HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 1101 CC REG ITEM 11JMOORPARK ITEM
ELOISE BROWN
Mayor
BERNARDO M. PEREZ
Mayor Pro Tern
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D.
Councilmember
PAUL LAWRASON
Councilmember
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Councilmember
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
M E M O R A N D U M
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
To- The Honorable City Council
FRON: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Comoun.ity Development
D.ATF: October 25, 1989 (CC Meeting of 11-1-89)
SUBJECT: CASTON TRUST GENERAL PI,t1N ElME14DMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
Discussion
The Country of Ventura has provided r.iotice to the City of the public
review and public hearing on the Draft EIR for the proposed Caston.
Trust General Plan Amendment a.nd Zone Change in. the East Santa Rosa
Valley. Attached are a copy of the public notice form, a location reap, the
Summary Impact Matrix, and excerpts from the traffic anal circulation
discussion section. A copy of the complete Draft RIF is on file with the
Community Development Department.
Staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and concluded that the only issue of
concern to the City .related to proposed General Plan amendment and zone
change is the additional traffic that will. be generated and. the proposed
cumulative traffic mitigation measures. As can be seen on page xx.x of the
Summary Impact Matrix (Attachment 3), a. proposed mitigation measure for
cumulative traffic impacts along Santa Rosa. Road and Moorpark Roads is a
fair share improvement agreement fo17 road reconstruction and widening.
This agreement is proposed to be negotiated between the County and the
Cities of. Moorpark, Thousand Oaks, and Camarillo to allocate specific cost
responsibility for improvements to Santa Rosa and Moorpark Roads in
proportion to future trip generation. Table 13-7 (Attachment 4) gives a
"fair -share" allocation for each jurisdiction. Of concern to staff' is that
Moorpark's proposed "fair -share" allocation is the. highest. In .fast, on
page 156 of the EIR, there is a. statement that the highest portion of the
projected increase in daily traffic: demands along Santa Rosa Road within
the study area would be attributable to increases in traffic demands
generated within the City of Moorpark (a.bou.t: 24.5 percent).
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
Staff contacted the City's Traffic Engineer, Mark Wessel, and his
preliminary response is that the assumption that Moorpark will generate the
highest proportion of the traffic along Santa Rosa Road is incorrect. He
would, however, need to review the Traffic Study for the Caston Trust
proposal to adequately address the accuracy of the conclusions in the
subject EIR. On page 157 of the Draft EIR, there is a statement that in
order to approve the General Plan Amendment, the consultants believe that a
reasonable and equitable fee system for future improvements should be in
place or the County should otherwise commit to resolution of traffic
problems prior to approving the Amendment. Staff concurs with this
statement.
Staff is proposing to send a letter to the County which basically states
that the proposal will result in an over -intensification of the Santa Rosa
Valley. We also intend to object to the conclusions related to traffic
demands generated within the City of Moorpark, and to the proposed
"fair -share" improvement agreement for road reconstruction and widening.
No evidence has been presented which justifies the conclusions related to
Moorpark's traffic generation. The "fair -share" amounts shown on Table
13-7 do not appear to be reasonable and equitable for the City of Moorpark.
As stated previously, we concur with the. EIR consultant's conclusion that a
reasonable and equitable fee system for improvements should be in place or
the County should otherwise commit to resolution of traffic problems prior
to approving the Amendment. The County should not approve a. project which
is dependent upon the City's participation in funding .road improvements
outside of the City boundaries.
As identified on the public notice, the public review period for the Draft
EIR ends on November 22, 1989, and a public hearing is scheduled at 1:30
p.m. on that date. If the Council would like to have staff address any
other issues related to the proposed project, our tentative schedule is to
have a comment letter completed and mailed by November 17, 1989.
