HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 0618 CC REG ITEM 09CITEM q • G
1A
le„ rr 7or4
s} CX 4j - orwar4J_ .QPy,_., VG'T
Gon��c�ert��oh o!� !mil!► -�5_.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 6, 2002 (Council Meeting 6- 18 -03)
SUBJECT: Approval of the Arroyo Simi Trail Study
DISCUSSION
A. Background
�
1. The City received a Federal Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality [CMAQ] grant for the preparation of the subject
study.
2. In March of 2001, the City Council approved the Supplemental
Agreement between the City and Caltrans, pertaining to the
administration of this grant. The amount of the grant is
$120,000, plus a local match of $30,000. '
3. In November of 2002, the City Council approved the selection
of RRM Design Group to prepare the subject study. The amount
of the fee for this work is $125,000.
B. Purpose
The purpose of the subject study [ "Study "] is:
1) to determine the feasibility of developing and implementing
a project [ "Project "] to establish all or any part of a
trail system along the Arroyo Simi through the City of
Moorpark and easterly to Madera Road [See Exhibit 1], to
connect to an existing arroyo trail system in the City of
Simi Valley; and, if feasible,
2) to provide an implementation plan setting forth the
requirements and /or constraints associated with the
development of such a Project.
0 L v xy c�
Trail—Study—final
Arroyo Simi Trail Study: Approval
June 6, 2003
Page 2
C. Scope of Services
The general scope of the requested consultant services is set
forth in Exhibit 2. To summarize, the work effort was
restricted to a feasibility study and implementation plan
defining and describing options and alternatives for the
possible development of a conceptual design for a future
Project.
D. Environmental Document
The scope of work includes preparation of an environmental
assessment of the areas investigated. However, since the
purpose of the Study was not to define a Project, but to
merely describe options for a possible future project, no
environmental document was required to be developed. That
effort would be undertaken when and if a Project is ever
defined, funded and designed.
E. Utilization of Levee Maintenance Roads
The preliminary alignment identified for the Trail Study is the
Arroyo Simi. The assumption was that the trail would utilize
the levee maintenance roads where the Arroyo channel is
improved or planned to be improved. Study tasks include a
discussion of both obstacles (bridges) and alternative routes
(streets and easements) to this scheme. Here too the Study is
meant to be a feasibility analysis - not an Alignment Study. A
more in -depth analysis of alignments and constraints would be
the topic of a future effort to develop a preliminary design
for a Project.
F. Studv Document / Executive Summar
The final draft Study was previously distributed to the City
Council. A copy of the Executive Summary is attached as
Exhibit 3.
G. Summary of Study Findings [By Section]
1. Introduction: This section discusses and describes:
• the purpose of the Study;
• the Study Area & Trail Segments;
• trail route
• trail route
- evaluate
- identify
Trail—Study—final
goals; and
objectives .
the study area;
alternatives;
�1 "",1? f"
r �✓ �s <1,..9
Arroyo Simi Trail Study: Approval
June 6, 2003
Page 3
- evaluate alternative routes; and
- identify the most feasible route.
2. Route Identification and Evaluation: This Section identifies
a number of Trail Route Options for each Trail Segment, and
then evaluates them. The chart on page 2 -4 of the Study
lists all of the Trail Options and the evaluation score for
each. The pages following page 2 -4 describe each Trail
Option in detail. This section contains the analytical
"meat" of the Study.
3. Trail Feasibility / Recommendations: This Section identifies
the most feasible Trail Route Options described in Section
2. The map on page 3 -3 of the Study shows those recommended
preferred routes. This section also discusses:
• Near -Term Trail Routes (page 3 -6);
• Long -Term Trail Routes (page 3 -9); and
• Next -Step Recommendations (page 3 -11).
The "Action Items" stated in the Executive Summary, and in
Sections I and J of this report, are re- stated here.
