HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2022 0615 CCSA REG ITEM 08A - SUPPLEMENTALMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable City Council
Doug Spondello, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director
06/15/2022 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact
Report Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, including
a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings of
Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Hitch Ranch
Specific Plan and Approval of Specific Plan No. 2019-01, General Plan
Amendment 2020-01, Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 5708 (2019-01)
and Consider an Ordinance for Approval of Zone Change 2019-01 and
Development Agreement No. 2019-01 for the Proposed Tract, Master
Planning and Development of 755 Residential Units, Approximately 29
Acres of Open Space, a 7-Acre Public Park and 7-Acre Passive Park,
as well as Roadways, Stormwater and Detention Facilities, and
Associated Improvements on 277 Acres of Property Generally Located
North of Poindexter Avenue, West of Casey Road, and Extending
Approximately 1,700 Feet West of Gabbert Road on the Application of
Harriet Rapista on Behalf of Comstock Homes.
SUPPLEMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
Subsequent to the preparation of the staff report, the following correspondence (19
in favor, 8 in opposition) was received.
Attachments
Item: 8.A.
SUPPLEMENTAL
1
2
From:fenfen ren
Sent:Tuesday,June 14, 2022 1:19 PM
To: Douglas Spondello<DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject:Against Hitch Ranch development project
Dear Spondello:
I live in Moorpark Highlands.) and my family love moorpark and this area,moorpark is a small
city. If this project is successful
.everywhere will be more traffic and other problems.we will move to somewhere.hope they will stop
this project.
Thanks. Sunny
15/06/2022
3
From: fenfen ren
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 1:19 PM
To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Against Hitch Ranch development project
Dear Spondello:
I live in Moorpark Highlands.I and my family love moorpark and this area.moorpark is a small
city . If this project is successful
.everywhere will be more traffic and other problems.we will move to somewhere.hope they will stop
this project.
Thanks. Sunny
15/06/2022
3
From: douglas menges
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:48 AM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
douglas menges
westlake Village, California 91361
4
From: DeAndre Valencia <dvalencia@bialav.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 10:27 AM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
DeAndre Valencia
dvalencia@bialav.org
20 Executive Park
Irvine, California 92614
5
Bill Gomez Ins. Agcy., Inc. LIC# 6003116 e-mail: bill@billgomez.com
State Farm Insurance
Auto-Life-Health-Home and Business
530 New Los Angeles Avenue, Suite 205
Moorpark, CA 93021
Office (805) 529-1055; Fax (805) 529-2615
Re: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Mayor Janice Parvin
Mayor Pro Tem Antonio Castro
Councilmember David Pollock
Councilmember Chris Enegren
Councilmember Daniel Groff
Dear Mayor Parvin and Members of City Council,
I am a local business owner and have experienced firsthand how the lack of housing in the
region has continued to be a problem for attracting new business, growing an existing business,
and sustaining our local businesses. In order to attract and retain the employees we need for
our businesses, adequate housing options must be available. Adding a variety of housing in
Moorpark will increase resident vitality to the local economy and strengthen the community.
Hitch Ranch will encourage orderly growth and development that will support our local
community and maintain our quality of life. For these reasons, I would like to express my
support for the Hitch Ranch project.
Hitch Ranch will be a model of a thoughtful and sustainable development. I encourage you to
approve the Hitch Ranch project. It will provide housing for today’s needs and it is important to
Moorpark’s future.
All the best,
Bill Gomez Ins. Agcy., Inc.
License # 6003116
Bus 805-529-1055
Cell 805-746-0504
www.billgomez.com
6
7
From: Matt Bridge
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 8:55 AM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
25 years ago I had the pleasure of buying my first home, a town house in the Traditions,
which I believe was the last new development in Moorpark, which was a wonderful addition
to Moorpark and the Conejo Valley. I believe the various single home and multi family
homes build created a wonderful new neighborhood allowing young people and young
families to have a beautiful and safe place to start their lives and families.
Now more than ever, we need more well planned and designed developments such as the
Hitch Ranch project.
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
Sincerely,
Matt Bridges
Matt Bridge
Thousand Oaks, California 91360
8
From: Sara Soudani
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 8:38 AM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
Sara Soudani
Camarillo, California 93010
9
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Cordova
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 8:31 AM
To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Hitch Ranch Development
Very concerned with this project. Streets can’t handle more traffic and trucks. If evacuation is needed because of
fire it will be gridlock. Massive amounts of Water will be wasted with the dust control needed for construction and
additional strain on infrastructure.
We have a water shortage and Edison has a problem with maintaining power. How can adding 1088 more housing
units be even considered.
Linda Cordova
Buttercreek tract
Sent from my iPhone
10
From: Kathee Boyer
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 7:16 PM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
As a 32 year resident of the city, our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially
affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed homes for 755
families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
Kathee Boyer
Moorpark , California 93021
11
From: Kim Slater
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 6:22 PM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
Kim Slater
SIMI VALLEY, California 93063-7637
12
1
-----Original Message-----
From: Min
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:44 AM
To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Against Hitch Ranch development project
Dear Mr. Spondello,
My family lives on southfork road which is back on the Los Angeles avenue. There are so many cars
and trucks on the LA avenue every day. The noises and air pollutions make me thinking about moving,
but I really like the small town feeling at moorpark . If the Hitch Ranch housing project got approved, I
can’t imagine how bad the traffic will be , there will be 2000 more cars per day on the road. Please
thinking carefully and consider the city residents. Thanks!
Min
Sent from my iPhone
13
From:Susan Praver
To:Douglas Spondello
Cc:Kat Valencia
Subject:Letter of Support Hitch Ranch - To Mayor Parvin and Council Members
Date:Monday, June 13, 2022 6:46:35 PM
June 12, 2022
Re: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mayor Janice Parvin,
As a local real estate agent living in Moorpark, every day I deal with the extreme shortage of homes
throughout the region. This shortage has driven prices up so much that many people are priced out
of the areas where they had planned to move. It is a serious situation and the state of California is
urgently trying to create ways to address this situation with programs such as SB-9 where
homeowners can subdivide their properties and add more than one Accessory Dwelling Unit. While
programs such as this are critical, they do not have the long-range careful planning and thought that
is necessary to maintain the beauty and integrity of our neighborhoods.
Hitch Ranch, on the other hand, is a long range, very well thought out, and carefully designed
development with beautiful landscaping, hiking trails, public recreation areas and amazing amenities
for the homes that will be built there. We are so fortunate to have such a new and necessary
community in Moorpark for families to live and grow in a safe community, with easy access to
nearby amenities.
As you know, Moorpark also has a great school system, and maintaining a quality public education
system is important to the economic health and future of the community. New homes will
contribute to maintaining school enrollments and resulting property tax revenues will benefit the
school district. New housing is also needed to attract and retain teachers in our schools. Please give
them a reason to choose to live and teach in Moorpark.
Adding a full variety of housing in this region will bring vitality and strengthen our local businesses,
economy and community. Eastern Ventura County has seen very slow growth, and a well-thought-
out development like Hitch Ranch will encourage orderly growth and development that will support
our local community. For this reason, I would like to express my deep support for the Hitch Ranch
project.
Hitch Ranch is an outstanding model for a very thoughtful and sustainable development. As a result,
I encourage you to approve Hitch Ranch. It provides housing for today’s needs and is critically
important to our state and to Moorpark’s future.
Sincerely,
Susan Praver
cc: Mayor Pro Tem Antonio Castro, Councilmember David Pollock, Councilmember Daniel
Groff, Councilmember Chris Enegren
14
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Pond
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 2:36 PM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Moorpark City Council Meeting, 15 June, 2022. Item 8A -
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
Before you tonight is a resolution for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact report for the Hitch Road
Ranch Development (Item 8A).
As the Council is well aware, the citizens of Moorpark have been required to reduce water usage due to the extreme
drought conditions that the western United States is facing. Furthermore the Metropolitan Water District has stated
that if water reduction goals are not met, more severe restrictions will be imposed starting September 1, 2022.
I understand that other state mandated requirements such as affordable housing are mitigated to some degree by this
development, as well as positive property tax and business revenue that would be of benefit to the city. However we
cannot afford to increase development at the expense of the existing citizens of Moorpark. We cannot say on one
hand that there is adequate water for a development of this size, and on the other tell our fellow residents to severely
restrict their consumption.
I ask the the City Council either defer the approval of the EIR until adequate stable water resources are developed
within the state to support this development or outright deny this certification as inadequate.