Recommendation
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachments:
1. Public Notice Form
2. Location Map
3. Summary Impact Matrix
4. Pages 154-157 of Draft EIR
PJR/DST
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of �f�� 198
ATTACHMENT 1
-- RECEIVED OCT - 2 196
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARiw, City of Moorpark
ON DRAFT ENVIRONmEmL wACT REPORT FUR
CASTON TRUST, Er AL, GENERAL PLAN AME DKWr
AND ZONE CHANGE IN THE EAST SANM ROSA VA=
NC7I'ICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Draft ErYvirormiental Impact Report (EIR)
for the Caston Trust, et al, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on
properties located in the East Santa Rosa Valley, is available for public
review. Based on the Initial Study findings, *gs, this project will have a
significant effect on the environment and a Draft EIR has been prepared
pursuant to the provisions of the California Errvirormrental Quality Act. A
PUBLIC MKING will be held by the Ventura County Environmental Report
Review Committee (ERRC) to consider the adequacy of this Draft EIR at the
end of the public review period.
PROD= T=: Caston Trust, et al, General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change.
o Arthur H. and Elsie J. Caston:
520-090-285; 520-090-295
o Homer and Diane Castor:
520-090-275; 520-090-305
o Christopher S. connor:
520-180-105
o Hamdan Project Development Corporation:
520-100-050
o Calvin D. and Diane L. King/Anthony Greco:
520-090-075; 520-090-085
o Carolynn B. Nicholson:
520-090-245
o Rieman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles:
520-180-095
o Santa Rosa Ranch:
550-010-365
o Staben Family Trust:
550-020-015
PRCJDCT LOCATION: Southwesterly portion of the East Santa Rosa Valley
PRaMCT DESCRIPTION: Nine individual property owners controlling twelve
separate parcels located in the Eastern Santa Rosa Valley have jointly
filed an application referred to as the Gaston Trust et al, General Plan
Ate. These applicants are requesting an amendment from the "Open
Space" (10 Aare Minimum) land use designation to the "Rural" (1 Aare
Minimmi) designation. The twelve parcels contain approximately 334 acres
and, if amended from "Open Space" to the proposed "Rural" designation, 280
additional parcels could be created in the East Santa Rosa Valley. This
would result in an increase of approximately 950 persons (based on 3.38
persons per dwelling unit). In addition, the applicants have requested a
zone change from "A -Ell (Agricultural Exclusive) and 110-S-40 Ac" (Open
Space, 40 Acre Minimum) to the "R-E-lAc" (Rural Exclusive, 1 Acre Minimum)
zoning. The maximum, m, buildout under the Rural (1 Acre Minmmn) zoning
designation is one single family dwelling unit (including accessory
strictures) per parcel.
The public review period for the subject Draft EIR is from October 5, 1989
to November 22, 1989
":i _• -
J fI
The; Enviroamental Report Review C=uttee will hold a public hearing at
1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 22, 1989 in Room 344 (Multi -Purpose
Hearing Roan) , Hall of Acb ni st-ration, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura,
CA 93009. You are welccme to attend this hearing or subunit your written
ccmments to Daniel Price, RMA - Planning, 800 South Victoria Avenue,
Ventura, CA 93009.
NOTE: Per State law, if you challenge the action taken on the project
described in this notice in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Ventura County
Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Copies of this Draft EIR are available for public review and/or purchase
at the Ventura County Resource Management Agency, Hall of Administration,
800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009, during regular working
hours. Also, a copy of this Draft EIR may be reviewed at the following
public libraries:
Camarillo Library
3100 Ponderosa Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Moorpark Library
699 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
City of Thousand Oaks Library
1401 E. Janss Read
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
If ,you have any questions or concerns, please contact Daniel T. Price at
(805) 654-2406.
Bruce Smith, AICP
Supervisor, General Plans Section
ATTACHMENT 2
N
J
O N
ii M
w
a
a
w
w
>
a
°4
�
e
0
a
aW
Z n
a N
0
0
n
O
6 3 % 'o
u
ATTACHMENT 3
t0 u
uVial.
