HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0216 CC REG ITEM 08N )/4-1. , / 6
it /1V g
ITEM •
ic
AGENDA REPORT
REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
LY /74-44, _.1
TO: The Honorable City Council
7
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developmen(/
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner
DATE: February 3, 1994 (CC Meeting of 2-16-94)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MOORPARK AND HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PARTNERS L.P. FOR TRAFFIC
MODEL RECALIBRATION AND UPDATE WORK
Background
Periodic recalibration of a traffic model is necessary, in order to
maintain integrity of the model as a reliable planning tool. The
current base year version of the City's traffic model was
originally calibrated to 1989 conditions, and since that time, the
State Route 118/State Route 23 freeway connector was completed and
various land use changes have occurred. The recalibration of the
City's traffic model is necessary to maintain the model's
validation of traffic forecasts for future conditions .
Update of the City's traffic model is also required to develop a
short-range, Year 2000, model that is consistent with the Ventura
County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requirements . A Year 2000
model will provide the City with the capability to perform detailed
analyses for a variety of future project proposals, without having
to rely solely on the Ventura County Transportation Commission's
CMP model.
Discussion
In order for preparation of the environmental impact report (EIR)
for the Specific Plan No. 8 project to move forward, the City's
traffic model must be updated to allow accurate forecast of traffic
impacts in future years . Staff has proposed, and Hidden Creek
Ranch Partners (HCRP) has agreed, that a reimbursement agreement is
the best approach to accomplish the traffic model update and allow
the Specific Plan No. 8 EIR to proceed. Staff has determined that
the costs for the traffic model update should be shared by the
other specific plan projects that will also need a Year 2000 model
run for CMP consistency purposes and that are expected to file or
DST/C:\wp51\sp-8\cc1-19 .rpt
The Honorable City Council -
February 3, 1994
Page 2
have filed an application for a specific plan prior to the next
model update. Staff has not included Specific Plan No. 9, the
Moorpark Unified School District property, in the reimbursement
calculations, because we have seen no progress towards the filing
of an application for that specific plan area.
Based on the attached draft reimbursement agreement, HCRP would
initially pay all of the costs to recalibrate and update the City's
traffic model, and the City would be obligated to request that a
fee be paid at the time that a request was received for adoption of
a specific plan for the Specific Plan Nos. 1, 2 and 10 projects, or
within 30 days after the date of the reimbursement agreement,
whichever occurs later.
The City Attorney has prepared the attached draft reimbursement
agreement between the City and HCRP. A draft proposal letter from
Austin-Foust Associates (AFA) that explains the scope of work for
traffic model update and recalibration is included as an exhibit to
that agreement. Staff proposes to amend the City's existing
contract Agreement with AFA for maintenance and updating of the
Moorpark Traffic Model to cover the additional work to be
completed, at a cost not to exceed $20,000.
The $28,484 . 00 cost included in the attached reimbursement
agreement was determined based on the AFA proposal and costs
related to traffic counts, preparation of the Agreement, and City
administrative charges.
Recommendation
1. Approve a Reimbursement Agreement between the City and Hidden
Creek Ranch Partners L.P. for Traffic Model Recalibration and
Update Work and authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
2 . Authorize the City Manager to amend the Austin-Foust
Associates (AFA) Agreement for maintenance and updating of the
Moorpark Traffic Model to allow AFA to complete the work
described in their proposal letter dated September 15, 1993,
for a cost not to exceed $20,000.
Attachment: Draft Reimbursement Agreement (Including letter
from AFA dated 9-15-93)
JRA/DST
DST/C:\wp51\sp-8\cc1-19 .rpt
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR CITY TRAFFIC MODEL RECALIBRATION
RELATIVE TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8
THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT ( "the Agreement") is
made this day of , 1994, by and between
the City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation, ( "City" ) and
Hidden Creek Ranch Partners L.P. , a California limited
partnership, ( "Developer" ) .
RECITALS
A. Developer is the owner of certain real property in the
City of Moorpark's Area of Interest in the County of Ventura,
State of California, which is shown in City's General Plan as
Specific Plan Area No. 8 .
B. Developer has requested the preparation and adoption of
a specific plan for Specific Plan Area No. 8 .