Scott Pond
Broadview Dr., Moorpark
15
From:Theresa Brady
Sent: Monday,June 13, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Moorpark<moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>; Douglas Spondello<DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Cc: r.mikos@sbcglobal.net; Paul Edelman <edelman@smmc.ca.gov>;terrie brady
<terriebrady@gmail.com>;theresa brady<sfvscsepbasin@gmail.com>;
Angela.Castanon@wildlife.ca.gov
Subject: hitch ranch project
Honorable City council members and Mayor: June 13, 2022
Fire safety. The aspect of evacuation from wildfire is an enormous hazard that will be made worse
by this project.This alone should require that the city council deny this project since it is your sworn
duty to uphold the safety, health and well being of the community members you serve.The roads
that will be used by the new residents are already inadequate for emergency evacuation of the
current residents and the animals that rely on them.
Water availability. There was a letter from the Fox Groundwater district in the FEIR that indicates
that the water availability is unclear. This is according the Fox Groundwater district,who would
provide the water. Throughout the document there is reference to the Ventura county
waterworks district being the responsible party to determine whether there is adequate water, but
there appears to be no comment from them. This needs to be determined before moving forward.
This is another aspect that would be grounds to deny the project in the current form.
The project is requesting alteration of the general plan.The general plan is a document that has
the long view in mind. There is no requirement that amendments to general plans be granted.
Aesthetics will be harmed if this project is allowed as is. The rolling hills of Moorpark are our
characteristic landscape. The fill will permanently alter/destroy the scenic quality of this property
which is a significant portion of the characteristic Moorpark hills.
Biological resources. With less and less open space, every fragment is important to migrating
wildlife.This used to be all farmland. The EIR surveys indicated nesting protected species
including: Coastal California gnatcatcher, Red tailed hawk, Lawrence's goldfinch, and Loggerhead
shrike were all observed nesting on site. The surveys were conducted by the biologist for the EIR.
In addition they observed Cooper's hawk exhibiting behavior that indicated they were likely to be
nesting. Furthermore the rare Costa's hummingbird was observed on site during their surveys.
There were 10 black walnut noted, all in good health. The locations of all these nests and trees
should be avoided. The project should be redesigned to avoid impacting these precious natural
resources.
Another consideration: in the section of Gabbert road before Elwin, there are several tall
eucalyptus. It was indicated by CDFW, and the project proponent, when several eucalyptus are
found together,they can be overwintering habitat for monarchs, another endangered species.
Eucalyptus are also important nesting and foraging habitat for several species of hummingbirds.
There are two rare hummingbirds known to be in Moorpark: Costas and Calliope. Costa's uses
sagebrush and was seen on site in one of the studies. Also a threatened species, the Loggerhead
Shrike is known to visit Moorpark. There was nesting pair noted in two of the surveys both in 2018
and 2019. I would like to know if the mitigation involves avoiding disturbance of all necessary
habitat. This includes not just the nest site, and as they say in some cases 500 feet around it, but
also the areas needed for foraging,fledging and other necessary life activities. The Lawrence's
goldfinch is also a rare species that was observed nesting using this site. They are known to live on
ranch land. Their necessary habitat should be avoided and protected.There should also be study
conducted to observe whether there is potential of the property as foraging for migrating birds
such as the Canada Goose.
16
From: Theresa Brady
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>; Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Cc: r.mikos@sbcglobal.net; Paul Edelman <edelman@smmc.ca.gov>; terrie brady
<terriebrady@gmail.com>; theresa brady <sfvscsepbasin@gmail.com>;
Angela.Castanon@wildlife.ca.gov
Subject: hitch ranch project
Honorable City council members and Mayor: June 13, 2022
Fire safety. The aspect of evacuation from wildfire is an enormous hazard that will be made worse
by this project. This alone should require that the city council deny this project since it is your sworn
duty to uphold the safety, health and well being of the community members you serve. The roads
that will be used by the new residents are already inadequate for emergency evacuation of the
current residents and the animals that rely on them.
Water availability. There was a letter from the Fox Groundwater district in the FEIR that indicates
that the water availability is unclear. This is according the Fox Groundwater district, who would
provide the water. Throughout the document there is reference to the Ventura county
waterworks district being the responsible party to determine whether there is adequate water, but
there appears to be no comment from them. This needs to be determined before moving forward.
This is another aspect that would be grounds to deny the project in the current form.
The project is requesting alteration of the general plan. The general plan is a document that has
the long view in mind. There is no requirement that amendments to general plans be granted.
Aesthetics will be harmed if this project is allowed as is. The rolling hills of Moorpark are our
characteristic landscape. The fill will permanently alter/destroy the scenic quality of this property
which is a significant portion of the characteristic Moorpark hills.
Biological resources. With less and less open space, every fragment is important to migrating
wildlife. This used to be all farmland. The EIR surveys indicated nesting protected species
including: Coastal California gnatcatcher, Red tailed hawk, Lawrence’s goldfinch, and Loggerhead
shrike were all observed nesting on site. The surveys were conducted by the biologist for the EIR.
In addition they observed Cooper’s hawk exhibiting behavior that indicated they were likely to be
nesting. Furthermore the rare Costa’s hummingbird was observed on site during their surveys.
There were 10 black walnut noted, all in good health. The locations of all these nests and trees
should be avoided. The project should be redesigned to avoid impacting these precious natural
resources.
Another consideration: in the section of Gabbert road before Elwin, there are several tall
eucalyptus. It was indicated by CDFW, and the project proponent, when several eucalyptus are
found together, they can be overwintering habitat for monarchs, another endangered species.
Eucalyptus are also important nesting and foraging habitat for several species of hummingbirds.
There are two rare hummingbirds known to be in Moorpark: Costas and Calliope. Costa’s uses
sagebrush and was seen on site in one of the studies. Also a threatened species, the Loggerhead
Shrike is known to visit Moorpark. There was nesting pair noted in two of the surveys both in 2018
and 2019. I would like to know if the mitigation involves avoiding disturbance of all necessary
habitat. This includes not just the nest site, and as they say in some cases 500 feet around it, but
also the areas needed for foraging, fledging and other necessary life activities. The Lawrence’s
goldfinch is also a rare species that was observed nesting using this site. They are known to live on
ranch land. Their necessary habitat should be avoided and protected. There should also be study
conducted to observe whether there is potential of the property as foraging for migrating birds
such as the Canada Goose.
16
In summary, I hope you will take the time to review all the aspects of this proposal that are
problematic for the safety of the residents of Moorpark, for access to water for current residents,
and for protection of our natural beauty and wildlife.
Thank you.
Theresa Brady
Moorpark California 93021
17
18
COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIR AND PlAN FOR THE HITCH RANCH PROJECT
By: Gayle Bruckner Updated: 6/12/2022
Aesthetics per the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element
The Hitch Ranch Project plan does not meet, and in fact, conflicts the goals and policies as
outlined in the Moorpark General Plan and Land Use Element.
At a minimum, the Hitch project conflicts with the following Moorpark City goals and policies:
Goal 16 states that we will ‘Enhance and maintain the suburban/rural identity of the
community”.
Policy 16.2 “Hillside development standard shall be adopted which restrict grading on
slopes greater than 20 percent and which will encourage the preservation of visual
horizon lines and significant hillsides as prominent visual features”.
Policy 16.4 “New residential development should complement the overall community
character of the city, establish a sense of place, and ensure compatibility with
important existing local community identities”.
Policy 17.1 “New development shall be compatible with the scale and visual
character of the surrounding neighborhood.”
Policy 17.7 “Design features which provide relief and separation shall be required
between land uses of conflicting character.”
The Hitch Ranch project is in conflict with the Moorpark General Plan goals and policies – Below
are just a few:
- The project has no ‘Step Down’ from the existing homes which are multiple acre properties
with horses, cattle, chickens and goats. Instead, this project moves directly from rural
housing to tract homes with no property for livestock.
- The project has a plan to take all our hills down to 70 feet and to bring the low areas up to
61 feet. Essentially, it will be flat.
o Existing homeowners will no longer have a buffer from the train, traffic or the new
housing projects and on the flip side, the new homes will be exposed directly to our
agricultural environment.
o A 3D Model is needed to understand the land grading and to fully assess the impact
to the surrounding communities. I would emphasize the visual impact as that is
what the lead chair guy seemed most bothered by.
19
Air Quality and Noise Concerns
The Hitch Ranch project adds over 1000 homes (including the donated parcel) - How does
Moorpark plan to meet the requirements of page 3-2-10 of the Environmental Impact Report?
The report calls out the Land Use Element which states the following air quality goals and
policies of the city of Moorpark General Plan that are applicable to the proposed Hitch Ranch
Specific Plan Project:
Goal 15: “Maintain a high-quality environment that contributes to and enhances the
quality of life and protects public health, safety, and welfare.”
