HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 0215 CC SPC ITEM 04AMOOWARK, CAUFO ?MA
a y Co Mflng
of
ACTION:...._
By
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development
Deborah S. Traffenatedt, Senior Planner
DATE: February 9, 1996 (CC Meeting of 2- 15 -96)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY QUALITY OF LIFE
THRESHOLDS /STANDARDS FOR NEWGROF1'1'H MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Background
At the City Council's January 3, 1996 meeting, the Council discussed
various draft quality -of -life thresholds /standards, and directed staff to
schedule special meetings for January 31 and February 15, 1996, to allow
an opportunity for other agency participation.
Representatives from Calleguas Municipal Water District and Ventura County
Waterworks District No. 1, Flood Control District, Library Services
Agency, and Health Care Agency attended the City Council meeting on
January 31 for discussion of water, reclaimed water, sewer, drainage,
library services, and emergency services thresholds. Draft thresholds for
schools and traffic will be discussed at the February 15 meeting. Fire
protection services will be discussed at the Council's regular February
21, 1996 meeting.
Discussion
Mr. Tom Duffy, District Superintendent for the Moorpark Unified School
District, has provided enrollment projection and attendance boundary
information (attached) , which he will discuss with the Council on February
15. The second topic for the February 15 meeting is traffic, and both
John Whitman, City Traffic Engineer, and Joe Foust, Austin -Foust
Associates (the City's traffic model consultant) will be in attendance.
A letter from Austin -Foust Associates, pertaining to the draft traffic
thresholds, is attached to this report.
Recommendation
Receive and review the attached information.
Attachments:
1. Letter from School District dated February 9, 1996
2. Letter from Austin -Foust dated February 6, 1996
MOORPARK
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
February 9, 1996
Mr. Steve Kueny, City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr. Kueny:
(805) 378 -6300
CITY OF MOORPARK
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER
I appreciate you and Ms. Traffenstedt coming to the District Office last Thursday, February 1, 1996
to meet with me. At that meeting we discussed matters relating to the City and District population
growth. I shared with you an enrollment projection document, Attachment "A ", which included
preliminary calculations on new student enrollment based on the proposed new development projects
within and immediately adjacent the sphere of influence of the City. An additional document has been
provided which include projected enrollment breakdowns of existing school attendance areas which
include proposed developments and assumed home construction timelines. I can discuss with you
the assumptions utilized in preparing the second document, Attachment "B ", at the City Council
meeting on February 15, 1996 or by telephone with you prior to that date.
You requested information as to the optimum capacity level for each school in the District. Schools
serving the primary grades, K - 3, and intermediate grades, 4th and 5th, should target 650 students
housed upon a ten acre site. Middle schools should target 800 students on a twenty acre site. A high
school enrollment target should be approximately 2,000 students on a fifty acre site. By the year
2000 the District will need, with the proposed development projects, at least two new elementary
schools, a new middle school, and either additions to the Moorpark High School or the first and
second phases of a new high school to accommodate the growth.
I have attached an attendance boundary map and the yield factor /percentages used in projections for
your use. We are in the process of updating the attendance boundary map and will provide a copy
to you once we receive it. Please call me if you have any questions.
Thomas G. Duffy, E&D.
District Superintendent
cc: MUSD Board of Education
BOARD OF EDUCATION: CUNT D. HARPER, Ph.D., President; TOM BALDWIN, Vice President; GARY CABRIALES, Clerk;
DAVID B. POLLOCK, Member, GREG BARKER, Member, THOMAS G. DUFFY, Ed.D., District Superintendent
An Equal Opportunity Employer
ATTACHMENT "A"
MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
95 -96
96 -97
97 -98
98 -99
99 -00
K
631
631
631
631
631
1
604
634
648
660
661
2
571
607
651
680
692
3
529
574
622
682
713
4
570
531
589
652
715
5
570
573
545
617
683
6
505
573
588
570
647
7
498
507
588
616
597
8
486
501
520
616
646
9 -12
1623
1815
1858
1947
2041
TOTAL
6587
6946
7240
7671
8026
ASSUMPTIONS:
Dwelling Units:
8497
8740
9184
9550
Pupil Yield Factor:
0.775
0.795
0.803
Moorpark Unified School District
YIELD FACTOR/PERCENTAGES USED IN PROJECTIONS
Pupil Yield = .779
K = 9.5795%
1 = 9.1696%
2 = 8.6686%
3 = 8.0310%
4 = 8.6534%
5 = 8.6534%
6 = 7.6666%
7 = 7.5603%
8 = 7.3782%
9 -12 = 24.6394%
ATTACHMENT "13"
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
DEVELOPER
GRADE
1996 -97
1997 -98
1998 -99
1999-2000
Attendance Area':
WARMINGTON
K -3
12.358
0
0
0
Attendance Area:
4-5
6.038
0
0
0
Campus Canyon, Flory, Mesa
6-8
7.885
0
0
0
Verde, Moorpark High School
9-12
33,083
0
0
20.381
'Boundaries May Overlap
0
# of HOMES
45
0
0
0
BOLLINGER
K -2
0
9.213
9.243
6.397
Attendance Area:
3-5
0
8.258
8.409
7.149
Mountain Meadows,
6-8
0
7.781
8.122
6.602
Arroyo West, Chaparral
9-12
0
9.415
8.898
7.133
Moorpark High School
0
0
100
100
# of HOMES
0
43
44
35
MESSENGER
K -3
0
55.991
54.701
55.543
Attendance Area:
4 -5
0
25.272
24.288
26.567
Campus Canyon, Flory, Mesa
6-8
0
36.190
36.917
37.726
Verde, Moorpark High School
9-12
0
9.415
8,898
7.133
# of HOMES
0
200
200
200
JBR
Attendance Area':
Mountain Meadows/Campus Cyn
K -3
0
0
28.251
27.771
Arroyo West/Flory
4 -5
0
0
12.343
13.284
Chaparral/Mesa Verde
6-8
0
0
18.460
18.863
Moorpark High School
9-12
0
0
20.222
20.381
'Boundaries May Overlap
# of HOMES
0
0
100
100
CARLSBERG
K -3
0
0
28.251
27,771
Attendance Area:
4-5
0
0
12.343
13.284
Peach Hill, Flory, Mesa Verde,
6-8
0
0,
1846
18.863
Moorpark High School
9-12
0
0
20.222,
20.381
# of HOMES
0
0
100
100
r
MOORPARK UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
K -3 ATTENDANCE
BOUNDARIES
iam
MOUNTAIN
MEADOWS
i pokpQRk
CAMPUS; /pi
CANYON *1.
