Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 0302 CC REG ITEM 09A.. HARRY LIEB The Honorable City Council 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Ca. 93021 8933 Amador Circle 1316-E Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 February 28, 1988 Subjects General Plan Land Use and Circulation Update The City Council called a meeting for February 17th, 1988 at which time I was scheduled to present my request for a land use amendment. 9.1) My wife and I drove well over 100 miles to attend the meeting and learned that it had been cancelled. We then immediately returned to our home in Huntington Beach. I am 75 years of age and was so disturbed and worn out from the incident that I have been bed-ridden with a severe attack of sciatica that has required two hospital visits and complete bed rest. I am unable to attend the meeting set for Wednesday, March 2, 1988 to make my presentation. I request that the City Council consider my situation and permit one of your staff to read my·enclosed request for a land use amendment. enc. r I am Harry Lieb of Huntington Beach, Calif. My wife and I are the owners of49,5 acres of unimproved land on Casey Road. We request the Moorpark City Council to amend the General Plan zoning on that major portion of our property which is now designated RE 5 (5 acres per dwelling unit) to NMEDIUMN density, so that our property will be uniformly zoned •11EDIUM". We ask you to consider the following facts to support our request. Topographic map #1 shows our parcel as a triangular shape located on Casey Road directly across the street from the Moorpark High School. It extends north almost to the top of the ridge. The map #2 en- largement shows the location of the property with respect to the High School, Civic Center, Fire Station, and the Southern Pacific Railroad. This is the core-~he heart of Moorpark City. On map #3 we see Moorpark with its outlying new communities -such as the Moorpark College and its residential areas which lie some miles east of the City Hall, To the south, off Moorpark Road, and accessed from Tierra Rejada, is another community, and to the West, off Los Angeles Avenue 0 still another satellite community. All these outlying communities are served by the core area, in the heart of beautiful old Moorpark, I have drawn some concentric rings around central Moorpark with the City Hall at its center point. 900 feet from the City Hall our parcel begins. Long before Moorpark incorporated, this parcel was part of the Moorpark Community service area and it was here that the county maintained its vehicles and here the community Water Tank was located. The tank was abandoned many years ago because Moorpark had grown too large; and a new and larger Water Storage Tank and service area were built much further north on Walnut Canyon Road, Only recently the city required me to demolish the abandoned tank because students from the High School and children from the houses surrounding our parcel might be attracted to the tank which could be an attractive nuissance. The city boundaries of Moorpark are now over a mile and a half beyond the north end of our property and extend s~me miles to the East to where the Simi Valley Freeway ends--at the colleges and it extends some distance to the South and to the West. If I were to take the new ci tv man and draw a centerl i_:nl:\ Nn,...+:h !:l_!:':1_ S~12~~ '.::.~~ :.::::'t:!::::-:'::-~::: East to.West, they would in~ersect just about here in the central area of old Moorpark--and this is where our parcel is located, CAN THIS AREA BE A RURAL AREA?? At one time the State had planned to extend the Simi Freeway through Moorpark to Ventura. That extension was planned to cross over our property and access to Moorpark W!Hi to·be by way of On and Off ramps through our property which was even staked by the engineers. • page 2 During the time that the State planned to construct the Freeway through our property ~he County of Ventura. and the State of Calif. opposed any changes on our property. After the State abandoned the plan to extend the Freeway, we approached the newly formed City of Moorpark authorities and asked that the entire parcel be zoned to a higher density, but only part was zoned •MEDIUM• density and most was, re-zoned for one dwelling unit on five acres. When I went to the State officials some time ago to inquire about rumors circulating that the Freeway extension plan was being recon- sidered, they would only say that they were considering it, We think it would be inappropriate to· let the R•E -5 zoning stay in effect for many reasons, but to let it remain R-E-5 because some public use of the property may be considered for some time in the future would be to depri~e ¥S of our rights to use the property to its highest and best use now. We have dedicated easements for flood control --for water facilities. We have paid and are still paying truces for sewers, streets, community services, schools, police and fire departments, special assessments for parks and street lighting and up to now, we have been repaid with the zoning that is normally reserved for an area on the outskirts of the city ---for a rural or an agricultural area. But-----such a zoning is entirely inappropriate for our property. Zoning should be transitional 0 with changes being made gradually from high density to slightly lower density, etc.----not such an abrupt change as we have here. We believe that to continue with the zoning of RE 5 would be entirely inconsistant with proper planning. For allthese reasons we request that the City Council recommend that the MMEDIUM" density &oning that now exists on the Southerly section be extended to include the remainder of the 49.5 acres and thus have a uniform zoning of •MEDIUM" density on this center-city property. 3 0 lf ~OM ••••••••••••••O• ..acu, .............. c, VIT •••...••••••.... fJ DDIIIL ...•.....•... IZ • AlJIAYI •••••.....•••• CJ ITAIQ" ••........... D • M ••••••.. -......... CJ t)fLCAWQ .••....•..• f J )fl CHIO •.••••.•••••• "f J )fl P'l.ATINQ ..•••.••• f J )EL :avA ...•..••... , z )IL VllJIOI .....••••.. f J "'LLIID ••........... C• •LL,to .•.....•..... DJ <NLL -0 .•........... D • • ••••••• • ........... I? IIIIUIT ., ........... ■J ... LLIT ••....•..•.•. 84 >tHICUlllt. .•.••..... IJ XRAAVI •.•.••••••• CJ LfNC'T ••...•........ IJ fONAVllit. ........ ~. I J !ST •.••............ 12 Q UllalfT RO ..•••.••••• 04 .... · ·.,, · .......... 12 111D ••••.....•...... D• IT ••.............. IJ SAVE ••••••..•..•.. DJ ><>oLN •••.••..••..• O4 ;IOtOLL 1110 ..•.. , ..• DJ SOAI .............. IJ ·1 •••.............. DJ T ALMA.DC( RD .•••.. ,.• ...•.. 13 TICOLOTI CT •••...•...•... D4 T(IIIMJ7 n• . . .......... _ ~ THJROIT ••••••.••.•....•.. C) TliUIOIT ••••••..••..••.••. DJ TlfR,t.A lllA.J.AOA 111D .•.••••••• I J T1flllRA RA.JADA RO. ••..•.••• D4 TULAHI AV( ••••.••..••..•• l I y VALUY 1110 •.•.••••..•••... DJ VALLEY llttll 1110 .......•••.• D 4 VAlll.SJTY IT ................ l J VAISAl'I CIIII k .............. I J VIA AZ.AU.A . • • • . . ..•.• r l YI.A ,UlNn. •.••..••.•••••• P J VIA ll'llY LUNA .•••..•••..•.• P J VIA liOL •••••••• • • ••• • .•• •. f J VIA SC)N()tllA ••••••••••••••• P J VIA VALOIZ •••••..••.•••.• P J VIA VfNTANA ••••.•.•..•..• f 2 VIN('W()()O •••••••••.•..••.• D 4 -·----................. . _,llfTt:IIIG"'UN LH ....••.•... 0 • .-000GLIN OJI •.•....•..•.. 0 • JIIOOOL.U:f IU.HOJII •..••..... 0 • V YALI A.YI ••...•••...••..•. I J : ...... ~ ...... -·· i ~ LOS ANGELES AVE • g~· ' . . ; : c-:. : • u,, ! NTT. All.. : : i :r I ": P.: ~ ► .. : ~ I f ! r i . !j:; rnoor<paRk ~ E. ._ -4 ..._ PIC .... ■ .._, • • -,~ .t-"" --............. c-. , .. 0.,.,-..... •-.. c-,, ---.• ...... ~1-...,._-,.......,._T,_, .... a4trr--..-,~ .. ,._.,., ........ nlll-... r,f v ...... ~.l.._ U~ .W.r;. ... •""-.. ~ ............. a1il ... h,11 CII · ..-mM., .. .,..,. .. ..,.~ ... titiM. r•--••or,,.._.., """'-..,_ ,w.,. .. ~ ......... ., ... ..., ............ . ~ ,, ... "" .,.. ..,_, • C.,,tacf .. v.-. c..."' ,,....,. o.,.,,. -i . 100 S. \.ictM• A.,. • VMtwt. CA IJIOI. Tlrie aa:uilCl ._ ~ •~l"MtM4 le ..._ .,_, Ni"'v tf h ~"""' 110 ..... k ry iJ ..,,_; hf IOef'I • ........... t.,,t:ap~ -4.-ri,., ...... H•wtt...,..._,__,_.,_....,..o,n .1N1. IT IS IJNLAWftJL TD CO~'I OIi IIUlfODUCE Alt DR ,AltT OF THIS Ill.A' IOlt 'lltSOllfAL 0/t RESALE WfTlli)(IT TH£ cx,R(SS Wlttntw 'lit MI SSION OF ,,c ltlAl'MAKlRS. DIV/SIDI/ OF VENTUR[ f UIUCATIONS. INC -IJ LONG COU/fT -THOUS4ND OAKS. CA JIJi~ flCSJ 495 44'1 US CVPYRICHT A,,,.ll(O FOIi -MAR CH IJII 'i IIOORt-ARC UNl:J•· EL SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE ~-n,._ ~.. ~,: '~lo•~~ ..""" .. N II,.~: :1: ·-----.. .. O. ~5~3:~ § LAV ........... .,. • ! ~-!-~____.•-,..-.---. 0 ; ! i : ~ : . : e 1 ? ... ~ ... :--;~ , •• ,-#·~' -.-.. • ••.•• --- .,. ..... ~•·•~~ ~Q..c... .. ~. l ..... ~ -~·,. ci.-... ''--.: ...,-.. 't-~r:-~ ... r. ! j ) I I I ~ ~ ....... -, ... • ... ~I 's ---~:~~:~, ~ .,,,.,.~ . 0 '·'-···~ a.-.c-..._u ......... ...,._c- .. -. ..,.. ...... a. ............... .... -........ .,, .~ ... ._.. .... ff .. -~~ ~-.. ., .. '},_. _i ? 7 ·~-~-~~~ ©, . ...,.vs,,...,.•- f~::n:e:-: ..... , ...... u, ... t: ::t:: :=t ~~~" ..... t-f:tt: ::::~:: 11:c•u...1..,.._._ :::f!!±lro'"•"o.. .. '~~ --~ '\,. LEGEND ,~ t, __ M_.._ j ...,. .............. -00 ... Ii a..a•aWT••• IC~ •-... 9--. .. ..,. ·-......c~ 4 h•trr .. -n.. m ..... ec_..,._~ -....... IC'-...oc,. ....... ........... .___. . .__,,,.._._...,. ..... •-·· *_...,.T••~-...... •-.T-••· •---\'lil1 .. _ a\ ..... ,... ... 1((111$. ~ o,.._..,.f I i L()lt.-:; C:0-.J•T ... ) .. •• MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 30 Flor Avenue, Moor ark, California 93021 y February 26, 1988 p The Honorable John Council Members City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Galloway, Mayor (805) 529-1149 SUBJECT: LETTER OF INTENT TO SEEK A GENERAL PLAN AME1JDMENT (GENERAL PLAN USE AND CIRCULATION UPDATE) Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: Please be advised that the Moorpark Unified School District is seeking an Nnendment to the General Plan of the City of Moorpark. The District is fequesting that the City assign specific land use densities to the parcel of 12nd at 280 Casey Road, which is presently occupied by the Moorpark Memorial High School. The District intends to lease, sell or trade the site, in whole or in part, in order to generate needed revenues for the future capital needs of the District for K-12 facilities District-wide. Our consultant, Dr. Joel Kirschenstein, has prepared the attached Exhibit for ycur information and as a preliminary submittal for use by the City Council as you deliberate on the City Land Use and Circulation Update. The Board of Education will be reviewing a final land use plan within the next 30 days which shall act as the formal submittal to the City. If we can provide additional information, please feel free to contact me at my office or Dr. Kirschenstein at (805) 497-3557. