HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0215 CC REG ITEM 11E SUPPLEMENTAL MOORPARK
FILE CQP c�
ELOISE BROWN STEVEN KUENY
Mayor City Manager
BERNARDO M. PEREZ rjr" ; CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tem �rr49���i�1 City Attorney
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. AOPATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember Director of
PAUL LAWRASON `� Community Development
Councilmember tee Jo R. DENNIS DELZEIT
SCOTT MONTGOMERY City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
RICHARD T. HARE Chief of Police
City Treasurer
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: February 14, 1989 (CC meeting of 2/15/89)
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - FAIR SHARE COSTS
AGENDA ITEM 11.E - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
On Page 4 of the memorandum dated February 10, 1989 Staff referred to
the fact that computations for each of the eighteen (18) land use
amendment request had not yet been completed and would be forwarded to
the Council the evening it' s on February 15th.
This memorandum will supply the Council with Staff's best efforts
towards finding a method to create a "Fair Share" costs for each of
those property owners seeking General Plan land use amendments.
Staff' s primary interest was driven by how a proposed land use change
would cause impacts to the community. Traffic impacts for each
proposed land use amendment were computed on an Average Daily Trips
(ADT) basis using the City of San Diego's daily trip generation rates
plus the Institute Traffic Engineers (I.T.E. ) Trip Gerneration rates.
Table "A" below lists the amendment numbers, ADT total and estimated
costs. The formula used was to take the total ADT's of all requests
and divide them into the total costs of the update so as to determine a
unit cost per ADT, then multiply each to arrive at a cost factor. (SEE
TABLE "A")
In an interest to carry out another "Fair Share" process staff listed
all the total costs estimates based upon an acreage, ADT and
Population/Employment methods. This was an effort to level out the
cost. However, it does not reflect the effects caused by any increase
in impacts to the community. Table "B" below 1s the summary of this
effort. There is a math factor that was used in order to conclude with
a figure close to the $224,000 project costs. (SEE TABLE "B")
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark. California 93021 (805) 529-6864 1
—
February 14, 1989
page 2
Regardless of which process is chosen there remains a concern that
should any of the proposals change at this time, it will effect all the
other proposals. If one of the property owners elects to down—scale
their project, the costs will need to be adjusted for all others. The
same holds true should one or more drop out of the process.
Recommended Action
That the City Council determine that Table "A" is to be used as the
basis from which specific fees are to be paid to the City in
conjunction with the General Plan Update program.
J
February 14, 1989
page 3
TABLE "A"
Average Daily Trips/General Plan Proposal
Amend-
ment # Applicant Average Daily Trips Cost
1 Scaroni 525 $ 1,354.50
2 Union Oil Co. 11,880 30,650.40
3 Newton (Anderson) 2,123 5,477.34
4 Newton (Geisler) 2,376 6,130.08
5 Newton (Kavlico) 7,341 18,939.78
6 Levy 16,780 43,292.40
7 Moorpark Ranch 7,196 18,565.68
8 Lieb 1,980 5,108.40
9 0akridge 1,920 4,953.60
10 Walnut Cyn. 3,632 9,370.56
11 Westoaks 3,930 10,139.40
12 Newton (Estes) 2,417 6,235.86
13 Guny 1,029 2,654.82
14 Newton (JBR) 7,088 18,287.04
15 LDS Church 4,160 10,732.80
16 Moorpark Sch.District 2,374 6,124.92
17 C.T. Financial 8,750 22,575.00
18 Schleve 1,345 3,470. 10
,— February 14, 1989
page 4
TABLE "B"
An Average of Acreage/ADT/Population & Employment
Amend—
ment # Applicant Acreage Proposed GP Cost
1 Scaroni 1.75 Comm. Office $ 1,035.31
2 Union Oil Co. 297 Medium Res. 21,816.54
3 Newton (Anderson) 3.86 Gen. Comm. 3,065.86
4 Newton (Geisler) 4.32 Gen. Comm. 3,414.25
5 Newton (Kavlico) 29.93 Light Indust. 5,386.25
6 Levy 289.4 Light Indust.
Medium Res.
Rural High
Rural Low 42,678.88
7 Moorpark Ranch 35.4 High Res.
Very High Res.
Gen. Comm. 12,539.85
8 Lieb 49.5 Medium Res. 5,615.72
9 Oakridge 120 Low Res. 7,676.35
10 Walnut Cyn. 227 Low Res. 14,366.84
11 Westoaks 393 Rural High 20,090.73
12 Newton (Estes) 34.53 High Res. 8,631.12
13 Guny 64.3 Low Res. 4,193.76
14 Newton (JBR) 443 Low Res. _ 27,872.87
15 LDS Church 260 Low Res. 16,430.26
16 Moorpark Sch.Dist. 21.26 High Res.
Medium. Res..'.
Medium Low Res.
Gen., Comm. 4,390.78
" 17 C.T.Financial ' 70'- • LightIndusf3'.- 19,907.99 •
18 Schleve 71 Rural High
- High Res? . '
Open Space'"', ' 4,885.64