C. In connection with the preparation of the specific plan
for Specific Plan No. 8, City's traffic model needs to be
recalibrated and the recalibrated traffic model needs to be
made consistent with Ventura County's Year 2000 Congestion
Management Program (collectively the "Model Update" ) .
D. Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. ( "AFA" ) has agreed to
prepare the Model Update in accordance with a proposal
contained in a letter from AFA to City dated September 15,
1993.
E. The total cost for the preparation of the Model Update,
inclusive of the proposal by AFA, traffic counts, preparation
of this Agreement and City administrative charges, is Twenty-
Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Four Dollars
($28,484.00) , rounded to the nearest dollar.
F. The Model Update can also be used in connection with the
preparation of specific plans for Specific Plan Area Nos . 1,
2 and 10 as shown in the City's General Plan.
LAX:77960.2 1
G. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65456, persons who
request adoption of a specific plan may be required to pay for
the cost of its preparation and persons who benefit from its
preparation may be charged a prorated share of the cost based
upon the relative benefit that they derive from the specific
plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
and of the premises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Definitions. As used herein, the following terms
shall have the following meanings:
(a) "Project Costs" means, and is limited to, the
$28,484 . 00 identified in Recital E.
(b) "Reimbursement Amount" means the pro rata share
of Project Costs, rounded to the nearest dollar, chargeable to
the persons who request adoption of a specific plan for
Specific Plan Area Nos. 1, 2 and 10, respectively, calculated
as follows:
Project Costs + Y x Z = Reimbursement Amount
Y equals the sum of the maximum no. of dwelling units
( "du's" ) permitted within Specific Plan Area Nos.
1, 2, 8 and 10, respectively, as shown in the Land
Use Element of City's General Plan, that is, 3,444
du's.
Z equals the maximum no. of dwelling units permitted
within the subject Specific Plan Area as shown in
the Land Use Element of City's General Plan, that
is, 415 du's within Specific Plan Area No. 1, 475
du's within Specific Plan Area No. 2 and 154 du's
within Specific Plan Area No. 10.
2 . Payment by Developer. Developer shall initially pay
to City the full amount of Project Costs; provided, however,
Developer shall be entitled to reimbursement for Project Costs
as set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement.
3 . Reimbursement to Developer.
(a) The Reimbursement Amount chargeable to the
persons who request adoption of a specific plan for Specific
Plan Area Nos. 1, 2 and 10, respectively, is as follows:
Specific Plan Area No. 1 $3,433 .00
Specific Plan Area No. 2 $3,929 .00
Specific Plan Area No. 10 $1,274 . 00
LAX:77960.2 2
The charge shall be imposed by City at the time that it
receives the request for adoption of the specific plan or
within thirty (30) days after the date first above written,
whichever occurs later, provided that at the time of request
the Director of Community Development, in his sole discretion,
determines that the City's traffic model is not in need of
recalibration. The request for adoption of the specific plan
shall be deemed to have occurred as of the date a draft of the
specific plan is first submitted to the City or the date that
the City enters into a contract for preparation of the
specific plan, whichever occurs first. If at the time that
the City receives a request for adoption of Specific Plan 1,
2, or 10, the Director of Community Development determines
that the Reimbursement Amount is no longer applicable due to
the need for additional recalibration and update work, similar
to the proposed Model Update, then this Agreement shall be
terminated with no further reimbursement.
(b) Within thirty (30) days after receipt by City
of any Reimbursement Amount pursuant to subparagraph (a)
hereof, City shall deliver the total amount thereof to
Developer in the manner provided herein for the delivery of
notices.
(c) It is understood and acknowledged by Developer
that City does not represent or guarantee that the provisions
of subparagraph (a) hereof are enforceable against the persons
who request adoption of specific plans for Specific Plan Area
Nos. 1, 2 and 10, or any of them, and that City shall not be
obligated to bring any legal action or proceeding or to
withhold or deny any legislative, quasi-judicial or
administrative approval in order to collect any Reimbursement
Amount. It is further understood and acknowledged by
Developer that City shall not, for any reason whatsoever, be
liable to Developer for any Reimbursement Amount.
4. Indemnification. Developer shall indemnify, defend
with legal counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City
and its officers, employees, servants and agents against any
liability, claim, demand, damage or cost arising out of, or in
any way connected with, this Agreement.