W E
w c
gp❑p O
u
O u
z E
m a
T 'O
a
•�
yN
Q ^
rV�
p
u —
u O
w a �
B
'G
o u
V3
'0 Qy
~
� Y
O O
u
3
'c
0 0tu.
ca E
H
Oo
° c
.G
a
d
o
a
m
N
o
p
A
C C
T
u
u
eo
.a a
u
u
E
' Q
x
X
h
c
O
x
O
o
u c
u O
r
r0.
•�
C�
p (� in
0
O
e e•i O
u
a
pp
Q.
N
O U'�.,
wOi
Ci
u
1 z 1
x
fN
w
w
7
�y
u
R
11,
c
0
a o
y a o
o u u
o_ 'ou N a
9 T
u '00
N o N
=y a
x
o
o
u
QQ
u u
u C •ia
p
pup
CO
C
eC
A E
7 p
r�4
w
t0 � O
O
u
•O
•fn
A
L'
.y
O
z
x
x
C �v
u
A •�
c
C
cJi��.
cuo C
'gQu7
E C u
iO
u
°p E
T
6
�:
u
k
x
.N.
� 7
C
R
C
>
Q
CO A
U
O
N+
b V
C
o
r
�
iO u
CiE
.:
c
a o
O
0
O
N o d
U
w
°
ra.
I.O.
C
R
w
O
PI T
?
3
SO
bo
a
o�°pp
>
s°
u
O R
aRr
w
.In •p
N
O
u C
O41
V '0 C
.d
C
W
o
�V�
u
yy�
W
E
d a
cCO
W
8
d
RS
N
•O
~
O
C
u
7
�°
C
O
R
W
N E
t
C
V
C
t
i.
R
t
•� ,uo R
°>° u
V
r'
k
x
�Wz
a
/
_
q
k
k
T
\
g
\ �
[
§
]
)
/ \.2
'6b
a
2 A
o a
\
k
]
§
$ }
e
x
}
/
}
\
ƒ
}
\
�
)
2
k
x
(
x
A
t
±
k
«
] G
a
2
3 a
2
§ O§
t
§ ]
t
f
] I k
«\\2
\
ƒ
}
/
r
41
�\\�a
.
E
2
.cc
.
�
]
\
2
2
x
$ I
o
�
k
f
J
)
§
§
\
(
a1
I
W
cc
3
E
u
u1I
u tz
E
A. y
C
u
�
C
z
z
z
v
a W ~
C. > � uy
w � yy 25
L1. N
l0 C
.R
c
u
b
U y 5 C
Pr U
c E
y� O
O
>
o •S
b
u
0
0 a V
0
3
u c c o u
u
E
E
•7 w R u
u
C p u
5
� a � a � •� .E
10
"
b'
x
x I x
0
p 9
c
u
a
�
s
Q$
A o
c
U
u
v O a�f
uW
eo 72
�
�p,
�
E
a
b' •o a
� Cc c
� e0o
�
E
a
o
e
0
u
u o"
eo
Yi
u
O
u u
s ''
E .U.
DO
w
QCC
u
;o
C ��Cqq
io Cn
A
is
3
—
r� at..
O O
aCtq(
lu
W
LU
W_
to
7
'O
.y
'y
rz
z
u
o. > ti
Leo Z, R
o
O N D
u
cc a
� � `�
op"
ccC:
vi
•
o e
c
� o
�
�j,
W
0`0 ai d v�
eo
co
en
9
p7 O C L 'O p
C
7 C
O OD
•y
CO C •� �
u � u p� � Q eo
° e
f1.
Vl
C O u
� d
y
G c
C
_?
uV
1y
u
`. o V oe
a
O
3
•�
c y
9°i
cc
C°
y
w
E
N
c
a
d
•°D °
c
w o u 5� u o
= D
•c°o
A o
�
h�
•�-� u
5 0�
E �4
o E
cc
S
x
x
x
s
7
U
a+ V
u
0. h
C
6
w , u 'COO
a '3
a
"e
..
o 8 E
e
4
4 O
p N y d
R R u R u
u a
N
E
u
° G C y Q u
N
N O
z��°��s
z
oa
z
N
u C
a
H
o R
"75
�' U
'
•O a
a ,wr O
N �
Az: C
,
RRy
O O G
0.3
o �' °
c E C
L
[Qo]
u
u
e
Mo
u c O
o U
u
� c
lu
_
cc
�
u
�
•�.
