The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0914 CC ADJ ITEM 11E (077 51 ( e1 ITEM-LL of 199. �G, _ ACTION: ;A: A€ " Lel ' Vitt._ „ARK. CALIFG 01 nit _ Co. it Nec Lr 3 BY sr �_SA�r(� Q' 7 �,G9y AGENDA REPORT 7 ' CITY OF MOORPARK LSA TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development- Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner 05 DATE: August 11, 1994 (CC Meeting of 8-17-94) SUBJECT: CONSIDER YEAR 2015 LAND USE PROJECTIONS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (VCTC) FOR TRAFFIC MODELING PURPOSES Background The City has received a request from the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) staff for land use projections for the year 2015 (Attachment 1) . The City's General Plan currently only includes assumptions for buildout through the year 2010. Discussion All of the cities in Ventura County have been requested to provide land use projections for the year 2015 to VCTC for development of a traffic model for that year. Development of the year 2015 traffic scenario is a requirement for conformity with SCAG's traffic model. Based on our conversations with VCTC staff, other cities such as Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura have submitted year 2015 forecasts which show very little, if any, change from their year 2010 forecast, because their General Plans are based on a year 2010 buildout assumption. Staff recently worked with the City's traffic model consultant, Austin-Foust Associates, to update the Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model (MTAM) for the year 2010 . Attachment 2 is a table which summarizes the land use and trip generation assumptions for the year 2010 MTAM. Attachment 3 is the statistical summary table from the Land Use Element, reflecting approved land uses . For modeling purposes, staff assumed the number of dwelling units estimated to occur if buildout was at the density limit for all specific plan areas (i.e. , a total of 16,291 dwelling units was assumed) . This was done so as to represent a worst case scenario. The year 2010 MTAM also includes assumptions that both a golf course and commercial land uses would be located within the Specific Plan No. 8 area, as well as schools and parks. The land use assumptions included in the MTAM for the Carlsberg Specific Plan area are based on the prior approved specific plan. The MTAM does not currently The Honorable City Council August 11, 1994 Page 2 include any assumption for commercial acreage in any other specific plan area, although there are assumptions for institutional, school and park uses, consistent with the direction given in the Land Use Element. To respond to the request from VCTC staff for land use assumptions for a year 2015 traffic model, it is staff's suggestion that it may be appropriate for the City of Moorpark to also take a conservative approach (consistent with other Ventura County cities) . The recommended approach is that we essentially use our year 2010 MTAM, with only minor revisions, that reflect the Carlsberg Specific Plan amendment and the Bollinger Development projects. These two projects, if approved, would revise planned land uses from that assumed in the City's current General Plan Land Use Element. Therefore, it may be appropriate to assume that by the year 2015 the requested land use revisions have occurred. For the Carlsberg Specific Plan area, staff proposes that the year 2015 land use database for the VCTC traffic model would be based on the revised land use plan proposal, which includes an additional 6 .5 acres of subregional commercial/business park uses and 147 additional dwelling units (the difference between the existing approved commercial and residential land uses and the specific plan amendment proposal that is currently under consideration) . For the Bollinger Development project area, staff proposes that the year 2015 model would assume an additional 117 dwelling units and two golf courses (the difference between what the existing zoning/General Plan land use designation would allow and the project proposal) . Following City Council final action on the Carlsberg Specific Plan, Bollinger Development project, and any other projects which would modify traffic model land use assumptions, staff will review both the MTAM and the VCTC traffic model databases and recommend appropriate revisions . Recommendation Direct staff to provide year 2015 land use assumptions to the VCTC, consistent with the approach discussed in the staff report. Attachments: 1. Letter from VCTC dated 8-5-94 2 . MTAM 2010 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary 3. Table 3 from Land Use Element VENTURA COUNTY = am, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION •• ��asa^,cr 950 County Square Drive Suite 207 Ventura,CA 93003 (805)654-2888 18051642-1591 FAX)805)642-4860 August 5, 1994 Mr. Jimie Aguilera Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: 2015 Land use projections Dear Mr. Aguilera In order to conform with the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) is developing a year 2015 database for the Ventura County Traffic Model (VCTM) . We are requesting land use projections for the City of Moorpark for the subject year. I have enclosed the following information from the VCTM concerning the City of Moorpark for your review: • The 1990 land use database. • The 2000 land use database. • A comparison of the two databases segregated into growth areas and