5. Miscellaneous .
(a) Notices . Any notice to be given by either
party to the other shall be by personal delivery or by deposit
in the United States mail, certified or registered, return
receipt requested, with postage prepaid, and addressed to the
party for whom intended as follows:
LAX:77960.2 3
To City at: -
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA. 93021
Attn: Director of Community
Development
To Developer at:
Hidden Creek Ranch Partners L.P.
17512 Von Karman Avenue
Irvine, California 92714
Attn: Gary Austin
Either party may from time-to-time, by written notice to the
other, designate a different address which shall be
substituted for the one above specified. Mailed notice shall
be deemed delivered on the date of deposit.
(b) Venue. This agreement is made, entered into,
and executed in Ventura County, California, and any legal
proceeding relative to the Agreement shall be filed in the
applicable court in Ventura County, California.
(c) Entire Agreement. This document contains the
entire agreement between the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof. This Agreement cannot be modified
except by an agreement in writing signed by the party against
whom the enforcement of any waiver, change, modification or
discharge is sought.
(d) Interpretation. Should interpretation of this
Agreement, or any portion thereof, be necessary, it shall be
deemed that the Agreement was prepared by the parties jointly
and equally, and it shall not be interpreted against any party
on the ground that the party prepared the Agreement or caused
it to be prepared.
(e) Successors and Assigns . This Agreement shall
in all respects be binding on, and inure to the benefit of,
the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns
of each of the parties .
(f) Severability. The parties agree that if any
section, paragraph, sentence or clause of this Agreement is
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenfor-
ceable or void by reason of public policy or otherwise, the
remaining provisions of this Agreement shall nonetheless
remain enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
L7 X:77960.2 4
(g) Attorneys ' Fees. Inthe event a legal
proceeding is brought by either party for the enforcement of,
or the declaration of rights pursuant to, this Agreement, the
prevailing party in such proceeding shall be entitled to
recover its reasonable costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, from the losing party, and any
judgment or decree rendered in such proceeding shall include
an award thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Agreement on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MOORPARK
By:
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR.
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PARTNERS L.P. ,
California limited partnership
By: East Ventura Hills Partners L.P. ,
a California limited
partnership, General Partner
By: Messenger Investment Company,
a California corporation
General Partner
By:
William S. Messenger, Jr.
President
(TO BE NOTARIZED)
LAX:77960.2 5
iAUsT/N-FoU$T ASSOCIATES, INC. '
TRAFFIC ENG/NEER/NG AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496
FAX (714) 667-7952
September 15, 1993
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
AuLNTION: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN #8 TRAFFIC MODELING OPTIONS •
Dear Debbie:
This letter is intended to summarize the various traffic modeling options that were discussed earlier
this week for analyzing the proposed Specific Plan #8 development plan. While it is expected that
the City's agreement with Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) for producing standard traffic model
forecasts will be in place before the project's EIR process is initiated, the following two key aspects
of the City's traffic modeling system should be addressed before producing model data for a project
of this scale:
1) Model Recalibration - The base year version of the model should be updated from
1989 to December 1993/January 1994 land use and circulation system conditions.
2) Short-Range (Year 2000) Model Development - A short-range version of the City's
model based on the most current countywide Congestion Management Program
(CMP) modeling methodology should be prepared.
These two topics are discussed in greater detail as follows:
Model Recalibration
Periodic recalibration of the City's model is recommended in order to maintain the model's integrity
as a reliable planning tool. It is generally recommended that a traffic model be recalibrated every
3-5 years, particularly if significant land use or circulation changes to the existing setting have taken
place. The current base year version of the City's model was calibrated to 1989 conditions, therefore
an update to 1993/1994 conditions would be consistent with the recommended recalibration duration.
More importantly, a significant regional circulation facility, the SR-23/SR-118 freeway connector is
scheduled to open in October 1993. The recalibration of the model to a base year setting which
includes this facility is an important step in maintaining the model's validation of traffic forecasts for
future conditions.