4. Preliminary Cost Estimates:
"Recommended" (Section 3) Trail
3, are set forth on pages 4 -5
estimated costs are summarized
5.
• Near -Term Improvements:
• Long -Term Improvements:
Cost estimates for each
Option identified in Section
and 4 -6 of the Study. Those
as follows:
$ 6.9 million
$ 11.6 million
$ 18.5 million
Trail Management Operation and Maintenance: This Section
discusses and describes:
• trail ownership;
• trail administration;
• funding options (a grant funding
Appendix 'B');
• liability;
matrix is included as
• operations and maintenance considerations;.
- need for an Operations and Maintenance Plan;
- division of costs and responsibilities between
participating agencies;
- use rule / regulations;
- monitoring and administration;
- security issues;
- emergency access plans; and
- maintenance / inspection tasks and frequencies;
• Trail Manager function;
• maintenance needs / frequency list; and
• maintenance costs: $81,000 per year (est.).
Trail—Study—final G C v Iff"G
Arroyo Simi Trail Study: Approval
June 6, 2003
Page 4
H. Biological Assessment
Attached as Appendix `A' of the Study, is a fairly extensive
Biological Assessment of the study corridor. The information
contained in this document lays the ground work for any future
more thorough Environmental Analysis which might be undertaken.
H. Consultant's Recommendations
The Consultant lists six (6) recommended actions on page 2 of
the Executive Summary, which are generally summarized as
follows:
1. Develop a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP);
2. Update the Circulation Element and the Park & Recreation
Element of the General Plan;
3. Prepare Alignment Study and Environmental Document;
3a.Consider forming a Joint Powers Authority [JPA] with other
affected agencies;
4. Prepare a Public Participation Plan;
5. Cost Estimate / Phasing Plan;
6. Form an Enterprise Team (seek development of public /private
partnership for funding of construction and maintenance.
I. Staff Responses / Comments
The following are staff comments on, or responses to, the above
list of Consultant recommendations:
1. Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP): The Community Development
Department [CDD] plans to prepare a BTP in 2004.
2. Circulation Element and Park & Recreation Element: The CDD
also plans to update the Circulation Element in 2004. The
Parks and Recreation Element is a part of the Open Space and
Recreation Element [OSCAR] . The update of the OSCAR is also
planned as a future effort of the CDD.
3. Alignment Study and Environmental Document: It would appear
to be premature to consider undertaking efforts to further
define the Project [EIR, development of Alignment
Alternates] until funding sources are identified and
secured.
3a.Joint Powers Authority [JPA]: It may be premature to
consider formation of a JPA at this time. When and if
funding is identified and secured, a JPA may be deemed to be
feasible, or even necessary, in order to develop and
implement the Project.
4. Public Participation Plan:
Trail—Study—final
It may be premature to expend
Arroyo Simi Trail Study: Approval
June 6, 2003
Page 5
resources to develop grass -roots support for the Project at
this time. This may be an early task of the development of a
Conceptual Plan, to be undertaken when Project funding is
identified.
5. Cost Estimate / Phasing Plan: These efforts would be part
of the development of the conceptual design alternatives.
Such efforts could be undertaken once the Project is funded.
6. Enterprise Team: It does not appear to be a fruitful use of
staff time and resources to develop public /private
partnership for this Project at this time.
