the referenced Conditions be listed
instead under a heading of PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
O. City Engineer Conditions 31 & 32, 6/26/90 - Delete Entirely
Delete Entire Conditions-They are not applicable to this project.
P. City Engineer Condition 35, 6/26/90 Modification - Tree Removal
Revise wording to read:
No trees with trunk diameters in excess of 4 inches shall be trimmed or
removed without prior approval of the City Council. The existing citrus
orchard, wind breaks and trees on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue,
if applicable, may be removed without approval of the City Council.
Q. Condition 109, 6/26/90; Allowable Working Hours and Days of Week for
Construction Activities
Revise to read as follows:
Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM
to 7:00 PM and shall exclude Sundays.
R. Condition 117, 6/26/90; Construction Security Measures
Delete as written and substitute the following condition:
Applicant shall utilize all prudent and reasonable measures to prevent
unauthorized persons from entering the work site areas at any time and
to protect the public from accidents and injury.
S. City Engineer Condition 4f, 6/26/90 Bicycle Lanes on Liberty Bell
Revise to read:
The applicant shall construct the necessary improvements to provide 5 foot
bycycle lanes along Liberty Bell Avenue per the Circulation Element of the
Moorpak General Plan if applicable.
T. City Engineer Condition 6, 6/26/90-Hydrology/Hydraulic Plans
6b.- Revise to read as follows:
The required storm drain improvements required to pick up off-site storm
water and carry it to its final disposal from Poindexter Avenue, McFadden
Avenue and Cornette Avenue as identified by the City of Moorpark Master
Drainage Study, shall be designed and constructed.
6d.- delete entirely the Condition that reads:
The on-site drainage system shall be designed to provide retention such
that 10 year flows after development do not exceed existing 10 year flows.
Reason: Invalid comment in relation to Condition 134 according to City
Engineer. There are no known capacity problems in the proposed drains
that require detention, and parking lot detention can become a hazard to
pedestrians.
Respectfully submitted
11- -Mall -i
Kenneth G. Macleod
for Macleod Construction Co.
and Ventura Pacific Capital Co.
cc. John Knipe, Willdan Associates
Ramseyer S Associates
Ventura Pacific Development