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, 1114tttul~ Michael R. Slater District Superintendent cc: Members, MUSD Board of Education Steve Kueny, City Manager -RECt:1 v t...1 - FEB 2 9 19A8 CITY OF MOORPA (•!,\_ BOARD OF EDUCATION: LYNDA KIRA, President; CARLA ROBERTSON, Vice President; TOM BALDWIN, Clerk; PATTY WATERS, Member; CYNTHIA HUBBARD-DOW, Member; MICHAEL R. SLATER, District Superintendent An Equal Opportunity Employer • -s SAUE ~flST~TLITE ~flC. 2835 Townsgate Road, Suite 208, Westlake Village, CA 91361 (818) 991-0646 and (805) 497 -8557 MEMORANDUM TO: Moorpark City Council FROM: Joel Kirschenstein, On Behalf of Moorpark Unified School District. DATE: February 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Letter of Intent for a General Plan Amendment General Plan Land Use and Circulation Update (Exhibit to Superintendent's correspondence dated 2/26/87). The Moorpark Unified School District is seeking a change in density for the current Moorpark High School Site, located at 280 Casey Road, from a designation of "S", school or institutional, to mixed use residential with limited commercial. Based on an appraiser's preliminary analysis of the site which included conference with City staff the following is submitted as the District's minimal and General Land Use requests for the site; 1. Two to four acres for senior housing. (Seven units to the acre.) 2. Four units per acre to two units per acre on approximately 25% of the property. 3. Three units to one unit per acre on the existing school building portion of the property. 4. Additional portions of the property may be requested for coIDP.lercial/light industrial use. 5. Identification of Public Use portions of the Site pending response to Public Notice procedure from local agencies, (once adopted by the Board). 6. Street easements per City's circulation element. -RfCEIVt...i - FEB 2 9 19~8 Portions of the site could be assigned very high densities for senior citizen housing. In summary, the site has approximately 21.26 net acres of land which is currently zoned "S". The District is requesting a redesignation of the entire site as described in items one through six as set forth in this correspondence. Therefore, mixed land use designations or zoning over lays are requested in order to bring optimum value to the District for needed K-12 educational facilities district wide. Pending final review by the Board of Education, the District intends to work with the City regarding the specifics of Land Use for the site over the next 30 days and submit a more detailed request for the City's final review and consideration. The District shall also be securing the services of a civil engineer to further refine the District's request. Your consideration regarding this matter is much appreciated. cc: Moorpark Unified School District Board of Education Office of the Superintendent Mr. Steve Kueny, City Manager Mr. Kent Gannfors, Gannfors and Associates JK:js jk7/cc ITEM 9,/J, February 24, 1988 John Galloway, Mayor City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: C. T. Financial -Southeast Moorpark Request for Specific Plan Designation Dear Mr. Galloway: In connection with the City Council Agenda, February 24, item 9.C. "Update to the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements -Amendment Requests Screening Hearing", I have enclosed a reduced copy of the proposed "Land Use", a location reference as the property relates to the existing city limits and an outline of the presentation to be made at the hearing relative to the above property. Advanced distribution of this material is made available to assist members of City Council and Staff in their preparation for the hearing on the pending joint request of property owners for general plan amendment to designate this important in-fill property as "Specific Plan'' in connection with the current General Plan update. I am available by phone to discuss this material or will respond to questions as a part of the public hearing. Yours truly, C. T. Financial ~~t Ronald S. Tankersley, Partner Enclosures cc: Members of City Council, City Manager and Director of Community Development -kECt:.IVt..) - \,,_ FEB '2 3 -!988 ( ;'BOO Twenty l 1ql1tl1 Stret!I S111I(: ;JOO Santa lv1ornc;-i Catilur11,;i SJ(),10'., I;, 1:li -1:,0 'l /iHJ r,rv nF t.,,nrqpr K Presentation Outline Southeast Moorpark -Request by Property Owners for "Specific Plan" Designation I. Request -Include property in the scope of the current general plan update with the objective of changing zoning to" Specific Plan" with the proposed Land Uses. II. In-fill Location -Property represents a logical in-fill extension of existing city limits to align with the those of Simi Valley on the east and the Tierra Rejada Green Belt on the south. (See existing incorporated area City of Moorpark) III. Circulation -Consider the proposed extension of Los Angeles A to the east. The recommended right-of-way currently involves property not in the city limits or sphere of influence. Potential for improvement of IV. Tierra Rejada Road to the city limits of Simi Valley to could enhance circulation on the south side of Moorpark. Specific Plan ......... ...J -n_, -~-~ auu L\.C: .1. a L-c:•J. Land Use: -Opportunity to plan a significant portion of the City's unincorporated area of interest. -Agreement among property owners relative to Land Use -Preserves a large portion of the existing open space -Sensitive to slope and ridgeline development -Proposed Land Use a logical extension of existing development -Timely planning permits uses which can address the needs of seniors and lower cost housing alternatives --; --'--- ~"'TX· c( r ·ir. i. -1~ ; .. . -· . '---.' ~--' 1 s rr H1 .l)-• t • r,• 01 If" I J • tz• oc J!," ' 4 In• F :>1' I ) SH' )0 01' I , s oo• 01 oe·, 1 S .,. P )7 ( I tl)Uh• I ffT 10 S JC" II 11" ( 11 s ,~· ~!, c,· t !Z S t• S~ !,O • t 11 5 41• 4 ,z-( 14 9 I 1• 01 1'" ( I) ' !,f• 4) ~0 • [ ll 5 ZP B 45' ( 17 S ,.. 1) .,. ! 11 ! 11• SZ •1· l II 5 )7° 1? 1' I l'O 1 4r o, )I· l ?1 S 11• 0!, !,?. ( u s ,,. )I r,·' 1J I , 1'1~ ~ ti , ll' SI 0~ Ull -5 )r• )3 1,· t r• , 10' IS l!" I ts 5 ),• ,, s•· , U , S1' !,l 11 I 11 1 Jr o· ••· t H s )1• H ,7 , 1' t • ?S 00 6 II'' H 11 )0 5 )I" )2 I/ I 11 •, n 00 , ,o• 1 H ,. U.ll , ti \" )~ 17• I H s ~·• ~1 17 1 l) I )I" 07 ti e >• 5 , .. )? 11· t )) S Tl' 00 2!" I )l In• )t ,,. I ]I 5 ]' 01 ,9 f n 1. rrH oe , B' ?~ 1•· 11it,, s· o· ,,. • JI i ,,. u ,,,. ' 40 t, tlP 0" ' •!' _. )4' : ~ !,.O~ :" u •t •11< l' ,o ,, 1111 U )Ml)! u• •• 140 IP H~• ~G 1 ~,o i ,,e i HIP •2s u l?C '~ )() 40 ?•J n ,o. 07 ,,oe, UC 11 .,, 04 49.! e, ?~' !,, ,, H 0 ~q ?I' 17 100 ,, I~ '1 I0 2• 0(· '' oc ,c or. "or ?• oc ,01 ec JI/ M, ,,o u 1100 ; ·s 1~ V ,. ,o t" ~f !~ H Ill t• 'O [ (4 N 4!' 1,! )0" • •S 11 1)' , l l0' , 41, 11 ◄• 'Q l0' l 41 11 II' l t •~ 11 $4 • n0 f ., 11 1t• •,, l0' E )C· S 7 ~' ,O 00' ( 5, 11 H' o oo· c ,i s u· oo oo· £ '!13 II.,. II() oo· ( ,. s ,,. ''° oo· E ,~ 111 U' IC 00' E !16 II C'' OC B' W ~7 IE S l ,a lll(lltH• ,, 1111•" ,o· r 6(1 lllfllfl~ 61 II l'!I' ') n• f ,1 11 ••' 5 ~ l~ ' • U N0IH~ 6• 1110• oo oo• E •~ s ,o· 1)(1 oo • r U, ,0111~ P ,n, II 110•11~ U II 45' 5t· 00' [ 7C 11,r 41 )0' ( 11 111 lr-S1 Jo· E n II Pl' '9 )0' £ 1, 11 1i• )9 l0" f 11 II n,• ~I )0" ( 75 II U' z• 00' ( 1, \ 0' Gl ('l('I' ! 77 11 ... l6 0(1' ( ,, 11 o• o, oc.· , 19 fUl Ir S01 1 h t• liS' 11 II )I" l) 41' • I} II st• l? 17· l 14 II I I' ~' 08 ' ! ts 11!'. fl, S"C'" • • \ ,,.. 1' )7' r ,uz,, Ill H' n• 1, 11,.,. zu 17 HO OJ· ,, •. ,, )711• lll 50 ,,, 00 413 le' ,zeoo 27~ 18 3412 7(1 ?1517C 510"1 21~ t I '95 t t~ OC' 20~ 4 '!I 114 ., 43:' l• 1751 ti C1 UH•• 7 115 t 1041 10~ 3S 1'!174 t7 ue ,, 71751 '11 B 1,1,0 7" ,;-11 )21 10 ,1.1,, n 21•0 ,..,., 141116 115702 14) 17 Jl50 t(' 1,u t~ 111• o• Ill S tt• ,,·[ n S lS' 45 E ,o S 63' JO oo· E tl $ 10" )I 13' [ ,z II 11' '!17 7'' [ U II I' OZ )I'' It II It' $7' l'' E n , 11• ,., o.· , n s ,. ~, oo· , t? S !" ll 00' ( H S l1'' 41 041' ( H S 7" 54 oo· £ 100 , u~ 5'" oe· , 101 I T~• H oo• t 101 s 44•" oo·, tOl S 40' ll oo· t 104 SH• )I O<I' t 10! I 5' U ot• t 10. S ll• 0 I Of\' ( 101 s 1,• D oo· C IOI S ,t• 4' 00'' 10, s 43• r • oo• , I 10 S t• ~, Of\' I I 11 $ ~·· ]I oo· I i 1t s Jt• ~o oo· , I I!, S )" 00 00' l l 14 S I' 11 00' f 11, ICSl':ltL' / :, ~ 18: g~ ::: i 111 S 71• ~, 51' t r ! ,---1 --·•"····· ... ·1..;__ ~-~ --r-· • -\ I \ ;;:~.}·~;. rLU ···1·· : I i -C. _ lc:=1.~-...~/ r·r ; : __ l~. ---:-.-•--r··=-~...,__ .. ,..., "' 2 ~ ~ ~l 2t, l• I 6J 7 }" t 2•'J~ 51 "° ,.~ 8!, ,,f, 6f 5~l 00 l'JI 80" n~ ~o •7500 l7', 00 zofi ~o 2% 00' 1,., ,o It 50 ,•, 00 596 50' 5~0 01) 51100 •z, oo 11: 00 Z?d 00 IO~ 50. 4000 1 ,~ oo· , 92' t 21' II 267 36 J02t Jo· MOORPARK. 2000 1000 0 2(H)() 4000 ·-·-·· SCA:E 2000 INCORPORATION BEING A PORTION OF THE COUNTY OF VENTURA. STATE OF CALIFORNIA -1 -y-·~J" L k I -N- ~ l -J I I, 1 ,- a: I- 0 C/ ) LL -t II . I z :: c I- -t :: > .. J a. 0 C/ ) ~ I a: -t < a. -- a: :. r , 0 w c (/ ) z 0 :: , ~ 0 z - <! __ J I ' a 0 J; - C: t z '- - \ ,u , , ,, \ : 1 {' - , - · _' z_ : f \; - - · · - / /W , ~ o. \_ \J 0, \ \ I I I • • • • I • s SAGE ~flST~TLITE ~flC. 2835 Townsgate Road, Suite 208, Westlake Village, CA 91361 (818) 991-0646 and (805) 497-8557 March 16, 1988 Honorable Mayor Lane City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mayor Lane; On behalf of the Moorpark Unified Sc~ool District, I wish to respectfully correct the "Notice of Continued Public Hearing" for March 19, 1988. As submitted per prior correspondence and as stated in public testimony, the Moorpark Unified School District is seeking a "mixed use" designation which could include public lands, roads, etc., as part of the use for the site, in addition to the commercial, light industrial and residential land use opportunities sought as designations for the School District as stated in the Cities Notice for Property #18. The Councils continued consideration of this most important economic/educational matter to the District is very much appreciated. The District once again requests the Council to include the Districts property as one of the sites selected to be studied by the City. SAGE INSTITUTE, INC. cc: Moorpark USD Board of Education Mike Slater, Superintendent Tom Duffy, Assistant Superintendent Steve Kueny, City Manager February 27, 1988 Mr. Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA. 93021 SUBJECT: Land Use Change Dear Mr. Richards, James H. Scaroni Lynnette Scaroni 5740 W. Greentree Somis, CA. 93066 Dr r/iS~ 1 -1988 CITY OF MGORPAR\.{ Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the March 2nd, 1988 City Council Meeting and Public Hearing concerning updating Moorpark's General Plan. I have postponed a business trip for the last two weeks so that I could attend and speak at the originally scheduled Public Hearings and I just could not postpone my trip any longer. Therefore, I would like to submit this letter to you and the City Council, which briefly covers my points of view on the subject, and ask that it be included in the minutes of that meeting. 1) My wife and I own approximately 2 acres of property on the north-east corner of Everett st. and Walr,ut Canyon. We have had a request into the City of Moorpark asking for a zone change on this property dating back to November 6, 1985. Our original intentions were to build a Garden Style Apartment Complex on the property, so we requested that the zoning be changed to Very High Den;;;i t.y R2::::-: :i_,:::c-::ti3.l f',,.'"'..,., T.n~.-.r nPns i tv Residential. During the long delay in addressing this zoning change request, the City of Moorpark has changed substantially. Three years ago, we felt that Moorpark could use a nice apartment complex centrally located to the downtown area. Since then, a number of apartments and condominiums have been constructed in the vicinity. As a result of this, we feel that Moorpark may not be able to fully support additional units, so, we recently changed our request for a zoning change to Commercial Office. Our plans now would be to construct an upscale office building designed to accommodate businesses requiring downtown access and close proximity to the city government center. Letter to City Council Page 2 February 27, 1988 2) We support a slow and controlled growth plan and can only hope that the City of Moorpark is successful in adapting and maintaining this policy. Failing to consider and act upon any land use change requests for the last three years, however, is detrimental to the city. Change is inevitable and it should be continually addressed. 3) I understand that there are 16 requests for land use amendments submitted to the City. The acreage involved in these requests range from 1,275 acres down to 1.75 acres (our property is the 1. 75 acre property). The impact to the City and its residents is much greater with the large parcels and more consideration should be given to them. It seems that so far, these 16 requests have been treated as a "lot" and if one is approved they all will be approved. These requests should be addressed individually, not all together. To be fair to all involved, I recommend that each request be addressed in the order in which the original request was received by the City. 4) It should be noted that in the original draft of the Moorpark Downtown Plan, dated 11/23/87 and submitted to the Planning Commission on 11/30/87, it recommends that 3 out of 4 of our parcels be zoned commercial/residential (Page IV-2). The Planning Center was not aware that a single owner owned all four parcels, and when informed at that meeting, a Planning Center representative stated that the fourth parcel should be included with the other three. We can only hope that our requests for this zoning change is granted, or at least seriously considered. If the city feels that Garden Style Apartments would be more beneficial to the city versus a small office building in this location, then we will certainly reconsider that. I can assure you our complete cooperation on this matter and I also can assure you a project that the ·city of Moorpark will be proud of. We look forward to working with you in the future. ncerely\~urs, ~\-\.h~ mes H.Scaroni Lynnette Scaroni •• • I- I ' I -- - ~ - ~ - ., . . . - 1 ~ ., . I ,, , - • -e r .3 .. ;, · a • .. \ ,, I I I +- - - - - - \I \ 0 .. . l - -- -- - ---- --,, _ __ _ _ _ _ __ ., , , ' Ql j NA ) ~, , - - ~ S . , , . 3 ~ ' " " 1 ' " " ~ " " " D I I - I f: I l; I 3' -- - - - - - - - - - ~ , - - - - - - - : a: : i 11 1 1 I I Qi j I I I _; : ,, I ... , I I I I , __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \ ITEM q,~. rh-4~ rLA._ ~ I ~/~ C&;ru-~l ctl1 3 F, ~ ~/~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ./ {!_,~ -I:ECi:.IVk:": - 7'~o~I 'ITEM_9_,_e_,_, _ MOORPARK COliliUNITY PLAN \ LAND USE ELEMENT , OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN Prepared by Ventura County Resource Management Agency Planning Division Adopted by the City Council of Moorpark on November 2, 1983 , I ) I ... "Moo.rpark is. a [community] which has progressed slowly, It takes time to bulld a [communrty]; plenty of work, patience and mistakes along the way. Each generation leaves a bit of itself as a memento. All generations have a texture, and when woven together, leave a distinct pattern. o( living. This is true of Moorpark •iv hose heritage and strength lie in its grass roots. Today's gener3tion is still weaving another texture. With respect for the past, the citizens of Moorpark accept the challenge of building for the future. 11 Norma Gunter, The Moorpark Story '-' - MOORPARICCITY COUNCIL Leta Yancy-Sutton Albert Prieto Roger Beaulieu Clinton 1Tarper Jerry Straughan Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember MOORPARK PLANNING COIB1ISSION James Hartley Doris Miller Suzanne Prieto Thomas Schleve James Weak ERRATA SHEET Chairperson Vice-Chair Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner In terms of implementing this plan all ·references to Ventura County, its administration and processes, should be deleted and replaced with the following_ wording with the exception of information provided for historical purpose. Current Wording Ventura County Zoning Ordinance Boprd of Supervisors Ventura County General Plan Ventura County Circulation Element RV:rK294 i; City City City City Update Wording of Moorpark Zoning Ordinance Council of Moorpark General Plan of Moorpark Circulation Element ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Moorpark Community Plan is the product of a coordinated effort by the Planning staff and the Moorpark Citizen Advisory Committee (MCAC). Acknowledgement and gratitude are extended in particular to the following members of the MCAC who have given generously of their time and effort in the formulation of the study goals and recommendations: . . Glen Schmidt, Chairman Bob Baxter Roger Boedecker Charlotte Ekback Sue Felt Clint Harper Jim Hartley Margaret Kirnig John Newton Al Prieto Max Yeates • Acknowledgement is also extenrled to i!ldividu3!S from various departments and go,1ernmenta! 2genc!es v'lho contributed h~avily to th:s John Turner Hienz Ribbi Joe Mahoney Jan Bush Bill Haydon Bob Perrault Terry Gilday Public Works Agency, Hydrology Public Works Agency, Roads Pul;>lic Works Agency, Roads Director, Air Pollution Control District Public Works Agency, Flood Control Public Social Services Agency Environmental Health Division County study: Spec:i.al appreciation is also. extended to Lee Lumbert for administrative support, Heather Tiffany for secretarial assistance, Jim Rice for artwork, and to the Graphics Section and the Word Processing Center for the time and energy they put into this Plan. ii i lo TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION History of the Study 1. 2. 3. 4. Planning Process Background Methodology Relationship to Other Plans B. ISSUES, GOALS, POLICIES C. LAND USE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Residential Circulation Commercial Commercial industrial Mix Industrial . Agriculture Open Space Growth/Nongrowth Areas . D. ENERGY CONSERVATION, BICYCLE PATHS, EQUESTRIAN TRAILS E. IMPLEMENTATION F. -_FOOTNOTES G. BOARD RESOLUTION 1. Land Use Map . 2. Open Space Plan 3. Growth Area Boundary LIST OF MAPS 4. Commercial-Industrial Mix Proposed Land Use. Sa. Proposed Bike Paths Sb. Proposed Equestrian Trails iv f\ 1 1 2 2 4 12 37 39 41 41 42 114 44 46 49 51 55 59 60 Attached 9 11 43 54 56 .. 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. LIST OF TABLES Work Program . Residential Land Use Designations Implementation Procedures for Residential Development Projects Open Space Categories and Components Growth Area Land Uses Growth Area Projected Population to the Year 2000 Non-Growth Projected Population to the Year 2000 . Land Use Designations Zoning Compatibility Matrix V 5 39 40 46 49 so so 51 57 ... MOORPARK COMMUNITY PLAN A. I NT RODUCT ION California Planning Law requires the preparation of a general plan including various elements which must be consistent with one another and which are intended to provide guidance for comprehensive and long-range community decision-making. The purpose of the Moorpark Community Plan is to develop a land use element which will be part of the Ventura County General PJan and will be a guide to the development of the Moorpark area through the year 2000, using the Moorpark Sphere of Interest boundaries as the planning area. The Plan also modifies the existing Open Space and Conservation and Circulation Elements of the Countywide General Plan. Further, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the prepar~tion of an Environmental Impact Report ( El R) for· generat plans. The Guidelines for lmpiemer1tation of CEQA aliow • for the requirements of an E i R for a general plan to be satisfied by . the plcm itseif, providing: (1) All the points required to be in an EIR are· addressed, and (2) all EIR elements are clearly identified in the plan. The Moorpark Community Plan integrates both the Plan and the El R. As such, the Plan provides policy direction for planning and implementation and identifies potential impacts resulting from the Plan. The integration of the Plan and the El R comb.ines the technical background·. information, analysis of impacts, goals and policies and the land use map. • Thus , duplication is avoided, and a complete information document ,s provided. 