J. Summary and Conclusions
The Study shows that the Project can be done. The Study also
identifies and clarifies a number of issues which could or will
affect the successful development and implementation of the
Project. One obvious constraint is the securing of funds for
the design development and ultimate construction of the
Project. Another major issue is resolution of multi - agency,
multi - jurisdictional matters affecting the funding, use and
maintenance of the Project. For these reasons, it is the view
of staff that the City should ask the Ventura County
Transportation Commission [VCTC] to assume the lead role in
seeking Project funding and in coordinating the involvement of
the various agencies which would be affected by or would
benefit from the Project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the subject Study and forward a copy of same to VCTC with
a request that they consider becoming the lead agency for the
development of funding sources and conceptual designs for one or
more projects required to implement the objectives outlined in
the Study.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Trail Study final
Map of Study Area
Scope of Services
Executive Summary
0 `✓ J V' .. Dlr
z I
_ L
o CAMPUS PARK DR
2 MOORP RK sixr veil
x
fx'� �� 3 /�� j SWIIUn IMD�LL
o Y I
- -
ONALD
EO_AAGAti '
-RONAi •• • " nt FRWY
+ --
v Fl V rcxs • J • -
•;�k� p,� >w" iS I M.IU,4 LEY
CAS r
o _, 3 °„ k° ' • • • } • • r ANGELES , x -F�-. - , l _O ttx[
I � � mare . • • NN�•r•� � j�'� - -
m. ANGELES •
Ike
go-
6 • rs
AV :v • GEES r __ -._.. •••• r I ••••••9j st y _s
NEW
� d
ANGELES � �iw u, ,� • �. v.� , a*� � w «.:�...��••
qI� k ro'y #'r••�• "mro ; •••••••••••••• //
✓ ��J� "lj
IGS
ti rnnwm 4 o2l RD ' s W m
si
M
f
vr e
• g p 3 I � I 2 3
,• � - • ,� 4 s � B a° a? C ° _ r:. � 3 � I ,��non x "'. it
,•g'1r -. _ -_t 1yt....x lF Myf_.+.� •�� << y '4 (n— -__. ___ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ __ _ _ •� Lst� °'vnr �.s•r3s e
R
•• • 'm�, • f..t a '� ,v rimy js
••h••NE•••• •• .b' a+ *.� - _� `°r r� y Tt�irRn b�
' r .mr ve ao t ' ! I* " n y...� m " -` c r,,n ' ., 9_•
-
n
n I
ARROYO SIMI TRAIL ` - - -- tr
STUDY AREA
IT
> I
m
F. o der moo.
e�
i
!fC>
l�
Exhibit 2
Trail Study: Scope of Services
Page 1
A. Objectives
The objective of the SERVICE is to develop a feasibility study
and implementation plan [ "Study /Plan "] for the possible future
construction of a "multi -user trail" (equestrian, pedestrian,
bicycle) along the Arroyo Simi, from the westerly Moorpark
City Limit, easterly through the City and the unincorporated
County area east of the City, to the westerly terminus of an
existing trail system along the Arroyo within the City of Simi
Valley.
The Study /Plan shall identify the problems and /or obstacles to
the construction of the extended trail system (right -of -way
needs, topography, environmentally sensitive areas, wetlands
preservation, engineering issues, access, future maintenance
responsibilities, security issues, construction funding,
maintenance requirements / cost / financing, etc.). The
Study /Plan would also provide possible solutions to the
problems identified, such as alternate alignments, etc.
B. Trail Segments
Route Segments: The Study /Plan shall address Segment A and
Segment B of the Trail separately. Segments A & B are
identified as follows:
• Segment A: That portion of the Trail to be located on a
maintenance levee road which is part of the improved
Arroyo Simi channel, extending from the Peach Hill Wash
confluence (near Hitch Road), easterly to the limits of
the existing channel improvements at the rail crossing
north of Science Drive.
• Segment(s) Bl: Those portions of the Trail to be located
along the "unimproved" portions of the Arroyo Simi,
upstream of the existing channel improvements which
currently terminate at the rail crossing north of Science
Drive.
• Segment(s) B2: Those portions of the
proposed to be situated within [Class 2
roadway (i.e. "Old" Los Angeles Avenue)
any roadway [Class 11.
• Segment(s) B3: Those portions of the
proposed to be located on private propE
connect Segments B1 & B2.