Policy 15.4: “Development which will not result in a negative impact on air quality
shall be encouraged in order to maintain and enhance air quality for the health and
well-being of City residents.”
- The Hitch Ranch project has a significant impact with respect to Valley Fever – a serious
public health concern. How will this impact be mitigated? And who will be responsible for
the medical expenses (if needed) of the surrounding homeowners affected by Valley Fever
created by the project?
- There will be a considerable long-term negative impact on air quality due to the addition of
thousands of vehicles – as well as a significant increase in noise pollution created by this
project.
o Also, during the years of construction, there is inadequate mitigation for
construction noise. Many of us are working from home now – this will impact our
work performance.
Circulation/Infrastructure
The Hitch Ranch project (including the donated portion build out) will add over 1000 homes
(which will equate to at least 2000 additional cars on our streets . The project has not
addressed any circulation impacts outside of the project.
- The project has not addressed the Gabbert Road Crossing which is already a bottle neck and
a known safety hazard.
o Both the project and the planning commission have downplayed this issue in light
of fire safety and as a general use route – stating that now there will be other
routes, thus deeming it a non-issue. Yet Gabbert road is the most direct route for
all residents on the projects side of the railroad heading towards Ventura and the
most direct route for residents from Tierra Rejada heading towards the new
nature park, as well as commute to and from the high school.
20
- The project has not addressed the impact to our roads which are already over stressed and
cannot accommodate the existing traffic flow. Specifically, as it applies to Moorpark Road,
Casey Road, High Street, Poindexter and Gabbert.
- The EIR claims success as it relates to circulation issues but has no measure of success as it
relates to AQMP. The listed programs have no metrics on if they are used by the general
public. The amount of participation in those programs would likely be statistically
insignificant therefore they will not improve the traffic flow.
Water Supply
The EIR should be questioned on its determination that water will be available for the Hitch
Ranch development. Our existing homes have already been put on a Stage 3 Water
Conservation mandate with water restriction allowing only one day a week watering for only 15
minutes per station with fines for noncompliance. (See attached notice from Ventura County
Water Works)
- Also note in the General Comments below that the Department of Water Resources
response to the EIR was basically dismissed.
General Comments
Comments from the varying agencies that noted disagreements with or errors within the EIR
were not adequately addressed and/or completely dismissed – below are just a few:
- Fish and Wildlife wrote 26 pages to detail Significant Impacts to various wildlife species due
to the planned grading and resultant community. The responses merely referred to the EIR
or noted a response was ‘not required’ or ‘noted’ due to the general nature of the question
(their noted impacts were very specific and detailed)
- Department of Water Resources stated that there was, ‘Insufficient information provided in
the project description to make an accurate jurisdictional determination.’ When addressed
they were merely directed back to a section of the EIR that they had just deemed
insufficient.
- Fox Canyon Ground Water Management Agency noted that, ‘Key documents which serve as
the foundation of the water supply assessment in the DEIR have been replaced or
superseded. It is not clear if the water supply is adequate.’ The response just noted they
used the documents they had and gave no further justification to prove adequacy. This is
the foundation of the water supply in California – Our residents are currently under water
restriction and are following drought protocol – No explanation seems unacceptable.
21
The general public comments were largely dismissed noting that no response was required or
just pointing us back to the section of the EIR we already reviewed, and we had issues with the
document and findings.
Also, in the last Planning Commission meeting we were all made aware of the presence of
radioactive material located on the property. With the substantial grading proposed by the
Hitch project, this will present a significant health threat to our community. The City should
evaluate this situation and address the issue.
Much emphasis was made that this plan is 30 years in the making, that the commission needs
to ‘finally’ move forward. Yet many of those pushing it forward have not been there since the
beginning, they haven’t seen the plans change countless times. We don’t want to pull the
trigger on a plan that is insufficient in the eyes of several agencies and disregards our voice.
We want what is best for our community as a whole, which i n this moment is more time to be
allotted for review of the EIR, so that we, as a community, would be in a better position to
articulate our concerns.
Final Overall Comments
I feel the City of Moorpark has not done their due diligence on the Hitch Ranch Project and
would be neglecting their fiduciary responsibilities to our community by moving forward prior to
the completion of the following:
- General Plan EIR. The city should fully understand all impacts these projects will have on
circulation flow, air quality and continuity for our entire city, as opposed to just within the
specific project.
- Provide a 3D model of the Hitch Ranch Project to assess the grading and impacts to the
surrounding communities.
- Address the issue of Radioactivity potential within the Project site location.
- Address the known Safety issues regarding the Gabbert Road railroad crossing.
- Revisit the Water Supply concerns from a community perspective as well as responding to
the Department of Water Supply’s noted concerns.
22
Attachment re water supply:
WATER CONSERVATION
LEVEL 3 WATER SHORTAGE AND MANDATORY
WATERING SCHEDULE
On May 10th, 2022, at the request of the Ventura County Public
Works Agency Water and Sanitation Department, the Ventura
County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution declaring a
Level 3 Water Shortage for all Ventura County Waterworks District
areas (Moorpark, Somis, Lake Sherwood and Bell Canyon).
This action comes after both the Metropolitan Water District and
Calleguas Municipal Water District passed resolutions in April
declaring a Water Shortage Emergency Condition for their service
areas. The resolutions also called on water purveyors to
immediately cut their water use by implementing 1 day a week
watering restriction or face financial penalties for failing to do so.
As California struggles with its third year of drought and water
supplies from the State Water Project remain limited, we are
calling on our customers to implement the following mandatory
watering schedule, effective June 1,
2022.
23
LEVEL 3 WATER SHORTAGE & MANDATORY
WATERING SCHEDULE FACT SHEET
• One-day-a-week watering schedule based on service area
and home address.
• Only applies to non-functional, ornamental turf (lawns)
and excludes turf located in parks, sports fields, and
school playground fields.
• Hand-watering or efficient drip irrigation of trees, shrubs
and/or plants is permitted as needed to support their
health and ability to recover. A minimum 30% water
reduction is required for commercial landscape areas.
• No irrigation between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
• Irrigate no more than 15 minutes per zone (does not apply
to low-flow drip irrigation). Adjust irrigation schedules to
avoid irrigation runoff onto hardscape areas, such as
sidewalks and streets.
• Does not apply to areas that are irrigated with recycled
water.
• Applies to all customer classifications except agriculture.
• Special Water Features: Filling or re-filling ornamental
lakes or ponds is prohibited, except to the extent needed to
sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of
significant value and have been actively managed within
the water feature prior to the declaration of a supply
shortage level.
• Residential Swimming Pools and Spas: Refilling of more
than one foot and initial filling of residential swimming
pools and spas is prohibited. Those with an already
approved building permit (as of 5/31/22) for a pool or spa
are exempt from this prohibition.
• Noncompliance penalties will be applied (see below).
24
• Exceptions to conservation measures may be considered
under unique circumstances and to address public health
and safety needs. Please contact our office for more
information.
Noncompliance and Penalties
For those who fail to comply with our current and permanent
water conservation measures including but not limited to
mandatory watering schedules. The following penalties may
apply.
• First Violation: Written notice of the violation will be given
to the customer
• Second Violation: If prior violations are not corrected
within the timeframe specified by the notice, or a second
violation occurs within the following twelve (12) months
after the date of issuance of the first violation, a second
violation and a penalty of $100.00 may be imposed.
• Third Violation: If prior violations are not corrected within
the timeframe specified by the notice, or a third violation
occurs within the following twelve (12) months after the
date of issuance of the second violation, a third violation
and a penalty of $250.00 may be imposed.
• Fourth Violation: If prior violations are not corrected
within the timeframe specified by the notice, or a fourth
violation occurs within the following twelve (12) months
after the date of issuance of the third violation, a third
violation and a penalty of $500.00 may be imposed and a
flow restricting device may be installed to limit usage.
• Water Shutoff and Reconnection: If violations are not
resolved within the following twelve (12) months after the
date of issuance of the fourth violation, the District may
discontinue water service to the customer at the premises
25
at which the violation(s) occurred. Where water service is
disconnected, it will be reconnected upon correction of the
condition or activity and the payment of the estimated
reconnection charge and other applicable charges.
26
1
From: Khareji Azeri
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 4:34 PM
To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: No to Hitch Ranch
Hello,
I am proud a resident and moved to the city of Moorpark from Los Angeles in 2012 as I found this city to have a beautiful
small town feel; it allowed my family and I to start anew and get away from the chaotic hustle and bustle. I and the
majority of my neighbors will attend the meeting in person to oppose the development as this will directly impact our
community. We already have a water crisis and live in a fire prone area, how is the city supposedly feel safe during an
evacuation when the roads are limited and will create a bottleneck effect? There will also be a major environmental
impact for the residents who will be forced to live directly in front of the construction and will displace flora and fauna.