1. HISTORY OF THE STUDY In November, 1978, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors authorized the review and update of the existing Moorpark Community Plan. Land use was considered to be at .a critical point in the community, since development proposals at • that time could have generated population in excess of available services. The Moorpark Citizens Advisory Committee (MCAC) was appointed by Supervisor Jim Dougherty. Ten members were selected at large from the Moorpark Community, the eleventh member represented Moorpark College. The MCAC met a minimum of once each week from January through June, 1979. Additional meetings were scheduled as the workload dictated. Each meeting was open to the public and the community 1 V 14 was encouraged to address the committee at any time. Public notices were sent by Supervisor Dougherty's office at the beginning of the process as a first step to inform property owners that the existing Plan was being reviewed and updated. After the preliminary Land Use Map was completed, five weeks of public testimony were held. Property owners and their representatives spoke to, and made recommendations regarding, iand uses in the Moorpark Sphere. 2. PLANNING PROCESS BACKGROUND Development of the Moorpark Community Plan required the joint effort of the MCAC, the County Planning Division, and various other County Departments and resource persons. Moorpark Citizen Advisory Committee The MCAC reviewed d;:ita pertinent to environmental co:1straints in the community; identified the needs of the area and translated those needs into broadly stated goals; established policies designed to insure those goals; reviewed existing land use and developed the final lar)d use _map. Pl-3nning Division The Planning Division was responsible for design, development and preparation of the Plan, closely following the recommendations of the MCAC. The role of Planning Staff was to assemble the data base, provide planning tools, suggest methodology, coordinate the efforts of other departments and groups for use by the MCAC and to synthesize the direction into the Plan. County Staff Staff personnel from Divisions other than Planning were beneficial in the presentation of data. The MCAC met with representatives to discuss pertinent issues including but not limited to, air quality, aquifer recharge areas, fire, land management, traffic and social needs. Professional Resource In addition to County staff, the MCAC met with experts in the areas of schools, soil conservation and agriculture. 3. METHODOLOGY The planning process can be divided into several phases, (1) identification of problems and issues, (2) formation of objectives and policies, (3) data collection, analysis and interpretation (4) Plan formulation, and (5) Plan implementation. The sequence often varies and feedback among the phases is generally continuous. 2 .. .. The process involves structuring the organization, identifying a broad philosophical approach, and-developing the strategy to be used. The MCAC adopted a systematic approach which recognized and identified natural and human-made forces within the community and the inter-relationship of both. Fol lowing is the methodology used to formulate the Moorpark Community Plan. The study area to be included in the Plan is that area, approximately 28,000 acres in size, which represents the Moorpark Sphere of Interest as defined by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Data Data Gatherin'g -Collection of information on the natural and human-made systems within the planning area. A.nalysis -Review of the data and identification of problems. Goals -Identification of needs and development of goals. Land Use Analysis -Review of existing land. use and the identification of alternative land uses to achieve the prescribed go2ls. Implementation -Identification of program strategies necessary to implement the Plan. General Planning Process • Analysis Identification Formulation Gathering -of --, of .. - . . Goals Policies - Land Use Comprehensive Plan '---r Deliberations . with Implementation Strategies The research and analysis phases required the use of several planning tools. 3 " . . \.J Environmental factors, whether they encouraged or discouraged urban expansion were inventoried and mapped to identify existing constraints located within the planning area. Among those were natural features including slope, soils, fire hazards; seismicity, and flood plains. Human-made factors such as public facilities, zoning, existing land use, cumulative development activity and the existence of agricultural contracts were also studied. The analysis of natural and human-made conditions provided a guide toward the suitability of areas for potential urban development. Concurrent in the planning process was the identification of issues and goals and the establishing of policies designed to meet those goals. The MCAC was instrumental in this phase, •since goals are a direct reflection of community values. From goal identification the process is able to move forward, translating the goals into a Plan which strives toward meeting community needs. Land: use analysis involves the systematic evaluation of accepted limits of social and economic requirements as established by the community, as well as the recognition of existing physical constraints. Severai steps deliberations. were necessary They included: in order· Identification and definition of boundaries (defined as that development to the year 2000). to complete-the land the urban growth area most suited use area for Identification of those areas which would be preserved for open space or agricultural uses. Identification of weaknesses in circulation patterns. Identification of spatial needs based on community attitudes toward urban density. Identification of the future characteristics and needs of the community, i.e. shopping, employment. From the applicaton of these concerns a pattern of land uses emerged which best depicted the future development needs of the community. Following and shown as Table 1, is the Work Program adopted by the MCAC. 4 Due Date 12/15/78 V1 , TABLE MOORPARK COMMUNITY PLAN WORK PROGRAM Data Collection Citizen Committee Due Date ( Establish Citizen Committee) 12/22/78 12/22/78 ', 12/22/79 " 12/22/78 12/22/78 12/22/78 ,. 12/22/78 . 12/22/78 •• ', Staff Define study area boundaries. Prepare land use survey. Examine existing development using survey, in form a lion from previous area plan, Regional Land Use Program, (RLUP). Analyze, co-ordinate environmental data using R LU P information I previous area plan and various General Pi~n Elements. Examine circulation systems; coordinate with revised circulation element', Public Works Agency and RLUP data. Examine existing public service levels and capacity levels using RLUP data, previous area plan, and various General Plan elements. Examine economic factors and trends, i nciuding land consumption, economic activities, economic specialization, and the economic condition of the population. Prepare background report for Citizen Committee, integrating data and previously udopted General Plan Policies. --..:, Due Date 1/4/79 0\ 2/7/79 2/14/79 2/28/79 3/7 /79 3/14/79 TABLE I• -WORK PROGRAM (CONT.) ~ Citi7.en Committee Select Chairperson. Discuss plc1nnlng process. Review bac~<- ground report, Establish Committee procedures. Review Work Program. Examine background report. Due Date Pollc.Y, Formation Establish issues Establish goals Establish Policies. Begin review of Land Use. Continue Review of Land Use. Examine grow th pattern, include interrelationships of economic, soclal and environmental goals and objections. Prioritize land uses 1/31/79 2/7/79 2/21/79 2//28/79 3/7/79 3/14/79 Sta ff Prepare suggested Issues using previous area plan, and RLUP di3ta. Prepare suggested goals, using issues established by Committee and previous area plan. Prepare ·suggested policies, using goals established by Committee, previous area plan, and RLUP data. Prepare policy plan. Coordinate growth patterns with selected policiE;s. Begin prepc1ration of preliminary map for land use alternative. a; C '1 Due Date 6/13/79 6/20/79 6/27 /79 7 /30/79 8/10/79- 9/6/79 9/27/79 & 9/28/79 10/8/79 & 10/9/79 TABLE I -WORK PROGRAM (~ONT.) Citizen Committee Reflne land use altern-atlve Review for flnal map Review potential Implementation strategies; recommend alternatives. Review Revised Plan Governmental and Public Review of Plan Planning. Commission Hearln_gs Board. of _.Supervisors. Hearings Due Date 6/13/79 . 6//20/79 6/20/79..., 8/1/79 Sta ff Continue rnap preparation Final map detail Prepare possible imp I em en tciti on strategies. Prepare Revised Plan ~ 4. RELATIONSHIP OF THE MOORPARK COMMUNITY-PLAN TO OTHER COUNTYWIDE PLANS AND POLICIES All elements of a general plan must be consistent with one another and should be consistent with all plans or policy statements which have been adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Moorpark Community Plan will serve as the Land Use Element of the Ventura County General Plan ( see Map 1, Moorpark Area Plan). ,he Land Use Element acts as a guide for all discussions related to land use within the Moorpark Sphere of Interest, and according to the Government Code, must be consistent with all ~xisting elements. In areas where inconsistencies exist, this Plan will act as an amendment to the existing elements. Circulation Element The Moorpark Community Plan is intended to amend the Circulation Element of the Countywide General Plan. Following· are the revisions: Add: Los Angeles Avenue (#118j shall be extended as a six lane highway from the terminus of #118 an9 the Route 23 freeway across the Arroyo Simi, north and east to a terminus with the proposed Collins Avenue; and It is further strongly recommended that the following proposals be adopted: a. The Area of Benefit proposed by the Public Works Agency for improvements· to Los Angeles Avenue between Moorpark Road and the Simi Valley Freeway. b. The proposed connection between the Simi Valley Freeway and the Route 23 Freeway, to be constructed on State rights-of-way. Open Space and Conservation Element The Moorpark Community Plan is designed