�
7 L u
G � �qq
���7},
N
Ca
y o f
a A
y O
u = &
u G
'� .�
W
b3 t
OC
'C C
u G °
R
v
u R 'r0
° u u
g
U t� R R o
v� � :� •o
A a
U
�j �
.W
U
con
W
� u
u
K
a
k
a
cn
C
G
u u
p p tuC [•�
•d
z y •r. C
r O '�
R 'A
ba
u y p
u
O •C 'or
:; s 6VS
� ;C b �
G w w �
•N
C trp
O.,
•G u
O •�
O
°3
.F •O
C u
O •y O
tCp ° O
cJ y,,,
y
W
W
W
.y
6
A
U
a.
a
A
6
z
u
a
a
z
0
z
a
0
z
u
b gD y p 'C u .+ E
N O
W E c E 0 c a A
a O u o •� O a o R 2 W
u
0 •� 0
w w •u � � �a Qi O o` c .�
q
R&
O
u
o w a h y
[ u u°
� a oe o,ci
a u Q
ua a s
.a ti C u
0 ou
E
o ='a LO
Oo . 4 Gos u 00 5 v h G.0 'a
c
x
x
4
o c
� 'Cc o
0
�
c
a
p p
•Q3 ip
E
o o
Z5
v
o
.off
vo
G'
w c
3 C u A t b ;p VI V C .�+
oa y ,w, �uv a E -" c
C � chi u « =° O � � ,� � � •O Q�j � � 3 � � p� � 0 ; O
fb
E d u
I
6
O�
QgR�
a
aui
jW
S2 u
Wl
o
'o
0
H
H
a
H a
m
n
0
a
�
ggg
�a
�
o
u
Oa.
�, Ada+
Q
� �
o
e
0
c
o
�
A
•�
e0
a,
C N
w
'"
`°
QT u.
i�
pp
O qp a
C
C
P �+ O
C
x
O
w
O
'p,
:,w
O C
.0y a�
C V
O
C Am.o
9
w10
�d
Q
Cq
o
N
r
N 'C
u
VA
c a
a a
u
�"
ty� b
u p
,N
u
I
u
a
'S o
q
vi 9 m
s Cg 'v
�
a
A a' �
CL
as
x
x
x
x
x
•u
T
�
u
O V
£
'o
N y
� u
E
0
� u
W
Q s
a,
�
eo
Q
O 'C
u
s
>
O
O
C
T
e0
.�
O
G
_ E u
.N
N
O E
u
w
'C ;
�
E
O
v
C 'C
x
x
e_o u
bri
y
O C .
m u e !:
c - `X
O 3 C Obi
c �
Li
w
G
k
k
§
\
�
§
j
� 3
K
§
) k
\
E
%
g
�
�
§
§ t{
f
k
2
7
x
I
04
RN
MA
m
3
E
U
{� • x x C
v� C � � � � •O ;qyQ A � •O
.0 N A « O •O O F4 C
u c�c�� a u To .W-� 'e t� e u u •o
0.