Again, we are completely opposed to the development of Hitch Ranch and we hope that the city will hear us.
27
From:Armen
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Moorpark<moorparkPMoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Full support for Hitch Ranch
Our family would like add ourselves to the support side.
The pain points are worth the much needed housing inventory improvement and the moderated
development of our town.
Thanks
Armen Osipian
28
From: Armen
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Full support for Hitch Ranch
Our family would like add ourselves to the support side.
The pain points are worth the much needed housing inventory improvement and the moderated
development of our town.
Thanks
Armen Osipian
28
Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. Moorpark, CA 93021 805- or 805- June 11, 2022 Honorable City Council and Planning Commission City Manager, Troy Brown Doug Spondello, Deputy Community Development Director and other relevant staff Consultants/applicant(s) re: the Hitch Ranch proposed entitlements and its documentation City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Comments on Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements that were the subject of the May 24, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and that are currently scheduled for City Council consideration on June 15, 2022 Ladies and Gentlemen, As I said on May 24th, at the Planning Commission public hearing: “Where to begin?!!!!” My comments in this letter will focus on four main topics, although there are many others that I could address. These four topics are: History and Process Street Circulation Issues Development Agreement Selected Other Topics While I believe that all four main topics above are equally important, some of you may prefer to read this “out of the order presented” and start with STREET CIRCULATION ISSUES, which points out some disturbing problems that, inexplicably, have not yet been addressed in the current plan. If you choose to do that, that is fine. In any case however, I hope you will read all the topics presented, since, as I said, they are all equally important. There are important issues to consider re: the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and in the section entitled SELECTED OTHER TOPICS. Please keep an open mind, as I trust you will, and continue the item with the Public Hearing open to either a date certain, or a date uncertain, depending on how many additional directions you give to staff and the applicant for additions, corrections or other modifications that should be considered to make the project better, before any final vote. HISTORY AND PROCESS I attended (via Zoom) the May 24, 2022 Planning Commission meeting for the public hearing about ALL of the Hitch Ranch proposed Entitlements and was shocked and dismayed, to say the least, that there was ONLY ONE meeting planned for consideration and deliberation for such a huge project, with more than 1,000 pages to review in less than a week, from when the final documents were released. To me, this was short-sighted and inappropriate, especially given past history with other large specific plan projects. (See attached printout of my comments made on May 24, 2022 to the Planning Commision.) Prior to Hitch Ranch, the last three very large projects before ethe Planning Commission and City Council were for the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan (SP-2), the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (SP-8) and the North Park Village Specific Plan. Each of these three proposed projects had multi-29
To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 2 of 9 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: June 11, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation meeting sessions with Planning Commission and City Council, to address topics in an organized and methodical way, taking the topics in bite-sized chunks to provide predictability for the public and a chance for the recommending and decision-making bodies to NOT have to try to do all the discussions of everything at once—as happened at the May 24th Planning Commission meeting. See attached city council agenda report for the North Park Village meetings (Item 8-B from May 19, 2004) where it states that the Planning Commission had thirteen (13) consecutive meetings at which they learned, asked questions, and deliberated, and the staff recommendation that night to the city council was to have a plan for about 5 meetings at the city council level, all as part of the public hearing process. Hitch Ranch is the largest project to come before the planning commission and city council, since the North Park project. While not as large as North Park, it is still quite large and deserved, in my humble opinion, more than one public hearing meeting by the planning commission. Besides that, it is unconscionable, again in my humble opinion, that the project is being brought forward to the City Council in less than a month from the Plannning Commission meeting. To have the city council do this on June 15, 2022 so soon after the planning commission meeting gives little time for the public to review the PC meeting in detail if they were unable to attend the one meeting before they have to go to city council and try to convince the city council that more deliberation is better than deciding everything in a single night, as they seem poised to do. I am not saying you need 5 or 13 meetings but there should have been AT LEAST TWO (maybe more) AT PC, and after at least a month after PC recommendation, then AT LEAST TWO (or more) AT CITY COUNCIL. By allowing more Q/A at each decision-making level, it always creates a better chance that the project could be adjusted to be an EVEN BETTER project than what first met the eye at the first public hearing meeting. The appearance here is that someone seems to want the City Council to reach and make a decision without thorough discussion of all the issues already brought up by the public and other issues that MAY be brought up, if there was enough time for the public (and the decision-makers) to review in more detail. Besides all of these considerations just mentioned, there appears to be NO discussion in the current plan or Development Agreement about what was historically planned over the last 22 years for the Gabbert Road, Casey Road, and North Hills Parkway roads and instersections—once the Hitch Ranch project was to come forward. Well, the Hitch Ranch project is here now, and all the promises and discussions from the past appear to be noticeably ABSENT from the deal as it is currently proposed. On May 24th, one of the newest Planning Commissioners made a remark that since this project has been on the books as a planned project for so many years (since 1992) that there has been enough time passed already and no more deliberation is needed. He clearly wanted to rubber stamp whatever was being proposed now, despite potential legitimate concerns from the public and from some of the responsible agencies who commented during the DEIR process; and, despite historical discussion with not only the Hitch Ranch project applicants, but also the A/B property approvals and requirements (to the west), and the Rasmussen property proposals, also to the west (all of which are supposed to contribute to fixing the issues regarding the Gabbert Road/RR track intersection and the North Hills Parkway extension west of Gabbert Road. This planning commissioner showed his naivete about how projects are supposed to move through the process. This member of the Planning Commission apparently does not want to know the entire history for the thorny issues that have plagued the Hitch Ranch project for all these many years. He has demonstrated that he does not know the history of this project, in that, among other things, prior to the current contract developer (Comstock Homes), other potential developers for Hitch Ranch, and the underlying 30
To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 3 of 9 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: June 11, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation applicant, failed multiple times to do a sufficiently robust EIR and project plan, despite guidelines provided by the city staff on multiple occasions. It is true that they tried, but they were also plagued by an incredible lack of good timing, in that each time they thought they might be ready to proceed, there was a nationwide economic downturn, so they were stalled due to that and never brought an actual project before the planning commission and city council until NOW. It is not the City of Moorpark’s fault that the economy tanked so many times while they were trying to bring this Hitch Ranch project forward. Most other projects in Moorpark did not suffer the same fate, so it was possible to get approvals, as many projects did. It is refreshing to have Comstock Homes working on this project, because unlike others who tried before them, it seems that they do know how to present a project. I imagine they would be the first to agree that thorough scrutiny and multiple Q/A are always good to make a better project. Just because it took a long time to get to public hearings, it does NOT mean that the planning commission and city council should rush through the process (which so far they ARE doing!) without thorough analysis and discussion about the myriad topics at hand. That would be wrong and would go against our prior practice as a City to try for the best possible project by the time an approval (or denial) is ultimately voted upon. Make no mistake, there is a lot to like about this project but there are considerations that appear to need more debate and deliberation too. By allowing that debate and deliberation, and any appropriate project changes after such debate and deliberation, it will create a better project, once approved. STREET CIRCULATION While there are street improvements proposed and outlined that do help circulation and evacuation routes to a certain degree, there are three disturbing problems re: the road network proposed (so far) that, inexplicably, have not yet been addressed sufficiently or at all, in some cases, in the current plan. All three were discussed historically, over the past many years, as important areas to address when the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan came forward, yet these appear to be being left for others to do, without taking into consideration which projects might move forward first. The three problem areas, which really have equal priority, are: 1. Gabbert Road intersection at SPRR tracks and Poindexter Ave. 2. NW corner of Casey Road and Hwy 23 (Walnut Canyon Road), East of the Hitch boundary line 3. North Hills Parkway west of Gabbert Rd. to LA Ave. Gabbert Road intersection at SPRR tracks and Poindexter Ave This is the most egregious omission in the current plan, as proposed! While there ARE significant improvements/widening for Gabbert Road between High Street and North Hills Parkway, there are NO improvements proposed at all for this intersection, which is recognized by Gabbert Canyon residents and by past staff and many current and former city councilmembers as a “choke point” during any fire evacuations that may occur. You have left it as a widened four lanes going down to the same two narrow lanes that are there now! Hence: chokepoint. Gabbert Canyon residents have repeatedly reminded the City and the applicant, in multiple testimonies during this process, that wildfires in Moorpark tend to move from the North/NE/E to the South and SW, so the extra exits to the north and east (on Meridian Hills Drive) or High Street or Casey Rd will 31