to amend the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Countywide General Plan. The revised Open Space boundaries are shown on Map 2, Open Space Plan Amendment Map. 208 Areawide Waste Water Mana ement Plan/ Air Qua lit Management Plan ( AQMP Regional goals and policies included the in 11 208 11 Areawide Waste Water Management Plan (11 208 11 Plan) and Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). were reviewed by the Citizen Committee and where applicable, have been incorporated in this Plan. 8 G OPEN SPACE MAP 2 OPEN SPACE PLAN AMENDMENT MOORPARK AREA VENTURA COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING DIVISION 197 9 0 ZI The population adopted in both the 11 208 11 Plan and the AQMP is 24,000 in the growth area -and 100 in the non-growth area, for a total population within the Moorpark Sphere of 24,100 by the year 2000. The population generated in the proposed Moorpark Community Plan is approximately 29,100 in the growth area, and 650 in the non-growth area for a total population of approximately 29,750. The adoption of an ordinance by the Board of Supervisors to implement the projected 24,100 population figure incorporated in both the 11 20S 11 Plan and the AQMP would insure the consistency of this document with both of those adopted Plans. The 11 208 11 Plan has established population limits i.t five-year increments to the year 2000, and the AQMP has set population by one year increments to the year 2000. Modifications have been made to the growth area boundaries as adop_ted in the 11 208 11 Plan. The 11 208 11 Plan provides for revisions to the growth area boundary provided the revision does not result in a population higher than that adopted in the 11 208" Plan. However, the revised growth area, as identified in the Moorpark Community Plan, does generate population in excess of that incorporated in the 11 208 11 Plan and AQM-P. Map 3 identifies the proposed growth area boundary_. Housing Elt::mer ,t A Countywide Housing Element update is scheduled for completion in 1980.-One of the purposes of the Housing Element will be· to identify housing needs for persons of all socio-economic levels within the County. Various factors wil I be evaluated to determine the needs of the low and moderate income persons. Within the Moorpark Community, Section 8, Rental Assistance ~rograms are presently available to eligible families who are in the low ·,. ,_ and moderate income brackets. A forty-four unit apartment complex has recently been completed, 40% of which will be occupied by families receiving rental assistance. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has designed a Regional Housing Allocation Model which can be used by local jurisdictions to identify housing needs within the c~mmunity and may be used in the update of the Housing Element. The "fair share11 model incorporates equitablity and suitability criteria which includes: 1. Employment proximity. 2. Ability to provide public services and facilities in support of housing. 3. Subregional income distribution. 4. Expected growth within Ihe community. The 11 fair share allocation" identifies households who do not now live in the community, but who should be given an opportunity to live there, according to adopted regional goals and policies, as well as state and federal policies and guidelines. 10 NON-GROWTH AREA .~----:-----:--- {, :<i: J::>q--p~_, ... · l _ ; . ~-• /~-~~/ . • .. .,;: '.·... ; ~ ,-. . . --- MAP 5 ,,-'>-:::-.:::. ·E:==-=-, • , MOORPARK GROWTH AREA ---GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY ____ .... VENTURA COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING DIVISION 11 i3 I 197 9 B. ISSUES, GOALS AND POLICIES The identification of issues and goals and the subsequent formulation of policies are critical steps in the general plan process. The first recognition of issues which deal with future growth and development serves to increase an awareness of the dynam_ics which exist within the community. From the identification of issues, goals are written which encompass community intent and state a general overall philosophy for program guidance. The formulation of policies 1s a final step and guides in the preparation of the final Plan. The MCAC spent several weeks identifying issues, writing goals and formulating policies. Initially, examples of goals and polici2s were extracted from existing plans and were provided by staff to the full Committee for review. In the identification and review procedure, Committee members were asked to pose the fol_lowing questjons: 1. 2. 3. • 4. What does this statement mean to me? If it is an issue, is it a real issue, can this Committee be expected to deal with it, is it specific enough or can it be stated better? If it is a goal, is it what would like to see for the Moorpark Community, is it working toward solving the issues, can it be reasonably expected to be met over the anticipated life of the Plan? If it is a policy, again reasonably be implemented is it economically feasible? is it working toward the goal, can it over the life of the Plan, is it realistic and 5. Do some of the statements conflict with others? A subcommittee further identified and refined areas of community concern. The following issues, . goals and policies were adopted for use in the development of the Plan. They have been organized by the nature of the topic with which they deal. As previously indicated, the Regional Goals and Policies adopted as a part of the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan were used in the development of these community goals. URBJ\N FORM Issues Issue 1 Should Moorpark encourage revitalization and rehabilitation of deteriorating areas? 12 Issue. 2 Issue 3 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Policies· Policy 1 Should Moorpark promote a well balanced compatible mix of industrial, commerciaf and residential development? If yes, what constitutes a well balanced compatible mix? Should Moorpark avoid "urban sprawl" development patterns? If yes, how? To promote planned, well ordered and efficient urban development patterns. To promote the establishment of reasonable urban boundaries. To promote revitalization and rehabilitation of residential, commercial cind industrial cJrea~ -.vhere compatible with surrounding land use. To provide .a strong urban core in Moorpark. deteriorating desirable and Confine urban development in or • adjacent to existing urban areas; maintain open• space between urban areas; integrate residential, commercial, and industrial uses to achieve balanced communities; discourage outward expansion of development when suitable developable areas exist within the service areas. Policy 2 Development in Moorpark shall be concentrated around a strong urban core. ~olicy 3 Promote methods of revitalizing and rehabilitating deteriorating areas. Policy 4 Direct urban development to e·xisting agricultural land when future agricultural use is severely limited by economic factor·s and where conversion would complete a logical and viable neighborhood. Policy 5 To promote the integration of architecturally sensitive design· facilities and types of land uses. environmentally oriented into the development of and a 11 Policy 6 To encourage the adequate consideration of social, physical and economic impacts prior to the determination of the suitability and appropriateness of all types of land use development within the core area. Policy 7 To foster a sense of community identity through the continuity of a central design theme. Policy 8 To encourage the enhancement of community appearance in the urban areas through beautification efforts and the preservation of aesthetic resources. 13 ~ ' • POPULATION AND URBAN GROWTH Issue Issue 1 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Policies Policy 1 Should Moorpark attempt to direct population and urban growth for the community? To properly direct population and urban growth for Moorpark. To protect the environment by providing for only that amount of orderly growth which will insure an adequate quality of life. (Meet the needs of Moorpark residents) Establish a projected and compatible urban population figure based on well balanced development using current trend data. Policy ·2 Establish appropriate phasing guidelines which take into <'lccount the capacity of existing and proposed support facilities, such as roads, schools, sewers; and which will prevent over-development of any one area. AGRICULTURE Issue Zo !ssue 1 Shoufd Moorpark promote the preservation and continuation of· agriculture as a viable economic base and as productive open space? Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 To preserve and enhance the visual and economic agricultural resources of the Moorpark area. To protect and encourage the development of appropriate lands and to discourage the unnecessary elimination of agriculture stimulated by excessive taxation associated with urban sprawl. To protect and encourage the development of the physical, social and economic resources upon which agriculture is based. To encourage the agricultural land use Community Plan. identification of varying densities of consistent with the goals of the Moorpark To encourage agriculture development consistent with the Open Space Element of the Ventura County General Plan. 14 Goal 5 Goal 7 Gcal 8 Policies To discourage tract d~velopment in agriculural areas. To encourage the importation of water and the preservation of water resources, including reclamation, for the purposes of continued use of agricultural land. To preserve agriculture as a viabie economic activity and as productive open space. Policy 1 Direct urban development to available nonagricultural lands rather than to any ,prime agricultural or presently productive agricultural lands and prevent conversion of prime agricultural land except where two or more of the fol!owing factors ar·e present: future agricultur2I use is severely limited by economic factors, conflicts with u,-ban uses, and where conversion would complete a !ogica! and viable neighborhood_ Policy 2 Land outside the existing urban area which is in agricultural use -or can be proven to have agricultural poteriti.JI, sriculd be p·reserved and encour3ged as ag ricultura: land or open space. --- Policy 3 Land uses incompatible with agriculture and agricultural uses Policy 4 Policy 5 Policy 6 that create grading, fire, or general health problems, should be prohibited within agricultural areas. Compatible uses are those listed in appropriate agricultural zones of the Ventura County Ordinance Code. Special case by case consideration should ·be given to land·· currently in agricultural u_se or with agricultural potential when·. adjacent to developed areas to determine_ appropriate Ian~ uses. Agricultural development should be -limited by the 11 safe annual _ yield" • of the water. supply, as determined _by future -data ba_sed on the seven-year drought cycle. • • Special economic programs that Land Conservation Act, should aid agriculture, such as the be preserved and promoted. RESIDENTIAL Issue Issue 1 Goals Goal 1 Should Moorpark attempt to provide economically and socially diversified neighborhoods? To provide for all residents of Moorpark a safe, healthy, stable and pleasant living environment with economically and socially diversified residential neighborhoods. 