;? u � to0 U
bo
U u ;a iy O t0 C G
x
x
W
C v,
AC
p ppa u vui
W C N O
E
x
�
/
%
]
/
q
6
�
6
§
k
2
}%/)�}
o §
3 ]) §
k /
Tj
I k
)
aav\k
k
\
k
J
2
§
§
J
N
C
u
c is u
is
'� � •� H
u
�'
a
z �•�3
0::
t
C
e � D
o u •o
�u
75
O
vQ
u e u y
� 4 s
it E
12
o o v
X
O
O u u
•lQ
O
A
C
N Qu y
C •p F
u
•E
a
a Q
u
,p
O
u
U
OD = C
t
C V
H d
y
'O •O
o;
G CO 9
u
C
A yti"j
•� O t
tVi
£
W
y u
e0
«O
•p
�,
C
.0 ip
ue
o
eo u=
u
o
0
0
R
a£
•� ty0
r E t
N
C
r �
A
u � 'u0
u
m
A
R
a
u
3
U
U
K
a v,
W
u y
u >,
W �
o A o Qw
u�
w
y
a
o
�
a
u
p
■
■
X
f\\
k
_
7
[
t / !—a§
2
\ ƒ\)
/§f
0k
0
|
ƒ
d
§ a \ $
]
Q
0
£
'
3
cca
0
2
aƒ
2 a a
x
x
)ƒa
0 /
$ ) u
2 � )
c
ƒqA
c
j£�k
�
�
a
u
W
b
a
R
a
A
w
.1
F:
A
E
0
U
u
4:
.N
z
u
O
L'
u
R 0
C
aui
u u v�i 9i
C L
.0
y � W
a O
L 3
'u0a
u u 'N G
o°��'
pa
o
e 8
a$
a
°c b
u� G •d
c
t�
.y
z
0
c o
�o
k
X
x
11
IJ
N
2
f
ƒ § ƒ
\�
)t
� £
�)
o&
/
73
u ba
»,w
/ k �
— aƒ
.2
owa
—
� {
k
ƒ }
}
k
/
\`
\2
\#
2
/
o a
e
rEa
a
7 3
ƒ
\
k
k
u
2
t \
f
�
�
�
a
)
CD
"I �
) I
2§ 7
k}
2 9 2 7
I
i
�b
o a d
v n.
u £
U C C
N
W tr. C •.�. IU„ £
a z z i7)n e. E j
I
5Q� 5'. ; � •o c
_ = Mo £
A O io '—' t¢ C a 54
V H C O O vi — 'O g
U
D u D 6 a. u y$ Q cg
u y u O v 1, 0
£ 2 £ m v £ a
u •G
a £ �
C cup � yp •� y S O •p A ?.
C 1O u 'G G a' D ,., •� w u
- Q u to
C YN
aQS ({�Q�' o '� DTI £ °
u
C �
n 7 Y
V £ .0 G O 1(
> a
� � a u � e a°i �-+ •o
p N u a •O W u O� C v°i O
to p. 0 U p
£ X K
u
a
eo `�
9 O.
a e
-00
� tCp � Q' i� .C'C.• V w C O N W '.�. rQ�} lJ •C
19
\ a
t
•
� 7
�
-
�
)
\ \ \
§
±
3k
.
)
E
� ;
§
§ 2
\ /
) §
� @
2 %
\
k
7
A e «
\ \ .2
k / 0o �
.a
z
k
§ ` ~
\
& §
•
& - o � .
ƒ
/
�
*
2
t \
.
k
k
\ 2
5
\ \ k 4
\
\
k f k
�
\
I
ATTACHMENT 4
133 MITIGATION MEASURES
Project Specific
Installation of Signals
Signal warrant demands (excluding project traffic) are now met at the intersections of Tierra Rejada
Road/Moorpark Road, Santa Rosa Road/Moorpark Road, and Santa Rosa Road/East Las Posas Road. All
three of these intersections would be impacted by the addition of project traffic. Funded improvements
planned to improve Tierra Rejada Road east and west of Moorpark Road do not include signal installation at
this time. To mitigate impacts to these three critical intersections that have no planned or funded signal
installations, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
(1) A fee will be assessed on each new residential unit permitted under the
Amendment to pay for the installation of signals at the Tierra Rejada
Road/Moorpark Road and Santa Rosa Road/Moorpark Road and Santa Rosa
Road/East Las Posas Road intersections.