To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 4 of 9 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: June 11, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation NOT be the likely direction for evacuations for most people in the “typical Moorpark wildfire.” This is not just opinion; it is fact—and everyone knows that! Everyone from Meridian Hills, from this new Hitch Ranch project AND the Gabbert Canyon residents (with their horses and farm animals in huge trailers) will all be trying to cross the tracks at THIS intersection which is not contemplated for any improvements YET! Over many, many years, the Gabbert Canyon residents were always informed that when the Hitch Ranch project finally came forward, that the Gabbert/RR/Poindexter crossing would be fixed. This is the time to do something to fix this intersection. I urge the City Council to direct staff and the applicant to revisit this and make a serious attempt to correct this problem in the actual plan, after which they can bring it back to council before there is any public vote on the entitlements for this project. I know it will not be easy to do something that can be effective. However, to leave a known glaring hole (like this one) in the road network is NOT responsible. This would likely require a revision to the Tentative Tract Map to show whatever improvement can be required. On page 7 of 7 of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, in the top left corner the problem is clearly shown as four lanes goes down to two before crossing the RR tracks! Section 6.3 in the Development Agreement needs to be revised to address this in more detail, considering various cost-sharing agreements like is partially presented for other traffic mitigation named there AND to consider possible reimbursement agreements from other developers (such as the Rasmussen property [RPD No. 2016-02] and the Burns-Pacific Construction Property [Final Map 5906] and maybe even Southern California Edison since their property is adjacent too) to Hitch Ranch, if Hitch Ranch has to do these prior to the other projects moving forward. (See also the Development Agreement section of this letter.) NW corner of Casey Road and Hwy 23 (Walnut Canyon Road) The road improvement to Casey Road currently proposed does not yet seem to contemplate the timing of when the adjacent Mansi project will be built vs. when this part of Hitch Ranch will be built. We cannot know who will be going first: Mansi or Hitch! You might think you know, but you really do not know what will happen when. If Mansi goes first, there might not be a problem, but if Hitch goes first, then the Casey Road improvements that are otherwise Mansi’s responsibility, including this corner at Casey and Hwy 23 will be a major problem, because they will not be done, making the exit route at Casey Road, from Hitch Ranch, UNIMPROVED as compared to right now. This is not acceptable. There should be some kind of reimbursement agreement required in the Development Agreement(s) so that if Hitch has to fix this street and all the way to this intersection before Mansi even starts building, that Mansi will be obligated to pay Hitch Ranch back 100% of the costs. This would likely be part of Section 6.3 in the Development Agreement also. North Hills Parkway west of Gabbert Rd. to LA Ave In looking at page 1 of 7 (and 2 of 7) on Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 5708, the extension of the North Hills Parkway west of Gabbert Road (except for stubbed off portion slightly to the west of Gabbert) is shown in grayed out lines going west with part of it going through the Hitch Ranch open space property that is west of Gabbert Road (parcel 511-0-200-245) and another part of it going through parcel 511-0-190-305, another landowner’s parcel. It is further labeled “FUTURE NORTH HILLS PKWY IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS.” 32
To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 5 of 9 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: June 11, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation It is not clear to me, given the wording elsewhere in the entitlement package, whether or not Hitch Ranch is having to provide this right of way (ROW) in this location at no cost to the City, as it seems it is required to do in the other parts of the TTM where building and road construction is actually occurring. It would be important to clarify this in the language so that such ROW there IS provided at no cost to the City, just like it is for the remainder of the development footprint. Additionally, given the wording in part of 6.3 of the Development Agreement that says “Developer shall design and construct the public street improvements for (a) North Hills Parkway to a total width of a maximum of four lanes (two in each direction) throughout the entirety of the property emphasis added)…,” the depiction west of Gabbert Road inside the Hitch Ranch property boundary, and on parcel 511-0-200-245 on the TTM does NOT show the road there as being built, as it shows for other parts of North Hills Parkway primarily to the East. Is Hitch Ranch being required to design and construct any part of North Hills Parkway (in collaboration with “others”) for the portion of North Hills Parkway that is depicted on the TTM inside parcel 511-0-200-245? The “entirety of the property” would include this but the map seems to show that it is not being built at this time. It would appear that some language needs to be added in either the development agreement or the conditions of approval (or both) that spells out more clearly any role that Hitch Ranch will have with “others” for this extension of North Hills Parkway from Gabbert Road to Los Angeles Ave. to the west. The city council should direct staff and the applicant to more formally clarify roles for designing and constructing this extension of the North Hills Parkway to the west of the stubbed out portion of the road depicted on the TTM. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Section 6.3 (Traffic Mitigation Requirements) Perhaps the biggest issue with this development agreement is section 6.3 (entitled “Traffic Mitigation Requirements”) already mentioned. There needs to be more specificity regarding the traffic/circulation improvements than currently appears in the proposed development agreement. Please review the above section (STREET CIRCULATION) in the context shown there and direct staff and the applicant to revise for clarity and to add missing improvements or required agreeemnts regarding the areas named. These include but are not limited to the following (summarized or partially copy pasted here) : RE: Gabbert Road intersection at SPRR tracks and Poindexter Ave There is a glaring omission in the development agreement and the development plan that does not fix this intersection at all or even attempt to fix it, despite promises for years that when the Hitch Ranch project came forward this intersection would be improved. It needs to be part of the plan and Development Agreement. Section 6.3 in the Development Agreement needs to be revised to address this in more detail, considering various cost-sharing agreements like is partially presented for other traffic mitigation named there AND to consider possible reimbursement agreements from other developers (such as the Rasmussen property [RPD No. 2016-02] and the Burns-Pacific Construction Property [Final Map 5906] and maybe even Southern California Edison since their property is adjacent too) to Hitch Ranch, if Hitch Ranch has to do these prior to the other projects moving forward. 33
To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 6 of 9 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: June 11, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation RE: NW corner of Casey Road and Hwy 23 (Walnut Canyon Road) East of the Hitch boundary line This section of roadway is the responsibility of a different project (the Mansi project) and not Hitch Ranch. HOWEVER, if Hitch is built before Mansi, the necessary improvements will not be made in time to provide the exit from Hitch onto Casey Road that is needed for safe exit from Hitch Ranch. Therefore: There should be some kind of reimbursement agreement required in the Development Agreement(s) so that if Hitch has to fix this street and all the way to this intersection before Mansi even starts building, that Mansi will be obligated to pay Hitch Ranch back 100% of the costs. This would likely be part of Section 6.3 in the Development Agreement also. RE: North Hills Parkway west of Gabbert Rd. to LA Ave Please review the context in the earlier section about Street Circulation for ROW from Hitch for parcel 511-0-200-245 and for any other roles that Hitch should perhaps have to play for this extension of North Hills Parkway, in potential collaboration with “others” and make it more explicit in this Section 6.3 of the Development Agreement. It would be important to clarify if Hitch Ranch has to provide additional ROW in parcel 511-0-200-245 in this section of the Development Agreement so that such ROW there IS provided at no cost to the City, just like it is for the remainder of the development footprint, regarding North Hills Parkway. It would appear that some language needs to be added in the development agreement or the conditions of approval (or both) that spells out more clearly any role that Hitch Ranch will have with “others” for this extension of North Hills Parkway from Gabbert Road to Los Angeles Ave. to the west. The city council should direct staff and the applicant to more formally clarify roles for designing and constructing this extension of the North Hills Parkway to the west of the stubbed out portion of the road depicted on the TTM. Section 6.8 (Arroyo Vista Park Improvements/Park Fees) The title of this section should be adjusted to the following: Arroyo Vista Park Improvements/Park Fees/Construction of Park A and Park B—to better reflect the full content of the section. While this section of the Development Agreement (DA) does say that the applicant agrees to fully construct both Parks (A and B) at its sole cost, it only gives timing requirements for the construction of Park B, saying it must start construction prior to the 400th building permit for market rate units and that construction of Park B must be completed prior to the 600th building permit for market rate units. There is NO mention of by when Park A must be constructed! This omission needs to be corrected. There must be a timeframe much earlier than the 400th unit by which Park A has to be started and then fully constructed. Please direct staff and and the applicant to correct this omission in this section of the DA, so it is crystal clear by when Park A has to be completed. Section 6.10 (Art in Public Places Fee) The mention of the “Alternative Art Obligation” option needs to reflect that it is is not just whatever the developer/applicant wants to do, but that they would still have to follow all the guidelines and rules to follow our Art in Public Places ordinances/resolutions/processes for this option, if they so select the 34