15 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Policies Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 To discourage urban sprawl and scattered urban development. To provide residential developments with properly planned and adequate services and facilities. To discourage urban development in mountainous areas. Residential land use policies should not inhibit the freedom of travel between residents of fv1oorpark and adjacent communities. Encourage a variety of housing densities and -varying densities within developments. Establish a phasing plan which will prevent scattered urban development and will provide for orderly growth. Designate mountainous areas as rural or open space. Encourage residential development with properly planned and adequate public services. Policy 5 To provide for a variety of land uses which complement adjacent communities in eastern Ventura County. Policy 6 To provide a range of residential densities which will ensure a variety of housing types to the residents of Moorpark. P«?licy 7 To ensure that the location of residential land uses provides a harmonious relationship between adjoining uses, natural features and the total environment. Policy 8 New residential development should standards and maintain the character standards include open space, off-street parking,· architectural surroundings, and others. incorporate good design of the community. Design landscaping, circulation, compatibility with the Policy 9 Residential land use policies should not inhibit the freedom of travel between residents of Moorpark and adjacent communities. COMMERCIAL Issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Should shopping facilities be located in convenient proximities to residential areas? Can this be accomplished without creating excessive adverse impacts on traffic and the environment? 16 Z8 Issue. 3 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4' Goal 5 Goal -6 • Policies If so, what intensity of shopping facility commercial developm~-~t Z, is appropriate in the vicinity of residential neighborhoods aJitj should appropriate buffer areas be created between residential and commercial activities? To provide for commercial facilities which respect and encourage ( 1) convenience to customer, (2) harmony with existing and future land uses, (3) equity to adjacent property owners, (4) use of future public transportation, (5) reduction of vehicle miles travelled. To concentrate discourage them · traffic arterials. business facilities in compact areas and in linear strings along major and secondary To provide for freeway oriented comme.rcial facilities located <1t appropriate.: freeway interchanges which efficiently serve the needs of the travelling public. To provide for maximum commercial facilities with convenience. visual, and emphasis_ on functional design of customer sr1fety and To provide for shopping centers which will provide a variety and quantity of goods and which will be in an appropriate location and have appropriate access to major roads. To provide neighborhood convenience centers in decentralized· suburban areas. Policy 1 Necessary service and retail establishments not c·urrently located in the community should be encouraged to locate there·, providing community make up_ or market data indicates a need. Policy 2 New commercial development should incorporate good design Policy 3 standards. Design standards include lc:J_ndscaping, circulation, off-street parking, architectural compatibility with the surroundings, and others. New strip comrr.ercial development should be discouraged: existing strip commercial development should be encouraged to consolidate driveways, provide adequate parking areas and landscaped areas. To encourage commercial architectural style with areas. developments to adopt a appropriate landscaping harmonious and buffer Policy 4 To provide for a range of commercial facilities which serve the residents of the community and encourage new employment opportunities. 17 Policy 5 To provide adequate and appropriate traffic movement on -3o adjoining arterials with relation to location· of commercial uses. INDUSTRIAL Issues l ssue 1 Issue 2 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Policies Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Recognizing the constraints involving the development of leased property and issues of environmental, visual and urban form compatibility, should Moorpark promote the development of rail road property, industrially, within the Moorpark Sphere of Interest. Are industrial parks impacts on residential sprawl? an effective way development and of minimizing adverse discouraging industrial To encourage the orderly development of industrial land uses in well_planned large tracts closely reli'lted to tra:.sportation 2nd other functional serv!ces. To provide an adequate . supply of land for a diversity of industrial uses located to provide site qualities and facilities that will meet the requirements of those industries, and will require the use of community skills. To minimize air, water, visual, and noise poi iution by industrial uses. To protect industrial uses from the intrusion of incompatible types of land uses. To provide for maximum railroad related industrial land use in order to derive maximum benefit from the Southern Pacific Railroad transportation system. To discourage strip industrial land use. Encourage industrial land to accomodate present and future needs. To encourage architechtural areas. industrial style with development appropriate to adopt a landscaping harmonious and buffer Encourage railroad related industrial uses and environmentally feasible and desirable where economically by the communtiy. 18 Policy 4 Industrial land should be encouraged in compact areas in convenient proximity ·to transportation modes. Policy 5 In order industrial to discourage strip industrial development, facilities should be in the forrn of industr:ill future porks. Pol!cy 6 To estab!ish sites ior appropriate industricd uses :n iocdt.ions which are harmonious with adjoining land uses, ;:ind which do not degrade the general physical environment of Moorpark. Policy 7 To allocate appropricJte c1mounts of industric1I land use 1n accordance with the necessary demand for such activities and to encourage the provision of employment opportunities for area residents. WATER RESOURCES A.ND QUt''>..LITY Issue Issue 1 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal -3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Policies Should Moorpark attempt to protect water resources and quality? To protect the community's water -resources for the use and enjoyment of the present and future residents. To restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the surface and groundwater resources. To promote water conservation. To provide adequate water of a quality which at the minimum conforms to or surpasses State and Federal standards. To insure and preserve the water quality of lakes, rivers, aquifers, and other waters affecting the Moorpark Sphere. • Policy 1 Prevent or discourage new agricultural .and urban development which degrade groundwater from location on aquifer recharge areas. Treat or contain runoff which has substantial amounts of pollutants or contaminants at the source where feasible, encourage land use design which will capture water for groundwater recharge and maintaining aquifer recharge areas. Policy 2 To encourage the development and implementation of best management systems, stressing application of bio 1ogical and cultural pest control techniques with selective pesticides when necessary to achieve acceptable levels of control with the least possible harm to non-target organisms and the environment. 19 Policy 3 New oil activity of any kind should not affect the quality 'or quantity of the present water supply so. as to pollute or to prevent the domestic or agricultural use of the water supply_ Policy 4 New construction in c.Jquifer encouraged to connect to sewers. recharge should be Policy 5 Discourage development of homes and/or ihdustry h'hich represent a potential dzinger to the quality of lc1kes, rivers, aquifers, and other waters affecting the Moorpzirk sphere. NATURAL RESOURCES Issue Issue 1 Goals Gc~I 1. Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Policies Poli½y 1 .Should Moorpai-k pr·ovide for the prese:-vation oi natural resources? If so, how? To pres2rve r2so~ . .irc2s hziving educational, :;c;en1:.if;c, ~cer1ic, recreational or social vaiue. To maintain significant plant and animal communities. To enhance the natural renewal of air and water resources. To maintain options for future use. To attain the widest range of beneficial uses of environment without degradation, risk to health of safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences. To promote the efficient, economical, environmentally sound and equitable use of resources. To insure that the long range public interest is assured in the development and use of sand and gravel resources in Moorpark by providing for the protection of surface and subsurface water resources_ Limit development on sand, gravel and oil areas to uses compatible with resource development. Policy 2 Limit development in scenic, significant or fragile habitats, watersheds and historical and cultural areas. Policy 3 Encourage the preservation of natural resources having educational, scientific scenic, recreational or social value_ 20 PolicY. 