(2) Future street system planning shall be required to minimize potential circulation
problems associated with poorly integrated private street systems. The
applicants (either severally or jointly) shall design street access and circulation
systems acceptable to the County of Ventura. These street designs must be
submitted at the time of subdivision application.
Cumulative
Santa Rosa Road Widening
To mitigate cumulative impacts to Santa Rosa and Moorpark Roads, the following mitigation is
recommended:
(3) A joint applicant -County of Ventura and City. of Camarillo, Moorpark, and
Thousand Oaks traffic improvement agreement shall be developed to allocate
costs and schedule required improvements to Moorpark and Santa Rosa Roads.
This agreement shall be negotiated to allocate specific cost responsibility in
proportion to future trip generation. (Refer to Table 13-7 for the "fair -share"
allocation for each jurisdiction and the project applicants). The implementation
of this agreement shall be required prior to approval of the General Plan
Amendment.
To mitigate significant capacity problems attributable to anticipated 2010 traffic volumes segments of Santa
Rosa Road and Moorpark Road would have to be widened to a cross section of sufficient width to
accommodate two travel lanes in each direction plus a paint median, paved shoulders and bike lanes. Based
on information obtained from the Transportation Department of the County of Ventura Public Works
Agency (memo from Bill Brazele to Al Knuth dated 2/1/89), the full improvement of Santa Rosa Road
between the eastern City of Camarillo boundary and Moorpark Road to ultimate design standards would cost
$18,144,000.00. This total cost estimate includes over $3,000,000.00 for bridge wideninE;, drainage structures,
and utility relocation costs.
ILL2
a
o u
•d e �
N
V V
i
U C �
o ,`
0 cc
O O
r .O
e c W.0 .a a A w e yr A o o c
44
u �
b u Q u u 7 Q Q
O g C N
x
E c A ¢ c R �' u O eo
c o E c o
ec
a E =% Y c ° A p u a w
u u A '� A A u u is is •0
cr 2 c pp c e
GY. u to V iq a° LL' 'u to 3 y a a
z°$ a a C a o E c
8 ry8cl
R u c a� W o s� 0 M o
v
'R C u bb a �. u
.S+ e0 .y
$ 00 u 'R Eci
U tLu rSi ° U r a cSj ° cSj c
x x
ci
u
.0 x
ah
� y M
12
u
lu
10
ci
01
r=
Cq E is `�i U E
\
\
E
-
\
2
�
)
\
\ \ �
)
\ e N a
2
\ ƒ @
, _ ]
72,
» � j \
`
o
I
\
x
x
u
a /
k
U
ƒ
E
/ �
d
�
� � f � �
� ■ ƒ
\
§
] e $
§
c\
u\}
I
a
z
z
N N
u
a o A
A
N
�
'v
C o
w
c0p
W 'r
d o+
C C eD
3 •C
ai
t
o v C
t+D C R
A
V
5
g
is C
y O0
C rZ
N
C
e o
•o a
°
Q u
lu(��
•�
p�
C
W U
�
�
�
�
.r
�
U
v
C
E
45
y
cT
u
u
u
C°
Ij
•C 'e
D
E u
O
O
C U 0
C
u
�
iC
[jy�5
t.O,,
Iyi
C
W
�i
.�..
('.'
d •mac+
7
�
C
•O
C
u
o iE
(U� � N
C
aU.i �
�
y
�
�
C
�
.-.
N
QM yL,j�'
�
M
N Q�
tie
� N
•O
.�
N
a
0 8
S
3
K
E
U
iNi
a.
u
a
u
�
V
.0
cp
FL
p
t�qq
Pr
q
N
E
u
�
tC�_C
,fl
N
a
z
m
6
P
A
E
U
0
a
"
v
u
° �
•p
LL
O >
ea
a o
R
Q
o
E o
u
g
W
W
J
woo
.�
v
C
O
iV
e0
O
"
Ago--
WO ...