To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 7 of 9 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: June 11, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation alternative option. Please direct staff and the applicant to add appropriate language to reflect this oversight regarding the substace of the art that might be provided. The Arts Commission and the City Council would be involved, per our Art in Public Places rules. It needs to be explicit that they have to follow these rules. Additionally, while cost accounting is rightly to be approved by city officials, where it says City Manager or City Development Director, I think this should be changed to City Manager or Community Development Director since the title listed in the current language is incorrect. Section 6.14 (Densities Allowed for Development and Affordable Housing) In Subsection “c” there is a mismatch where the section is referred to by the incorrect number, 6.13. Please correct this and verify in ALL sections that references to section numbers are accurate. In subsection “i” the schedule presented for the construction of the required 113 affordable housing units is not clear and appears inconsistent with other exhibits in the entitlement package. Please revise to make this more clear. Note the following when you try to address this: Figure 7 of agenda report shows the project phasing with Planning Areas 3 and 4 (488 cumulative units) projected for Phase 1 first and Planning Areas 1 and 2 ( 267 cumulative units) for Phase 2—all per Table 2 showing the land use designation and planning area summary. It seems that PA 4 must likely be the Area that has the 113 affordable units, and while this is not clear, it also seems impossible that you can get to the 400th market rate building permit in order to trigger getting a building permit for “affordable housing unit buildings” since 488-113 equals only 375 market rate units in PA 3 and PA4. If all of PA3 and PA 4 are to be built before PA 1 and PA 2, it seems that this schedule as presented must be inaccurate. There needs to be more detail and clarity in this schedule in sub-section “i” so that it is clear what the timing will be on the building permits for affordable vs. market rate housing AND the completion and certificates of occupancy for the affordable units. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it seems impossible to get all of PA3 and PA 4 built in phase one if you have not even started PA 1 and PA 2 yet, as I read the schedule as written. Perhaps stating it differently will clarify it and I hope you can direct staff and the applicant to revise this for clarity. Right now, it is very confusing. Section 6.15 (Conveyance of City Site to City) This section starts out saying that “Developer…warrants that …(iii) to Developer’s actual knowledge without duty of further investigation (emphasis added), the City Site does not contain any hazardous materials….” It says further in the same paragraph: “For the purposes of this Agreement, Developer’s actual knowledge or words to similar effect shall mean actual knowledge of the Developer’s project manager for the Project, without any duty of investigation (emphasis added). This appears to mean that they do not even have to look for problems with the site to reveal to the city before having to give the site to city! So, what if the city finds out later that there are hazardous conditions on the site? Who is liable? Later in the same section 6.15, it states that “Prior to and as a condition of closing, Developer has delivered copies of the following soils and environmental reports to City which cover/include the City Site: Geotechnical investigations soil bearings and laboratory analysis, within the areas of the structures to better define the severity of liquefaction, settlement and expansiveness conditions….in a form and substance reasonably acceptable to the City Manager.” 35
To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 8 of 9 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: June 11, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation So what is true? Are they warranting there are no problems with hazardous conditions, without having to investigate? Or are they having to investigate and provide documentation of the potential problems? It seems like you cannot have it both ways. I may be misreading the section, but if I am doing that, it must not be clear and it should be revisited and revised for clarity. Who is really going to be responsible for fixing any hazardous conditions that may be on the city site? Does the developer have any duty to participate in fixing any problems that might be there? I think we need to know that in this section of the DA. Please direct staff and the applicant to clarify and make the document more clear about his. SELECTED OTHER TOPICS Inconsistent References to Park A and Park B . Throughout the documentation of various documents that are part of the proposed entitlements, sometimes the words “Park A” and “Park B” are used and other times the words “Passive Park” and “Active Park” are used but it is hard to be sure which park is which since sometimes it seems like Park A is the western park and sometimes the eastern park, and vice versa. If the references were always used TOGETHER, it would be more clear that Park A is (I think) the Passive Park on the east and Park B (I think) the Active Park on the west. Please direct staff and the applicant to be more clear on all exhibits and on all text to name each park with both the letter number AND the type of park. For example, Figure 5 says “Active Park” but does not label it as Park A or Park B. Similarly, Figure 6 says “Passive Park” but does not label it as Park A or Park B either. These should all be corrected for clarity. Native Plants vs. Invasive Plants. There is a serious discrepancy between the guidelines on prohibited plants noted by the fire department in the documentation provided for the proposed Hitch Ranch project vs. in the city’s own landscape guidelines; and, in the California Native Plant websites recommended by the Water Agencies who have paid rebates to residents and businesses throughout the region to eliminate water-hogging turf (grass) in favor of drought tolerant Native CA Plant gardens in their yards or properties instead, using low water drip irrigation systems. The main website to explain these rebates is https://socalwatersmart.com/en/residential/rebates/available-rebates/turf-replacement-program/ Two of the sites recommended by the water agencies to help people choose native drought tolerant plants are https://calflora.org and https://calscape.org/ The fire department has labeled many plants in their “prohibited plant list” as “invasive” when they are in fact considered sensitive/threatened NATIVE California plant species by the CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (Categories S1, S2 and/or S3) These include numerous species in the Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral Habitats of Southern California—both sensitive habitats that are subject to CEQA and to restoration policies (not seemingly blanket prohibitions). Only one example is listing all salvia plants, such as white sage, purple sage, and black sage as INVASIVE, when nothing could be further from the truth! These salvia plants are the marker species for the sensitive habitats in our region and should not be prohibited. Their root systems hold the ground together so that in heavy rains there will not be as many mudslides! They are also sacred to the local native American Chumash peoples, so it it totally wrong to label them as “invasive” as they did on page 784 of the Planning Commission’s agenda packet from May 24, 2022. The fire department rightly wants to help prevent fire, as do all of us, however they need to meet with the resource protection agencies (e.g., California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and Santa Monica 36
To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 9 of 9 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: June 11, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation Mountains Conservancy) and the City of Moorpark’s Director of Parks and Recreation to confer and reach more mutual understanding about the appropriate use of native plants to balance reduced water use with fire protection so as not to prohibit so many of the good native plants that help more than they hurt. To read the guidelines from the fire department, they want irrigation and wet, wet, turf more than they want to save water. We have to save water AND we have to help prevent fire. It IS possible to safely do both and we have to work together to find out how, rather then prohibiting native plants that are largely more helpful, than they are harmful, if done in a carefully planned way. It is my believe that the fire department has to totally revise its plant reference guide and prohibited plant list comprehensively by collaborationg with those I mentioned to make it more realistic to address not only fire safety, but also critical/sensitive/threatened habitats, and the need to save water for what might be planted in resident yards. I trust the City Council will debate this and require more deliberation on it and ultimately direct that the necessary changes be made. If the current version of “Mitigation Measure WF-3” with its “VCFD Fire Hazard Reduction Program Plant Reference Guide” and the “VCFD Prohibited Plant List” is not revised to correct mistakes as I am suggesting, it is my belief that you cannot in good conscience adopt a statement of overriding considerations YET, to approve this project. You could direct that corrections be made that would come back to you after which, if sufficiently corrected, you may then be able to make such an adoption. Next Steps Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments, that I believe all need to be addressed BEFORE the council votes on any entitlements. Therefore, I recommend that they city council debate in detail and direct staff and the applicant to make the necessary clarifications, additions, subtractions etc. and continue the item with the Public Hearing open to either a date certain, or a date uncertain, depending on how many additional directions you give to staff and the applicant for said additions, corrections or other modifications that should be considered to make the project better, before any final vote. Sincerely, Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. Former Moorpark City Councilmember Enclosures (2): Mikos Comments on Hitch Ranch to Planning Commission on 0524-2022 (3 pages) City Council Agenda Report for Item 8B from May 19, 2004 noting multiple meeting plans for public hearings on a large project (4 pages) 37