Trail—Study—final
Trail, if any,
or Class 3] any
or adjacent to
Trail, if any,
arty in order to
Exhibit 2
Trail Study: Scope of Services
Page 2
C. Scope of Services
The scope of SERVICES shall include those tasks and services
outlined in the Proposal (Exhibit `B') revised and amended to
address certain requirements noted as follows:
1. Segment A [Improved Channel] : The Study /Plan shall address
the following:
a. Description: Describe the location, alignment, features
and attributes of the proposed Trail.
b. Constraints: Describe any obstacles (road crossings,
etc.) to implementation.
c. Feasibility: It is presumed that the placement of a Trail
along this segment is feasible. So state, or explain why
it is not.
d. Implementation Requirements: List and describe the steps
necessary to implement a Trail along this Segment. This
description shall include or address:
> needed improvements;
> permit requirements;
> indemnity / insurance requirements;
> security issues;
> liability exposure; and
> any other component or prerequisite to the approval of
the use of the channel levee maintenance road and the
construction and maintenance of the Trail.
e. Implementation Costs: Describe all costs required to
obtain necessary approvals and to construct the facility.
f. Long -Term Operations and Maintenance Costs: Develop an
estimate of annual operation and maintenance costs.
2. Segment Bl [Unimproved Arroyo]: The Study /Plan shall address
the following:
a. Description: Describe the location, alignment, features
and attributes of this /these Segment(s)of the Trail.
Alternative routes may be described.
b. Constraints: Describe the obstacles and constraints to
implementing this (these) Segment(s). Such analysis shall
include, but not be limited to:
> environmentally sensitive areas;
> flood inundation;
> flood damage;
> security;
> liability; etc.
c. Feasibility: Render an opinion regarding the feasibility
of implementing this Segment of the Trail.
d. Implementation Requirements: List and describe the steps
necessary to implement a Trail along this (these)
Segment(s). This description shall include or address:
> needed improvements;
> permit requirements from all regulatory agencies having
Trail—Study—final A �'
O,.i �O �Y Fu1.J1
Exhibit 2
Trail Study: Scope of Services
Page 3
jurisdiction;
> the scope and degree of the environmental review
process anticipated to be necessary, with estimated
costs;
> indemnity / insurance issues;
> security improvements and issues;
> any other component or prerequisite to the approval of
the placement of a Trail along the unimproved Arroyo.
e. Implementation Costs: Describe all costs required to
obtain necessary approvals and to construct the facility.
f. Long -Term Operations and Maintenance Costs: Develop an
estimate of annual operation and maintenance costs.
3. Segment B2 & B3 [Roadways and Other Locations]: The
Study /Plan shall address the following:
a. Description: Describe the location, alignment, features
and attributes of the proposed Trail. Which portions of
any such Trail alignment are proposed to be a Class I
facility.
b. Constraints: Describe any obstacles (acquisition of
right -of -way, easement, etc.).
c. Feasibility: Render an opinion regarding the feasibility
of implementing this (these) Segment(s) of the Trail.
d. Implementation Requirements: List and describe the steps
necessary to implement a Trail along this (these)
Segment(s). This description shall include or address:
> needed improvements;
> permit requirements;
> right -of -way acquisition;
> indemnity / insurance requirements;
> security / liability;
> any other component or prerequisite to the
implementation of this (these) Segment(s).
e. Implementation Costs: Describe all costs required to
obtain necessary approvals and to construct the facility.
f. Long -Term Operations and Maintenance Costs: Develop an
estimate of annual operation and maintenance costs.
4. Funding Options: The Final Report shall summarize various
funding methods, sources, etc.
5. Ownership / Operation: If a Trail east of the City is deemed
to be feasible, the Final Report shall discuss and recommend
which Agency or Agencies should assume the responsibility
for funding, design, entitlement procurement, ownership,
operation, and maintenance of the Trail.