4 Discourage the production of sand and gravel operations which endanger surface and subsurface production. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT /HAZARD AREAS Issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Goals Goal 1 Goal c Policies Should Moorpark encourage hillside preservation? Should Moorpark discourage the location of development 1n natural or human-made hazards? Should criteria be established for assessing the urban suitability relative to development? To discourage the location of development 1n natural and human-made hazard areas. To prov;de for the protection of hillsides and ·ridgeline areas w:th:n th2 Mocrpark Sphere, with due consideratior, to minimizing visual and environmental impacts. Policy 1 Development should be strongly discouraged on areas of natural or human-made hazards or on hillsides above 20 percent slope or on ridgeiines, or in hazard areas where hazards cannot .be mitigated without significant adverse environmental effects and where public expenditures for mitigating would not be cost effective. Policy 2 Flood plains, fire hazard areas, landslide areas, potentially active faults, and areas with high liquefaction potential should be placed in an open space designation on the plan or development in these areas should be adequately protected from these hazards. AIR QUALITY Issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Goals Goal 1 Should Moorpark attempt to promote a level of air quality which meets State and Federal primary and secondary standards? If yes, how? If no, what levels of air quality should Moorpark pursue? To promote a level of air quality which health, safety and welfare and meets or Federal primary and secondary standards. 21 protects the public surpasses state and 33 Goal 2 Policies Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 To improve and protect the quality of air in the Oxnard to Simi Valley air corridor. Patterns of development should be encouraged which will enhance air quality. Feasible methods of relieving traffic congestion should be promoted. Programs to improve air quality ,n the community should be promoted. Policy 4 Oil development and other industrial development should be monitored and controlled and conditions imposed so as to move tcward State ar.d r:ederai mandc:JtecJ air quality standards. Policy 5 Bike lanes,.: bicycle parking programs, energy efficient solar water heating, solar space heating systems, and home delivery ser'Jjce programs should be encouraged. EDUCATION Issue Issue 1 Goals ·Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Should quality of the Moorpark promote, maintain and assure a continued education for its population as a revised land use element Moorpa_rk Community Plan is implemented? If yes, how? To meet the educational people of Moorpark by educational facilities. needs, desires providing high and potentials of the quality education and To. provide for adequate facilities appropriately associated with other compatible uses such as parks, libraries and museums. To promote communication between various age groups. To reduce the potential of ethnic and economic segregation in schools through the thoughtful placement of schools. To encourage the participation of students, minorities and the disadvantaged in educational policy making. . To provide adequate educational facilities, materials and staff. To prepare youth and adults for the contemporary world and for the world of the future. 22 Goal 8 Goal 9 Goal 10 Goal 11 Goal 12 Policies Policy 1 ( I To provide educational opportunities and to encourage minorities to enter into a wider range of economic occupations. To encourage vocational and on-the-job training opportunities and education as an alternative to formal education. To provide for the entire spectrum of educational needs of community residents. To plan effectively for educational facilities created by changing growth and demographic patterns. To encourage cooperative planning between educational institutions and land use planning agencies. Encourage the placement of schools throughout the community which enhance ethnic and economic integration. Policy 2 Encourage the placement of educational facilities near parks, l ibr--cfries and museums near each other. Poiicy 3 To discourage further residenti~l development until the availability of adequate future school facilities and educational resources can be demonstrated. Policy 4 Support continued land use permit fees to provide necessary facilities where findings of existing or potential overcrowding have been made. Policy 5 Encourage the placemen·t of schools throughout the ·community which reduces bussing, keeping in mind pedestrian safety, statewide requirements and economic trade-offs. RECREATION Issues Issue 1 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Should Moorpark encourage the development of recreational facilities including local, regional and stat.e parks? If yes, how many, what type and how can these facilities be maintained? To provide a full range of recreational facilities and programs which are easily accessible to all people in Moorpark. To provide appropriately located neighborhood' parks easily accessible to residents. 23 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Po!icies Policy .1 To provide appropriately located regional facilities. To insure adequate recreational facilities and programs to meet the wants and needs of those people who need. them, especially the minorities, low income, young adults and senior citizens. To provide for recreational facilities that are closely tied to schooi in terms of proximity and function. To promote the development of recreational programs meeting local and regional needs and manner equitable to all. facilities funded and 1n a To promote all levels of government to cooperatively plan and _coordinate regional and major local f aci Ii ties. To promote the use of.· natural recreational resources, Reserve !and use options for future regional parks and rectei'!tional developrr.ent. Policy 2 The future acquisition of _parks should be designated . to serve local and regional needs, and should be consistent with the Countywide Master Plan for Parks. Improvements ·to existing local parks should be encouraged as we! I as the development of additional parks as the need arises. Furture acquisitions and improvement should consider the concerns of this plan with respect to traffic, air quality, water; etc. Policy 3 Bicycling, equestrian and hiking trails should be developed as a part of the communitywide trail system. Policy 4 The use of off-road vehicles shall be strictly controlled. Policy 5 Examine alternative funding sources for the maintenance of local parks. Policy 6 To establish sites for park and recreational facilities as necessary in accordance with the distribution of population and in locations that provide a harmonious relationship between adjoining uses. ECONOMIC SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT Issue Issue 1 . How many and what types of jobs should be available within the community of Moorpark? 24 .. Goals- Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Policies To encourage a diversified and balanced economy. To provide and maintain an economic base sufficient to finance necessary public services. To promote full employment and a variery of job opportunities for all. Policy 1 Promote new industry which will provide both an economic base for public services and jobs for Moorpark residents. Po1icy 2 Encourage the development • of appropriate commercial and industrial facilities which wil! provide job opportunities for local residents. - ENERGY I SSL.;(: 1 Issue 2 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Policies Policy 1 .S}1c,uld Moorpark encourage development of alternativP sources of clean energy? In what way are energy related facilities related to land use? To promote energy conservation including land use patterns minimizing energy consumption-. To promote development of alternative sources of clean energy. To permit only those energy related facilities which meet or surpass federal and state environmental standa.rds and publi_c safety. Encourage energy conservation through i.and use patterns which minimize energy consumption. Policy 2 Encourage the development and use of alternative energy sources. Encourage energy related • facilities which meet or surpass Federal and State environmental standards. Policy 3 Encourage the adoption of building standards which min1m1ze energy loss and max1m1ze the utilization of solar and other alternate non-polluting energy forms. l ncluding: a) efficient thermal insulation 25 Policy 4 b) double glazing c) appropriate orientation of window surface 9 nd roof areas in relation to the sun. d) appropriate planting of evergreen and deciduous shcJde trees. e) utilization of highly energy efficient appliances. f) supplemental solar space and heating systems. Encourage clean development of r'\2sou rces. industry to locate in Moorpark; encourage the ordinances protecting rights to renewable OPEN SPACE Issue Issue 1 Goals Goal 1 Goa! 2 Policies Shot:iki Moorpark provide for areas of permanent open space? To provide for well planned permanent open space which 1s sensitive to the needs of the people of Moorpark in terms of location, accessibility, quantity, functional design and operation. To discourage urban deveioprnent from designated open space but encourage such non-urban uses as agriculture, water storage, recreation and scenic areas. Policy 1 To encourage appr_opriate types and amounts of open space in and around urban development. Policy 2 To encourage the preservation of visually unique terrain, vegetation and water resources. Policy 3 To encourage open space in areas of geological hazards such as slide areas and earthquake traces. Policy 4 Encourage the preservation of open spaces free of debris and visual pollution. VISUAL AND CULTURAL Issues Issue 1 Should Moorpark maintain and/or enhance the visual environment within the community? If yes, how? 26 Issue-2 Issue 3 Issue 4 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goa! 4 Policies Policy 1 Poiicy 2 Should Moorpark aquifer recharge cultural resources? protect natural features, watershed areas, ar·eas, scenic qualities, and historical and If yes,. how? Is reasonable compromise between environmental concerns and economic development a necessary element to achieving a balanced community capable of independent self determination, economically zind environmentaiiy, and is this a worthwhile goal? What criteria should the community use when comparing the aforementioned issues during land use planning? To maintain and/or enhance the visual environment. To protect unique natural features, historical and cultural resources. scenic qualities and To preserve and provide for open space. To -a;scour·age and closely regulrite the srze and frequency of signs and advertising billboards. Encourage enforcement of the Ventura County Ordinance regulating advertising billboards. Encourage adequate prov1si0ns for open space which natural features, scenic qualities . and historical and resources. respect cultural· Policy 3 Excessive and unsightly terracing, grading and filling of hillsides shall be strongly discouraged.. Development which will obscure or alter the natural ridgelines shall be strongly discouraged. Policy 4 Historically significant and archaeologically sensrtive areas shall be identified and preserved. • Policy 5 The Moorpark Planning and Architectural Review Committee shall be encouraged to adopt an architectural style for all development on High Street. Similiarly, development standards shall be encouraged community-wide. Policy 6 Encourage commercial functional buffer and industrial unobstructive. 