N
C
C
•O
O
N b
N
yy
•� u
o
e
e
u
u c
°
ED aai
u
u
°
C
a
0
u
u
N
W
'�` u
U
yL
C
N
pp
•J• .�..
c
C
L
Q
Epp
N A
a e
°
N
'O
E
° ,w
y •y '
� �,
[ C
•�
� a
�o ai
d
a
A
Q
F a
d •uo �
h A
$ $
ry
v� ,c
� � .�
k
9.
w =
W C
k
�°
o
•q
a,
c
�
en
Q
a
o
a c
p�'
V
(0
a °
p
8
MA
a
E
3
U
c
a �
m
x
tq
c' O u
t
c a a w96
c U 8 e
p u
J2
c � � uC Qa° � qo� '� � qe� Sub � a .� •= � •°
8
a
O
�S
�y
a V
a
c`�
8
N
'"
c'?
Np
W w
40%
�,
H
On O
bR
C
N
Q "0b
e7
^N'�
N
N
N
Z
g
w. 73
�
o0
a
8
8
Q
d 0
8
A
y V
$
c
o
8
Ca
°o
F
M
F a o
p d O
y
oo
..
a
Q
tR
O
''' �` •b
N
•..
N
N
Z
8
�
a a
h
•�
o
g
g
g
g
g
w
$
8
c
U
00
can
�
n
kn
�
W4
0
oo
. O
�• ii O
C O Np
E
N
Oo
bR
N
z
pO
a < 3
z
a
�
8
m
O
Ocn
O
$
C14
� �
F
Q
00
N
Z
.d
�
D,
N �
o
0
e
.w
v
?
M A
•9
2
V
es
.ci
A
D
�
o
UU
0
0
U
•�
��
o
CG
W
F cg
d
^0
y
F
w
w o
M
�•
cOcqq
�
0
•v
yQ QQg
Deep
O V
Q H
0
Assuming that the costs of improving Moorpark Road between Santa Rosa Road and Tierra Rejada Road
(plus a 1,000 foot long portion of Moorpark Road southeasterly of Santa Rosa Road) would be similar (less
the costs associated with the extraordinary amount of anticipated bridge, drainage, and utility work for this
segment) the consultants estimated that the full improvement of the northerly portion of Moorpark Road
would cost approximately $5,780,000.00 with the cost of improving a 1,000 foot length of the southeasterly
portion of Moorpark Road being more than $550,000. Therefore, the total costs of improving the arterial
network in the Amendment vicinity would be approximately $24,474,000.00. This total does not include the
costs of the three potential new traffic signals that may be required to serve ultimate study area traffic
demands ($300,000.00) or the costs of the future improvements necessary along Tierra Rejada Road east and
west of Moorpark Road, a road segment that is entirely within the City of Moorpark.
The conventional methods for funding these off -site improvements include:
(1) The use of gas tax funds received either directly from the state or through
allocations to the various public jurisdictions of concern;
(2) The establishment of transportation improvement'assessment districts;
(3) The utilization of a portion of the total sales tax revenue collected by the
concerned public jurisdictions; and
(4) The direct participation of developers whose projects are adjacent to or in the
vicinity of the arterial roadway system.
7 Based on the reasonable assumption that there are no excess general funds available for construction of the
necessary improvements to the street system through either gas or sales tax revenue, the entire cost of the
recommended improvements would have to be borne by the Amendment applicants and/or public
jurisdictions concerned. The final funding method to accumulate sufficient capital to fund these
improvements would have to be determine based on negotiations between the public and private entities
involved. In an effort to bring equity to that process, portions of the total "weighted average" daily traffic
demands along Santa Rosa Road between Yucca Drive and Moorpark Road attributable to each of the six
"primary future generators" were calculated. Table 13-7 displays the "fair -share" allocation for each
jurisdiction and the applicants. The current version of this table is a preliminary statement and will be
revised for the supplemental traffic analysis which will be available at the Ventura County Planning
Department prior to the public hearing.