RECEIVED
SEP 1 61993
City of Moorpark
Community Development Departmi
City of Moorpark
September 15, 1993
Page 2
Short-Range (Year 2000) Model Development
A requirement of Ventura County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) is that a proposed
project's traffic impacts under year 2000 conditions be identified through the use of the countywide
CMP model or a local agency's traffic model that is consistent with the CMP model The City of
Moorpark has not to this time developed a year 2000 version of the city traffic model. With the
Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) having just completed their preparation of a
year 2000 CMP model, it is an opportune time for the City to now develop a CMP compatible 2000
model. A short-range model of this type would provide the City with the capability to perform
detailed analyses for a variety of future applications without having to rely solely on the countywide
modeling database to satisfy the CMP requirements.
Proposed Approach
Two basic strategies for carrying out these tasks have been identified based on discussions with City
Staff and the project's EIR consultant. The first involves an update and limited recalibration of the
City's current base year version of the model through the incorporation of updated 1993/1994 land
use and traffic count data. A short-range (year 2000) version of the model would then be derived
using a simplified interpolation approach between the updated base year model and the 2010 version
of the model that was used for the City's General Plan update. For this approach, the estimated cost
for updating the base year version of the model is$5,000, and the cost for preparing the interpolated
short-range version of the model is $2,000. While this is a relatively cost efficient means of
accomplishing the two work tasks, it probably would not be considered adequate for CMP purposes,
particularly since the countywide CMP modeling capability is now available.
The second approach involves a thorough recalibration of the base year version of the traffic model
and a formal derivation of a short-range model. This approach would include steps to extract or
derive these updated versions of the city model from the countywide CMP model and also to modify
certain city model parameters to conform to the CMP model's forecasting methodology. The
software package used to process the City's traffic model has also undergone a number of updates
and enhancements since the General Plan traffic model was originally prepared. These enhancements
and any appropriate refined modeling techniques would be applied as part of this formal city model
update approach. The estimated cost for the base year model update and recalibration under this
approach is$15,000 and the estimated cost for deriving a short-range city model from the 2000 CMP
model is $5,000. The key advantage of this approach over the simplified update approach discussed
earlier is that it establishes a city model database that is consistent with the latest countywide CMP
modeling methodology, thereby satisfying the CMP requirements for analyzing the proposed project,
but also providing a means for performing other studies within the City in a manner that conforms
to the CMP requirements.
The time for completion of the first and second model update approach is three and six weeks,
respectively, following receipt of City furnished model update materials, specifically an updated
citywide traffic count database and traffic model land use data files for the base year (1993/1994) and
year 2000. It should be noted that based on the preliminary estimate of the project's EIR
preparation schedule, the traffic count and land use data would need to be provided no later than
City of Moorpark `
September 15, 1993
Page 3
mid-December 1993. Since the traffic counts would presumably be collected during the months of
November and December,shortly after the opening of the SR-23/SR-118 freeway connector, the City
may want to consider recounting certain locations after the beginning of the year in order to ensure
the reliability of counts taken so soon after the opening of the freeway connector.
In addition to the model update steps discussed here, a yet to be determined number of standard
impact analysis model runs will be required for the proposed project per the City's modeling -
guidelines for the preparation of traffic analyses. The typical time for completion of model runs for
a project of this type is approximately two weeks. The preparation for the model runs could,
however, take place concurrently with the city model update, thereby somewhat reducing the amount -
of project model run processing time required following completion of the model update.
One final item of discussion is with respect to the project's traffic impacts beyond the City of
Moorpark, specifically the City of Simi Valley. Because of the location of the project, an amount of
project traffic is likely to impact roadways within Simi Valley. Unfortunately, Moorpark's traffic
model is designed to produce traffic forecasts for the Moorpark city limits and city sphere. Similarly,
the City of Simi Valley maintains its own traffic model, but it only produces traffic forecasts for the
Simi Valley city limit and city sphere. The countywide CMP model would be the logical resource for
identifying the project's impacts beyond Moorpark's city limits and sphere. Alternatively, the City of
Simi Valley has expressed interest in the development of a joint Moorpark/Simi Valley traffic model
which would be ideal in the analysis of a project of this type. We would suggest that the City of Simi
Valley be contacted regarding their anticipated timing of such an undertaking with respect to this
project's EIR schedule.
I hope that this information is helpful in determining a strategy for providing traffic model data for
this important planning project. Please feel free to call with any questions or if further information
is needed.
Sincerely,
IG —
Kendall E. Elmer
Project Manager
cc: Dick Puhl (ATE)