6. Work Components and /or Requirements: The work components
and /or requirements shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
a. Field Survey;
Trail_Study_final �rA�l0 011 r
lr .� 1�y "i C�
Exhibit 2
Trail Study: Scope of Services
Page 4
b. Environmental survey and assessment;
c. Affected Property ownership information (Assessor Role);
d. Listing of Regulatory Agencies having jurisdiction;
e. Development of Conceptual Alternatives;
f. Discussion of Project Benefits;
g. Identification of all constraints and obstacles;
h. Description {Implementation Plan} of all of the
processes, prerequisites and requirements related to the
development and implementation of the project, including
the steps necessary to seek all necessary clearances and
approvals.
i. Description of all "soft" (design, permitting,
entitlements, etc.) and "hard" (construction) costs
associated with project development (design /permitting)
and implementation (construction).
j. Description of anticipated annual maintenance cost. Said
cost shall include a contingency for repair and /or
reconstruction of any trail segment subject to flooding
and /or flood damage.
Note: Work components shall not include:
a. Property Appraisals
b. An approved Environmental Document
7. Resources: The CONSULTANT is
resources which may facilitate
costs for same. Said resources
to, the following:
a. Aerial photography recently
Ventura and available to the
executed Agreement.
advised of certain available
the work and /or reduce the
include, but are not limited
completed by the County of
City pursuant to a recently
b. Topographic Survey and Hydrology information in the final
stages of preparation by the Ventura County Flood Control
District.
c. Available GIS data.
8. Tasks: The tasks and sub -tasks required shall be as set
forth in the Proposal, except that said tasks shall be
modified to address the requirements set forth above.
9. Meetings: Meetings shall be limited to coordination meetings
with City staff, as required, and one presentation of the
final work product to the City Council. No Community
Meetings to seek input for project development will be
necessary.
Trail—Study—final
Exhibit 3
Trail Study: Executive Summary
Page 1
Executive Summary
The Arroyo Simi Trail Feasibility Study establishes the most feasible near and long -term route
of a multi -use pedestrian and bicycle trail along the Arroyo Simi corridor. The multi -use trail is
intended to promote alternative forms of transportation and provide new recreational
opportunities consistent with the goals set forth in the City of Moorpark's General Plan, City of
Simi Valley's Bicycle Master Plan, and Ventura County's Regional Trails and Pathways Master
Plan Report.
The trail corridor is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Moorpark, County
of Ventura and City of Simi Valley. Other agencies with jurisdiction in the project study area
include the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Caltrans, and Southern California
Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). The planning effort for this Feasibility Study has included key
stakeholder interviews, field investigation, jurisdictional agency coordination, environmental
surveys, and applicable planning document research and review. The resulting routes in the
Arroyo Simi Trail Feasibility Study largely reflect the input and advice provided through the
planning process.
The proposed trail traverses approximately 9 miles stretching between the westerly Moorpark
City Limit and extends easterly through the City of Moorpark and unincorporated Ventura
County, to the westerly terminus of the City of Simi Valley's existing trail system crossing both
privately and publicly owned property. The proposed trail route consists of a combination of
Class I and Class II facilities with connections to neighborhoods, schools, parks, downtown
Moorpark, employment centers and planned regional trail facilities.
On a regional scale, the Arroyo Simi Trail section is a vital trail corridor within the "Ultimate
Loop" of Southern California. The Ultimate Loop is a regional system of planned and
constructed trails that will ultimately connect several communities in both Ventura and Los
Angeles Counties to each other, major destinations, and neighboring regional trail networks.
An assortment of trail sections make up this Ultimate Loop including:
• Simi to the Sea Trail (Simi Valley through Moorpark to the Santa Monica Mountains)
• Saugus to the Sea Trail (Santa Clara River Corridor to the Santa Monica Mountains)
• Backbone Trial (Santa Monica Mountains to Point Mugu,
• Coastal Trail (Point Mugu to the Santa Clara River),
• Santa Paula Branch Line Trail (City of Ventura through the Santa Clara River Corridor),
• Santa Clara River Trail (Ventura County to the City of Santa Clarita).