The consultants evaluation of cumulative effects indicates that the highest portion of the projected increase in
daily traffic demands along Santa Rosa Road within the study area would be attributable to increases in traffic
demands generated within the City of Moorpark (about 24.5 percent), with the lowest portion (2.3 percent)
attributable increased traffic demands generated within the northern portion of the City of Thousand Oaks.
Site traffic demands (the additional traffic generated by the 12 combined Caston Trust parcels) would account
for about 16.5 percent of the projected total future daily traffic demand increased on this east -west arterial.
Similar percent of "total additional traffic demand" calculations were calculated for the northern segment of
Moorpark Road between Santa Rosa Road and Tierra Rejada Road, plus the section of Moorpark Road
immediately easterly of its intersection with Santa Rosa Road-Marvella Court, as displayed in Table 13-7.
Implementation and Feasibility
Measure 1, the installation of traffic signals would cost approximately $100,000 per intersection. Assuming all
three intersections are signalized, a total cost of about $300,000 should be allocated on a proportional basis to
each of the new residential units enabled by the Amendment. Depending ultimately on the allowed density
(not all parcels can support the desired number of residential units), the costs of the signalization on a per
parcel basis would range from about $1,100.00 (assuming 276 new houses are built) to about $2,100.00
I
-156-
(assuming 140 homes --a more realistic density). This burden is reasonable. Collection of fees should be
required prior to issuance of building permits.
Measure 2 is a planning requirement that can be implemented during the initial development review process
for future subdivisions. Applications for subdivision should not be accepted as complete until the long term
circulation system planning that will integrate remaining development in the East Santa Rosa Valley is
completed. Project applicants should resolve these problems with County Transportation planners who
should be responsible for long range transportation planning within the Santa Rosa Valley.
Implementing Measure 3 is more problematic; obstacles include potential lack of cooperation from
surrounding jurisdictions and a potentially protracted negotiation process that will undoubtedly be difficult to
implement. No institutional simple method exists for apportioning cost sharing for regional road
improvement programs and therefore such programs need to be formulated individually. Moreover, cost
allocations based on projected population growth can be subject to intense debate, conflicting analysis, and
variable interpretation.
Assuming a fair -share allocation system is ultimately agreed upon by the relevant jurisdictions, then an
additional set of problems is encountered. Based. on the traffic growth projections in Table 13-7, the
properties included within the amendment will be responsible for approximately 4.4 million dollars in off -site
improvements. This amounts to about $16,000.00 per new residential unit under a maximum buildout
estimate; fewer than 150 new residential units will be constructed meaning that the individual improvement
fees would be approximately $29,000 per new parcel. Under a worst case assumption --that surrounding
jurisdictions refuse to participate in a fair -share allocation - the costs per parcel for funding all required
improvements would range from $90,000.00 per parcel (assuming about 276 parcels are created) to more than
$165,000.00 per parcel under more realistic density assumptions.
Although it is technically feasible to require this level of funding, it is questionable whether new lots would be
sold for many years (or until other solutions are derived for Santa Rosa Road and Moorpark Road
improvements) if this fee were assessed. In order to approve the General Plan Amendment, the consultants
believe that a reasonable and equitable fee system for future improvements should be in place or the County
should otherwise commit to resolution of traffic problems prior to approving the Amendment.
The fee requirements outlined above are substantially greater than what has typically been assessed. From a
historical point of view, the County of Ventura has been collecting an area of benefit fee of $3,500.00 per lot
for the improvement of Santa Rosa Road, and an additional $650.00 per lot for the Norwegian Grade area of
contribution in recent years.
Enforcement: The County of Ventura will be responsible for the collection of fees and ultimately for
planning area -wide improvements.
Residual Effects: Not significant for measures 1 and 2; significant for measure 3.
References and Persons Consulted
Al Knuth and Stew Manz of the County of Ventura Public Works Agency - Transportation Department
Bruce Smith, and Dan Price of the County of Ventura Resource Management Agency - Planning Division
CALTRANS Traffic Manual, 1985.
-157-