PEA CH
HILL
I vtr--..z
Y Y_
SCALE IN PILES ,.►�
A
Adopted by MUSD Board of Education: 5 -12 -87
4
Upper boundary clarified 6 -3 -87 '
FEB -15 -96 THU 17;50
MOORPARK UNIFIED FAX NO. 8055298592
P.02
MOORPARK UNIFIED SC:HUUL DIJTKIL,'1'
ENROLLMENT AS OF OCTOBER 11, 1995
(CBEDS Report)
SQL
Peach Hill
QRADF
K
188
1
212
2
196
3
iu
763
Campus Canyon
K
193
1
162
2
139
3
-W
635
Mountain Meadows
K
230
1
230
2
21fi
716
Arroyo west
3
221
4
272
5
-W
736
Flory
4
298
5
.W
625
Chaparral Middle
6
198
7
221
82
631
Mesa Verde Middle
6
307
7
277
8
838
Moorpark High
9
459
10
384
11
383
12
_2j 1,487
lodependeotStudy
9
4
10
A
11
10
12
_U M
1.524
Community High
9
19
10
31
11
31
12
J&
99
6.587
FFf3 1 S ' qF AS : 7S RRS579R�47 P4f;F R7
4rr4rA1_1_SrzX,_ l/Sl ASSO CIA AFS,
INC.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 -7827 • TELEPHONE (714) 667 -0496
FAX (714) 667 -7952
February 6, 1996
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
ATTENTION: Ms. Deborah S. Traffenstedt
Senior Planner
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARDS
Dear Ms. Traffenstedt:
The City's desire to improve upon the CMP's level of service (LOS) threshold of LOS "E" is
commendable and I applaud your goals in this regard. However, I would caution that other
communities have attempted the same thing and found that this goal is extremely difficult to attain
and maintain in this highly competitive southern California lifestyle most of us have become
accustomed to. By competitive, I mean one city compared to another in attracting new businesses
in general and, in particular, retail, since that is where the sales taxes are generated. For a city to
achieve a level of service "C" usually requires substantial investment in the transportation system
infrastructure. Frequently, the financing of this infrastructure is through a transportation fee
program. These fees necessary to produce and maintain a systemwide LOS "C" are frequently
relatively high compared to another city with either no transportation fee program or a program
based on LOS "D" or LOS "E" as indicated in the Ventura County CMP. The higher fee in the city
with an LOS "C" standard is of a distinct disadvantage compared to surrounding communities with
lesser standards. As I indicated early -on, I applaud your lofty goals and intentions, but simply advise
you, I have see this "problem" arise afterwards all too often. Perhaps a compromise in the LOS
standard could be considered which might allow some exceptions to the LOS "C" standard where
extenuating circumstances are observed. The City Council could ultimately approve those
circumstances.
Another thought is that a lower level of service, say LOS "D," might be tolerated for a brief period
of time, say for one hour a day at some identified critical locations. I am not trying to discourage you
from proceeding with an LOS "C" standard. Rather, I am simply suggesting that this goal has been
attempted elsewhere with the usual result that exceptions or modifications become a necessity in
order to allow the city to remain competitive with its neighbors.
CEE ED
S
FEB 8 -19M
Ci'T of Worpark
r01r1MUnitvQ34a7nn7r.1M 1' —.1
City of Moorpark
February 6, 1996
Page 2
In a related matter with respect to application of the traffic standards, I would suggest that a
minimum size or level of trip generation be established below which an individual project, such as
single dwelling unit, small building, etc. would be exempt from any evaluation of LOS impact. This
could become a major burden on a small project, especially if that project were adjacent to an
otherwise LOS impacted location.
Finally, I am not sure if it is practical to require circulation improvements to be implemented prior
to anticipated deterioration of LOS's below the LOS "C" standard. Frankly, this could place a burden
on any project that is well beyond its control. For example, let's presume a fee program is in place
to generate funds to finance an improvement but a sufficient balance has not been built up to
construct the improvement. Is the effected project going to have to wait or finance the entire project
itself? This and many other questions would arise from such a policy. r
These are the main points I wanted to bring to your attention. As I said, I am not trying to
discourage you at all - simply advising of the pitfalls others who have done this before you -'
encountered. I will be available for further discussion at the City Council meeting on February 15,
1996. I will invoice my time on our standard hourly schedule with a maximum amount not to exceed
$750. --
Sincer
Joe . Foist, P.E.