non-growth areas as designated by the Ventura County General Plan. • A map of the VCTM Traffic Analysis Zones that correspond to the City of Moorpark. • The VCOG 2010 projections. Thank you for your help in this matter, if you have any questions or need further information please feel free to call me at 642- 1591. Sincerely, Steve DeGeorge Transportation Planner RECEIVED AUG 0 91994 y tdoo aik artment CommunityCitDeveloofpment Dep ATTACHMENT 1- MTAM 2010 LANG USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Land Use Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT ill I. Res - Rural 675.00 DU 182 513 695 546 299 845 8775 2. Res - Low 1549.00 DU 309 867 1176 912 495 1407 14793 3. Res - Medium Low 2866.00 DU 577 1604 2181 1691 918 2609 27368 II 4. Res - Medium 6660.00 DU 1333 3061 4394 3192 2002 5194 53350 5. Apartment 1887.00 DU 358 698 1056 680 492 1172 12208 6. Condominium 2414.00 DU 194 868 1062 748 412 1160 14143 7. Mobile Home 240.00 DU 26 77 103 77 48 125 1154 i' 8. Convenience Commercial 17.33 TSF 6 4 10 71 71 142 2061 9. Neighborhood Commercial 53.83 TSF 13 8 21 151 151 302 4366 10. Community Commercial 2895.30 TSF 404 232 636 5154 5154 10308 146209 1111 12. Office (0-99 TSF) 161.48 TSF 321 39 360 61 301 362 2677 14. Elementary/Middle School 8874.00 STU 1509 975 2484 90 90 180 9673 1111 15. High School 1346.00 STU 296 108 404 40 67 107 1657 16. College 17000.00 STU 2040 680 2720 510 680 1190 22610 17. Government Office 13.01 TSF 45 8 53 25 66 91 612 18. Light Industrial 6302.51 TSF 2394 568 2962 818 3152 3970 43927 III20. Park 298.92 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 669 21. Agriculture 6191.00 ACRE 62 0 62 0 62 62 619 22. Happy Camp (S.G.) 733.00 UNIT 528 286 814 257 608 865 7330 1111 23. Business Park 446.93 TSF 617 107 724 147 514 66I 6422 24. Church 111.28 TSF 75 75 150 94 64 158 1037 I25. Golf Course 198.40 ACRE 48 12 60 12 48 60 1653 TOTAL 11337 10790 22127 15276 15694 30970 383513 I 0 III 01 ill I I ATTACHMENT Z 11 a,Ps'.>.--1...x,.:,,:,ze-.,..4.tg ,v a< ....)$'•.m>. •zea• • Z•4s.aA,...;", •s3,••••••••'`•,,f'` .xMo".• n<,...4,,,'••••••:',•r ,oru:(4.7q; :a�rmp,•x,a.,dk. `'xi"< .':n i .:%:".4.01:•• Table 3 LAND USE PLAN — STATISTICAL SUMMARY City Unincorporated Total.Pbnnin3 Land Use Designation Area Area Area Combined RL RURAL LOW 1,668 ac 334 du -- -- 1,668 ac 334 du (1 du/5 acres maximum) RH RURAL HIGH 208 ac 208 du -- -- 208 ac 208 du (1 du/acre maximum) L LOW DENSITY 168 ac 168 du -- -- 168 ac 168 du (1 du/acre maximum) MI MEDIUM LOW DENSITY 568 ac 1,136 du -- -- 568 ac 1,136 du (2 du/acre maximum) M MEDIUM DENSITY 1,174 ac 4,696 du -- -- 1,174 ac 4,696 du (4 du/acre maximum) H HIGH DENSITY 343 ac 2,401 du -- -- 343 ac 2,401 du (7 du/acre maximum) WI VERY HIGH DENSITY 161 ac 2,415 du -- -- 161 ac 2,415 du (15 du/acre maximum) SP SPECIFIC PLAN* SP 1 LEVY 282 ac 415 du -- — 282 ac 415 du SP 2 JBR 438 ac 475 du -- -- 438 ac 475 du SP 9 MUSD 25 ac 80 du -- -- 25 ac 80 du SP 10 SCHLEVE 71 ac 154 du -- -- 71 ac 154 du SP 8 MESSENGER 4,200 ac 2,400 du 4,200 ac 2,400 du C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 9 ac -- -- -- 9 ac -- (.25 FAR) C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 194 ac -- -- -- 194 ac -- (.25 FAR) I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 263 ac -- -- -- 263 ac -- (.38 FAR) I-2 MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL 285 ac -- -- -- 285 ac -- (.38 FAR) AG1 AGRICULTURE 1 45 ac 1 du -- -- 45 ac 1 du (1 du/10-40 acres) 39 ATTACHMENT 3 X:M:raaa•.S;Y???.R<?A7Y.0,...,.P.Y•.'aQY ...fft'•..5,.'#.P.tC3h't7+5:at.f..6Y.6.,.^cc7S.S,..nS>^rS.l1;n.0��s:.SS,dS..; .d`6k P :;.tF:.'.+.o-'9?Dl:.... tQ..:Ydt�b:Sk'R%3S{SO.kF.<d .�fi?SY.Ara.i%S S'.:C'.:% City Unincorporated Total Planning Land Use Designation Area Area Area Combined AG2 AGRICULTURE 2 -- -- -- -- -- — (1 du/40 acres) 081 OPEN SPACE 1 16 ac 1 du -- -- 16 ac 1 du (1 du/10-40 acres) 082 OPEN SPACE 2 1,084 ac 27 du -- -- 1,084 ac 27 du (1 du/40 acres) S SCHOOL 357 ac -- -- -- 357 ac P PARK 197 ac — -- -- 197 ac U UTILITIES 47 ac -- -- -- 47 ac PUB PUBLIC/ 16 ac -- -- -- 16 ac INSTITUTIONAL FRWY FREEWAY 297 ac -- -- -- 297 ac R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTAL DWELLING UNITS** 12,511 du 2,400 du 14,911 du (At Buildout -Year 2010) TOTAL POPULATION*** 34,280 6,576 40,856 (At Buildout -Year 2010) TOTAL CITY AREA ACRES (Approximate) 7,916 ac TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA ACRES (Approximate) 4,200 ac TOTAL PLANNING AREA COMBINED (Approximate) 12,116 ac * Acreage for open space, schools, parks, commercial, highway right-of-way, and any other appropriate land uses will be determined at time of specific plan approval. ** Residential Density calculations for specific plan areas are based on the maximum density. Section 5.2 of the Land Use Element allows the City Council to approve a density exceeding the maximum density,up to an identified density limit,if public improvements, public services, and/or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. If the density limit is approved for SP's 1, 2, 9, 10, and 8, the total dwelling units would increase from 14,911 to 16,291 and the total population would increase from 40,856 to 44,637 (these density limit estimates were used as the basis for determining the significance of impacts in the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Findings required by Section 15091 of CEQA). *** Based on 2.74 persons per dwelling unit. 40