Ultimately, connections to the Coastal Trail and Pacifica Crest Trail via the Arroyo Simi Trail's
link in the Ultimate Loop would provide Moorpark and Simi Valley residents the ability to reach
Mexico and Canada.
The Arroyo Simi Trail Feasibility Study provides support for an Arroyo Simi Trail concept and its
ability to be developed along a continuous route and constructed within a normal cost range.
The City Councils and other regulating authorities should utilize this foundation document to
prepare a definitive trail alignment study for adoption. Looking forward toward providing project
Trail—Study—final 0�n
�r��I
Exhibit 3
Trail Study: Executive Summary
Page 2
funding for the trails development and documentation of public support along with business
partnerships will be essential.
The development of an economic strategy utilizing an enterprise group for public, private and
government grants for the capital improvements should be given a priority. The development of
project phasing funding is a one to two year commitment for initial resources to become
available. The primary funding source will be through transportation funding opportunities.
Transportation funding is essentially provided for bicycle commuting purposes. All future
planning and documentation should make an emphasis on bicycle commuting rather than
recreational uses.
Recreational trail resources are fewer, lower in overall funding and more competitive than
transportation funds. Funding for master planning and preliminary environmental
documentation is rarely available through agency grants. Funding for the preliminary work will
need to be provided by the regulating agencies and joint venture options.
LOOKING FORWARD TO FUTURE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARROYO SIMI TRAIL, THE
FOLLOWING ACTIONS ARE RECOMMENDED:
1. City staff should consider preparing a recommendation to City Council to authorize
development of Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) to cover Class 1, 2 & 3 alternate
transportation bikeways and multi use trail opportunities. The BTP is the base
documentation requested and usually is required when applying for transportation funding.
The BTP could be done through an addendum to existing contracts to expedite funding
application opportunities in the fiscal 2003 -2004 period. Alternatively if time is not of the
essence a request for qualification (RFQ) and or a request for proposal (RFP) process
could be used.
2. City staff should consider preparing a recommendation to City Council to authorize
preparation of updates to Circulation and Park & Recreation Elements to the City General
Plan. This will provide consistency in the planning process and give an opportunity for
public participation. Timing for the General Plan update should be reviewed with the City
Planning Department staff. As mentioned in the above paragraph, this could be done
through an addendum to existing contracts in fiscal 2003 -2004 period or through the
request for qualification (RFQ) and or a request for proposal (RFP) process.
3. City staff should consider preparing a recommendation to City Council to authorize at a
minimum the starting of environmental impact report (EIR) to determine preferred
alternatives for Arroyo Simi Trail in Moorpark. This could be expanded if the other
regulating agencies on the proposed trail alignment were amenable to establishing a Joint
Powers Agreement (JPA). This would also be the opportunity to share funding costs for a
complete EIR. If the JPA is considered it should include financial planning for the operations
and maintenance conditions that will exist after construction.
Trail-Study-final
M
Exhibit 3
Trail Study: Executive Summary
Page 3
4. Prepare Public Participation Plan to include all,stakeholders of Arroyo Simi Trail. Establish
meeting dates and locations for public notice. This is to develop a consensus support group
with common interests, benefits and objectives. Through the public participation process a
concentration on the development of state legislative support will be instrumental in future
funding resources.
5. Concurrent with the development of the EIR, a project engineers cost estimate by phases
should be prepared and matched with funding sources for the Moorpark section of the
Arroyo Simi trail. City staff should consider requesting City Council to establish a budget line
item for matching funds for grant opportunities. A cash commitment and in kind services of
staff and consultants will make the project competitive.
6. Planning for the longer term the City or JPA should consider developing an Enterprise
Team. This group will identify and utilize a combination of revenue centers with the
emphasis of pubic /private, joint ventures, partnerships or concession agreements to provide
both for additional capital improvements and the operation and maintenance of the trail. The
early establishment of this group would allow it to also be involved in the grant development
program for phasing the Arroyo Simi Trail construction.
Trail—Study—final