Comments on Hitch Ranch Entitlements at Moorpark Planning Commission, May 24, 2022 from Roseann Mikos, Ph.D., 14371 E. Cambridge St., Moorpark, CA 93021 1 May 24, 2022 Good evening honorable planning commissioners, staff, consultants, and members of the public, Where to even begin…?! On May 19th, at about 5pm, I received notice of tonite’s public hearing about Hitch Ranch, to try to get to the next step on this potential project. I am not opposed to the project per se, however there are inconsistencies with past practice of review that are problematic, to say the least. At that time, I received the 997-page staff report with the Final EIR and the Finding of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations, many other documents, but ABSENT THE Development agreement for the project. It was only at about 4:30 pm today that I saw the Development agreement was made part of the item to review. This late time is unacceptable. The PC is being asked to recommend approval of NOT ONLY the Final EIR but also ALL of the project approvals, including the General Plan Amendment, Zone change, tentative tract map, Conditions of Approval, the Specific Plan, Mitigation and Monitoring Program, Fire Plans, and the Development Agreement (and maybe more). That suggests that comments made by the public regarding the Draft EIR are NOT THE ONLY THINGS being discussed tonite, despite the fact that that (Draft EIR topics) is all they were allowed to discuss up to this point! March 14= draft EIR “workshop” (which I attended), did not allow discussion of the specific plan itself or any of the other entitlements…..this is the VERY FIRST TIME THAT THE PUBLIC can discuss these other things and I submit that the PROCESS is somewhat broken here, since tonite’s hearing allows the PC to make a recommendation about things that have not been discussed in public, before tonite, in any significant detail-- for the current version of the plan. With only 5 minutes per person, how could the public talk about ALL the things under consideration tonite???!!! 38
Comments on Hitch Ranch Entitlements at Moorpark Planning Commission, May 24, 2022 from Roseann Mikos, Ph.D., 14371 E. Cambridge St., Moorpark, CA 93021 2 More specifically, with respect to my own comments for the DEIR, I made it clear that no project alternatives that could have met more of the applicant’s project were even considered in the alternatives considered. Instead the alternatives were weak and not in the spirit of CEQA that suggests trying to meet more developer project objectives by reducing impacts. This did not happen. There are many things to like about the proposed project (and I do like a lot of it) but the suggestions made by residents and by responsible agencies, like the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, were dismissed out of hand with little or no attempt to even try to address what they said. In the past, for large projects like Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan and the Hidden Creek Ranch/North Park specific plans, there were multiple meetings that were public hearings that allowed the public and the planning commission and city council after them to take the topics, one by one, in multiple meetings so that each decision-making or recommending body could focus on certain topics in some predictable manner, with some at some meeting,s and some others at other meetings. It is not fair to the PC, or to the public to expect them to discuss ALL the entitlement issues at ONLY THIS ONE MEETING. There should have been at minimum, at least TWO public hearings (maybe more) before the PC would make ANY recommendation about this many BIG issues! Re: Selected Issues: Overlay for the current landuse designation was AG, which does not disagree with GP. We historically always had an overlay of what it would be IF no project was ever approved. So I disagree that this is inconsistent with the GP. There is not time to go into more detail and I wish I could. Many of the exhibits still show street names from more than 20 years ago, eg, calling it still C street instead of Championship Drive in county club estates. There are Sooooo many of these kinds of mistakes that should have been easy to correct and yet were not done. 39
Comments on Hitch Ranch Entitlements at Moorpark Planning Commission, May 24, 2022 from Roseann Mikos, Ph.D., 14371 E. Cambridge St., Moorpark, CA 93021 3 Slow down! What is the rush. More discussion will make a better project. But not all in ONE NIGHT! I might point out that You did not even discuss the 52-page development agreement tonite AT ALL yet you would be voting on that ! ??????????????? Please note that while this project is NOT subject to SOAR, as has been stated, the changes to the Land Use element that start on stamped page 870 in tonite’s agenda packet, do NOT reflect all of the GP amendments that have been adopted by the city. It refers to the FIRST SOAR (in 1999) BUT does not even mention the update of SOAR that was passed in 2016,which is similar but somewhat different. This is unacceptable, and needs to be fixed. ///////////////// DO NOT MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION DECISIONS TONITE. Continue this public hearing for a second meeting and maybe even more. I am quite sure that the PC (like me) has probably not had time to read all 997 pages plus the 52 pages of the development agreement (THAT WAS JUST RELEASED) to be able to make decisions on ALL of these items, this very night!. Again, what is the RUSH????!!!! Thank you! 40
MOORPARKCITYCOUNCILAGENDAREPORTITEM9-B. TO: HonorableCityCouncilFROM: BarryK. Hogan, CommunityDevelopmentDirectoPreparedBy: DavidA. Bobardt, PlanningManaetDATE: May5, 2004 (CCMeetingof05/19/2004) SUBJECT: ConsiderGeneralPlanAmendmentNo. 2001 -05, SpecificPlanNo. 2001 -01, andZoneChangeNo. 2001 -02, for1,650HousingUnitson3,586.3AcresLocatedGenerallyNorthofMoorparkCollegeandStateRoute118onLandImmediatelyOutsideCityofMoorparkMunicipalBoundaries. Applicant: NorthParkVillage, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0 -180 -125, -135, - 145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, - 215, -225, - 235, - 245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 - 135, - 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150- 185) BACKGROUNDOnApril6, 2004, afterholdingapublichearingontheproposedNorthParkVillageandNaturePreserveSpecificPlanoverthecourseortnirteenconsecutivemeeadoptedaresolutionrecommen( certificationoftheFinalEnvironofGeneral PlanAmendmentNo. 2001withrevisions, andZoneChangeNcprojectproposes1,500single -farmhousingunits, a2,121 -acrenaturE10privateparks, a52 -acreputschoolsite, a1.5 -acrefirestaticommercialcentersite, andaniprojectsiteison3,586.3acresCityofMoorpark, itsSphereofRestrictionBoundary (CURB), butInterest. Thisprojectisbeingings, therlanni.ngcommissioningtotheCityCouncilrentalImpactReport, approval05, SpecificPlanNo. 2001 -012001 -02. TheSpecificPlanLyresidences, 150affordablepreserve, 3publicparksandLicaccesslake, an18 -acrensite, a5 -acreneighborhoodwfreewayinterchange. Theflandprimarilyoutsidethenfluence, anditsCityUrbaninsidetheCity'sAreaofreviewedbytheCitybecause00001841
HonorableCityCouncilMay19, 2004Page2annexationisproposedaspartoftheproject, withurbanservicestobeprovidedbytheCityofMoorpark. DISCUSSIONPlanningCommissionagendareportsandminutes, includingreportsandminutesrelatedtothepublichearingontheDraftEIR, havebeentransmittedtotheCityCouncilpreviouslyunderseparatecover. Inaddition, theResolutioncontainingthePlanningCommission'srecommendationhasbeenincludedwiththisinformation. MaintopicsdiscussedbythePlanningCommissionincludedtraffic, naturalresourceprotection, waterqualityandgroundwater, oilwells, landuses, publicamenities, andprojectdesign. ThefollowingisasynopsisofthemaintopicsofeachPlanningCommissionmeeting: October7, 2003: October21, 2003: November4, 2003: November18, 2003: December2, 2003: December16, 2003: January6, 2004: January20, 2004: February3, 2004: February17, 2004: March2, 2004: March16, 2004: April6, 2004: RegulatoryContextProjectDescriptionGeneralPlanIssuesSpecificPlanIssuesSchoolsRevisedDraftEIRInitialStaffRecommendationFreewayTrafficGroundwaterSupplyandOilWellsGroundwaterQualityMiscellaneousUnresolvedIssuesProposedFinalEIRPlanningCommissionRecommendationEntitlementdecisionstobemadebytheCityCouncilatthistimeincludeconsiderationofaGeneralPlanAmendment (GPA), aSpecificPlan, andaZoneChange. StaffreportstothePlanningCommissionfortheOctober7, 2003, November4, 2003, November18, 2003, andJanuary6, 2004meetingsfocusontheissuesassociatedwitheachofthesedecisions. PriortoCouncilactionontheGPA, SpecificPlanandZoneChange, directionmaybegivenforthePlanningCommissiontoconsiderandmakearecommendationonaDevelopmentAgreement, tobeactedonbyCouncil. TheCityCouncilwillalsoneedtoconsidersettingthismatterbeforethevotersunderMeasure "S" (MoorparkSOAROrdinance). Thisconsiderationnotonlyincludeswhetherornot00001942
HonorableCityCouncilMay 19, 2004Page3theprojectshouldbeplacedontheballot, butwhatdecisionsassociatedwiththeprojectshouldbeplacedontheballot. Becauseofthesizeoftheprojectandthecomplexityoftheissuesinvolvedinitsconsideration, staffpresentations, publictestimonyanddeliberationontheprojectareexpectedtotakeasubstantialamountofmeetingtime. Thefollowingarethemaindiscussionitemsexpectedbystaff: 1. RegulatoryContextandEstablishmentofReviewSchedule2. ProjectDescription - GeneralPlanandSpecificPlanProposals3. EnvironmentalImpactReportEIRReviewProcessTraffic: SurfaceStreetsandFreewaysBiology: Habitat, SensitiveSpecies, MatureTreesWaterSupply, WaterQuality, GroundwaterIssuesandOilWellsPublicFacilitiesandServicesOtherEIRTopicsMitigationMonitoringProgramFindings4. PlanningCommissionRecommendationonGeneralPlanAmendment, SpecificPlan, andZoneChange5. Development Agreement6. BallotIssuesStaffhasidentifiedthreeoptionsforprojectreviewoverseveralCityCouncilmeetings: Option1: ScheduletheprojectforeachregularCityCouncilmeetingallowingforonetotwohoursofpublichearinganddiscussioncontinuingthehearinguntiltheCouncilisreadytoactonthisproject. Option2: ScheduletheprojectforonespecialCouncilmeetingeachmonthdevotedtopublichearinganddiscussioncontinuingthehearinguntiltheCouncilisreadytoactonthisproject. 00002043
HonorableCityCouncilMay19, 2004Page4Option3: ScheduletheprojectforoneregularCouncilmeetingeachmonthtodiscusspre- selectedtopics, withtheallowanceforaspecialmeetingasneededtoconcludeonthespecifictopicsofthatmeetingandcontinuethehearinguntiltheCouncilisreadytoactonthisproject. Staffrecommendsthethirdoptionsincespecifictopicswouldbeknownwellinadvance, andaknownreviewscheduleforthepublichearingisestablished. OneregularmeetingpermonthalsoallowsstaffsufficienttimetorespondtoissuesraisedbythepublicortheCouncilbetweenmeetings. Specialmeetingswillaffordsufficienttimeforeachtopicasneeded, maintainingflexibility. Ifthisoptionisselected, thefollowingcouldbeconsideredasatentativereviewschedule, withspecialmeetingstobedeterminedasneeded. May19, 2004: RegulatoryContextJune16, 2004: ProjectDescriptionandEIRReviewProcessJuly21, 2004: Traffic, PublicFacilitiesandServices, andOtherEIRTopicsSeptember15, 2004: Biology, WaterSupply, WaterQuality, Groundwater, andOilWellsOctober20, 2004: MitigationMonitoringProgram, Findings, DevelopmentAgreementBasedOnDirectionofCityCouncil) andBallotIssuesSTAFFRECOMAENDATIONOpenthepublichearing, taketestimony, directstafftopreparematerialsappropriateforthescheduleinOption3, andcontinuetheagendaitemwiththehearingopentoJune16, 2004. 00002144
From: Lisa Brown
Sent:Saturday,June 11, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Douglas Spondello<DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Hitch Ranch proposed development
Please do not approve the Hitch Ranch project. Moorpark is already suffering from terrible traffic,
so much so that everyone I know avoids doing business there for much of the day. Also, how can
you justify the water usage that it will take during construction, and then the usage of the housing
units themselves, while asking current residents to cut back severely?
