Moorpark Looks at Improving Traffic Flow

MOORPARK — Seeking to improve traffic flow and divert trucks from busy city thoroughfares, the City Council has agreed to spend up to $75,000 for a consultant to figure out ways to pay for several major highway projects.

City staff will seek proposals from several traffic consulting firms in the next few months. The firm selected will be asked to estimate the cost of building a bypass for California 118 and converting Spring Road to part of California 23.

More importantly, the consultant will be required to devise a method to pay for the roadway projects, which would include collecting developer fees to help mitigate the traffic problems.

“It’s about time,” Councilman Bernardo Perez said when the plan was approved Wednesday night by a 4-1 vote.

The plan for a California 118 bypass, which would divert traffic from the middle of the city to along its outer boundaries, has been discussed since the council amended the city’s General Plan in 1992.

The idea of expanding Spring Road from a two- to four-lane highway that connects with California 23 was introduced this summer, said Nelson Miller, director of community development.

A state Department of Transportation traffic study in 1995, the most recent available, showed that nearly 1,500 trucks passed through the California 23 and High Street intersection on a single day. Caltrans officials said they did not have similar figures for the number of trucks traveling California 118 through Moorpark, but said that figure should be much higher.

The two road projects would divert traffic from the heart of the city and allow it to flow more on the outskirts.

The city has collected traffic mitigation fees for years. During the past decade, developers have been given several choices: pay $3,000 per lot or 50 cents per square foot for commercial and industrial properties, or sign a covenant agreeing that they will pay whatever development fee the city determines.

Because the city has not established a formula, developers who signed the covenants have not had to pay any fees, City Manager Steve Kueny said.

The consultant’s study should develop a standard for developers to pay to mitigate traffic, city officials said.

In addition, the consultant would also be required to analyze some of the environmental impacts of the two projects and prepare amendments to the General Plan to include the Spring Road project.

Councilwoman Debbie Teasley, who eventually voted to approve the study, said earlier that she opposed paying for the study. She said a greater priority was to figure out how to find the $600,000 a year needed to maintain Moorpark’s 14 parks, now that voters rejected a plan to continue taxing themselves for park maintenance.

“My office is on the 118 and I see trucks pass every day,” said Teasley, a Moorpark Realtor. “So I’m all for getting the trucks out from the middle of the city, but . . . we have some very serious financial issues to look at.”

During the meeting, she and Councilman Chris Evans, who had originally expressed reservations about paying so much for the traffic study, voted in favor of the measure. They agreed with Kueny, who said a plan to develop a formula for setting developer fees was overdue.

Councilman John Wozniak agreed that the study was needed, but balked at the high price tag.

“I agree with Bernardo that it’s about time that we did this, but I don’t know that this is the right time, considering Measure P didn’t pass,” he said after the meeting. “There may be a lot of work to do and the study may be worth every penny, but I thought the timing was bad.”

Moorpark officials want the consultant’s report completed by June 30, the end of the fiscal year.