1088 new housing units in Moorpark with no new infrastructure? No way.
Sincerely,
Lisa Brown
45
From: Makenzie Perry
Sent: Saturday,June 11, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Douglas Spondello<DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Hitch Ranch Public Comment
Hi Douglas,
My name is Makenzie Daniel and I would like extend another voice of support for this much needed
project.
My husband and I have just started a family in Moorpark and would love nothing more than to continue to
live in this wonderful city.At this rate, it's not going to be possible. We live in a small condo and
desperately need to move to a bigger home to accommodate our growing family.To not only be able to
afford a home in Moorpark, but to then have to completely renovate an old home we would find here is
becoming out of the question.The city desperately needs a new set of homes that are affordable and not
falling apart. These homes will be the answer for so many others just like us. I know countless young
families that are just looking for a nice safe community to raise their family in, but are trapped in the same
financial situation we are.
I have been following the updates on this project for a very long time and every day I think about how
lucky we would be to be able to own a new home in Hitch Ranch. I look forward to watching the next
meeting on June 15.
Thank you for your time,
Makenzie Daniel
46
,r
From: Kay Lodge
Sent:Saturday,June 11, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Moorpark<moorpark(W MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tern Castro, and City Councilmembers,
I recently moved to thousand oaks from out of state. My family is renting now, but we want
to buy one day, maybe in Moorpark. Approving these homes will make the conejo valley
more welcoming, livable; and enjoyable for everyone, Those who are opposed to the new
apartments we're lucky to buy here before it got too expensive, and want to pull up the
drawbridge behind them. Moorpark is a lovely community, but that's not very neighborly
behavior.
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please approve these homes!!
Kay Lodge
Kay Lodge
Thousand Oaks, California 91363
47
From:Mindy Greenberg
Sent:Saturday,June 11, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Moorpark<moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tern Castro, and City Councilmembers,
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
Mindy Greenberg
Oxnard, California 93035
48
From:Jennifer Kelley
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 2:00 PM
To: Moorpark<moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tern Castro, and City Councilmembers,
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
Jennifer Kelley
Thousand Oaks , California 91362
49
1
From: Max Ghenis
Sent: Saturday,June 11, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Moorpark<moorpark( MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A:Ventura County YIMBY supports Hitch Ranch
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tern Castro, and City Councilmembers,
On behalf of Ventura County YIMBY, a grassroots pro-housing group with over 1,000 followers in the
county, I urge you to support Hitch Ranch.
The housing shortage in Moorpark,Ventura County, and across California threatens our economic
and environmental goals, and this project--especially the apartments near transit--can help.
Following the General Plan in approving homes at this site will help Moorpark achieve its RHNA
allocation, while creating opportunities for 755 families (or more,given the land donation)to enjoy
all that Moorpark has to offer.
Thank you,
Max Ghenis
Founder and lead,Ventura County YIMBY
50
From: Lisa Brown
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Hitch Ranch proposed development
Please do not approve the Hitch Ranch project. Moorpark is already suffering from terrible traffic,
so much so that everyone I know avoids doing business there for much of the day. Also, how can
you justify the water usage that it will take during construction, and then the usage of the housing
units themselves, while asking current residents to cut back severely?
1088 new housing units in Moorpark with no new infrastructure? No way.
Sincerely,
Lisa Brown
45
From: Makenzie Perry
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Hitch Ranch Public Comment
Hi Douglas,
My name is Makenzie Daniel and I would like extend another voice of support for this much needed
project.
My husband and I have just started a family in Moorpark and would love nothing more than to continue to
live in this wonderful city. At this rate, it’s not going to be possible. We live in a small condo and
desperately need to move to a bigger home to accommodate our growing family. To not only be able to
afford a home in Moorpark, but to then have to completely renovate an old home we would find here is
becoming out of the question. The city desperately needs a new set of homes that are affordable and not
falling apart. These homes will be the answer for so many others just like us. I know countless young
families that are just looking for a nice safe community to raise their family in, but are trapped in the same
financial situation we are.
I have been following the updates on this project for a very long time and every day I think about how
lucky we would be to be able to own a new home in Hitch Ranch. I look forward to watching the next
meeting on June 15.
Thank you for your time,
Makenzie Daniel
46
From: Kay Lodge
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
I recently moved to thousand oaks from out of state. My family is renting now, but we want
to buy one day, maybe in Moorpark. Approving these homes will make the conejo valley
more welcoming, livableּ, and enjoyable for everyone. Those who are opposed to the new
apartments we're lucky to buy here before it got too expensive, and want to pull up the
drawbridge behind them. Moorpark is a lovely community, but that's not very neighborly
behavior.
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please approve these homes!!
Kay Lodge
Kay Lodge
Thousand Oaks, California 91363
47
From: Mindy Greenberg
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
Mindy Greenberg
Oxnard, California 93035
48
From: Jennifer Kelley
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 2:00 PM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Please support housing
Moorpark City Council,
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
Our region is facing a shortage of housing, especially the apartments near transit that form
more sustainable, affordable communities. The Hitch Ranch project creates badly needed
homes for 755 families to enjoy Moorpark, many of whom likely already work in the area.
Please follow the General Plan, city staff, and Planning Commission and allow these
families to live in Moorpark.
Jennifer Kelley
Thousand Oaks , California 91362
49
From: Max Ghenis
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Moorpark <moorpark@MoorparkCA.gov>
Subject: Item 8A: Ventura County YIMBY supports Hitch Ranch
Dear Mayor Parvin, Pro Tem Castro, and City Councilmembers,
On behalf of Ventura County YIMBY, a grassroots pro-housing group with over 1,000 followers in the
county, I urge you to support Hitch Ranch.
The housing shortage in Moorpark, Ventura County, and across California threatens our economic
and environmental goals, and this project--especially the apartments near transit--can help.
Following the General Plan in approving homes at this site will help Moorpark achieve its RHNA
allocation, while creating opportunities for 755 families (or more, given the land donation) to enjoy
all that Moorpark has to offer.
Thank you,
Max Ghenis
Founder and lead, Ventura County YIMBY
50
51
52