27 areas and landscaping to development attractive make and .-COMMUNITY FACILITIES Issue Issue 1 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Policies __ Policy_ 1 Should Moorpark attempt to plan for community facilities appropri2tely designed to meet community needs? To plan the necessary multipurpose amounts of lands appropriately located facilities on adequate for community needs. To plan cultural, educational and recreational open space in and around community faci Ii ties. To encourage underground utilities and other visual amenities throughout the com:-nun ity f aci litics. To provide. Jor· community facilities in close proximity to maJor arterials and public transportation. To provide for comm1mity health facilities. To provide for community facilities ( other than recreational) specifically related to youth and senior citizens. To provide amounts of a full lands range of community facilities on adequate appropriately located for community needs. Encourage cultural, ·educational, and recreational open space in and around community facilities. Policy 2 Encourage the location of community facilities in close proximity to major arterials and public transportation. Policy 3 Encourage the location of community health facilities within the community. Policy 4 Encourage the provision of other than recreational services for senior citizens and youth. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Issue Issue 1 Should Moorpark consider public service availability in its plan Goals Goal 1 • for development? To promote the cost effective operation and equitable distribution of public services. 28 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Policies To promote the joint utilization of public facilities where appropriate. To reinforce controlled, orderly and phased development while discouraging urban sprawl.· To provide an efficient, effective and equitable delivery of services. Policy 1 Permit urban development only in those locations where adequate public services are available (functional), under physical construction, or will be available in the near future (5 years). Policy 2 To establish sites for public uses in locations convenient to potential users and harmonious with adjoining land uses in accordance with the necessary demand tor such facilities. Policy 3 Developmen~ sh.all be permitted only where adequate public services are available or can be readily provided. Public services shall include: fire, police, water, schools, roads, and sanitation f2c-i! iti es. HOUSING Issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Should Moorpark provide housing opportunities for all segments of the population for a variety of economic levels? If so, should Moorpark attempt to define a ratio of economic levels of housing development to be constructed? To provide adequate housing to meet the needs and desires of all residents. To preserve desirable neighborhoods through conservation, rehabilitation, and renewal of housing. To provide for adequate, sound, and well designed housing. To promote higher standards of design and construction for all permanent structures. To provide housing opportunities for all segments of the population and for a variety of economic levels in proximity to jobs, schools and shopping facilities. To promote viable, safe residential neighborhoods. 29 Goal 7 Goal 8 Policies To promote upgrading and maintenance of existing ~~ housing. To create housing· profiles which enhance community stability. Policy 1 Encourage development of housing for all segments of the community. Policy 2 A diversity of housing unit types and lot sizes should be provided to meet various housing needs. Policy 3 Densities that will accommodate multiple units should be designated on the plan. Policy 4. Encourage design standards that will promote housing units which are sound:y constructed and are energy efficient. Policy 5 Examine methods of upgrading and maintaining existing housing units. Policy 6 EnGOUrage a development mix which will provide for the diverse needs of the cor.,muillty. Policy 7 To encourage rehabilitation and code enforcement for the preservation of neighborhood quality. Policy 8 To provide for adequate, sound and well-designed low-income housing in accordance with demand. Policy 9 To revitaiize depressed areas with maximum neighborhood participation. • Policy 10 To ensure that due regard is given to the types, densities and the appearance of all housing developments so that necessary needs are met and a harmonious relationship exists between adjoining uses, natural features and the total environment. SOCIAL Issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Goals Goal 1 Should Moorpark protect cultural and ethnic balance? Should Moorpark foster community cohesion? Should Moorpark promote meeting the social needs of all segments of the community including the specific and unique needs of senior citizens and youth? If yes, how? To protect the public health, safety and welfare for all segments of the community. 30 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Policies To foster a stronger _sense of community within each urban areas and a sense of responsibility to other urban areas and the county as a whole. To discourage physical, social, economic, and envir-onrnental conditions leading to crime and other societal ills. To promote the development of land use and environmental policies which take into 2ccount the diversity of the people of the community. Policy 1 Develop an on-going c1v1c information service of events, issues -and services for the citizens. Policy 2 Encourage the development of job opportunities for youth within the community and work actively toward providing meaningful opportunities for· older citizens. Policy 3 Encourage the use of tmvn m2eti:1g:;, neighbornoo·d councils, and forums withi:1 ne:ghbcrhoods aild the community to address issues of community interest. Policy 4 Recommend the completion of a social needs assessment which will address the needs of all elements of the community. Said assessment should be completed in a· timely manner. Policy 5 The diverse cuiturai and ethnic structure community shali be respected as a community preservation shall be encouraged. of the Moorpark_ resource and its - -COMMUNITY IDENTITY Issue Issue 1 Goal Goal 1 Policies Should Moorpark attempt to. preserve cultural, physical and visual qualities in the environment? To preserve and develop physical, cultural, and visual qualities in the environment of Moorpark. Policy 1 To encourage quality and effective controls in urban design through thoughtful and consistent pla:1s and programs such as architectural controls_ Policy 2 To consider and develop community identity in the creation and growth of political jurisdictions. 31 Policy 3 To encourage the development of district and visual amenities in major roads, commercial centers, industrial -areas and residential neighborhoods. Policy 4 To encourage refurbishment of older and established areas to meet qualitative standards of the community. Policy 5 To encourage the distinct and unique design and function of commercial centers. Policy 6 Policy 7 Poiicy 8 FIRE Issue Issue 1 Goal Goal 1 Policie·s To encourage the provision of qualitative and effective urban design controls in all economic areas including low, income housing. To encourage cultivate a development. the implementation of land cohesive, well-distributed use_ patterns which configuration for To encourage the integration of good urban design principles with all phases of land use decisions and de,;elopment. Should Moorpark attempt to protect areas threatened by fire hazards? To protect life and property. Policy 1 New residential development shall be discouraged in high fire hazard areas. Policy 2 Permanent structures erected in or near high fire hazard areas, should be required to be constructed of fire proof materials to as great an extent as is feasible. Policy 3 The planting of fire retardant groundcover will be encouraged around any development in or near high fire hazard areas. POLICE Issue Issue 1 -Is the level of police protection rn the community adequate? 32 Goal Goal 1 Policies The level of police protection provided to the community shall be sufficient to insure the public safety and to provide for constitutional guarrantees for al I persons. Policy 1 Adequate police protection should be promoted and maintained. Policy 2 Staff and equipment should reflect the needs of the population and various types of development. Policy 3 Assuming that Moorpark will incorporate, land should be ·allocated for future construction of police and related facilities. Policy 4 Tt)e level and quality of police protection shal! be that defined and desired by the. community and the community shall have full responsibility for management of this service when a local political jur-isdiciton is established. GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION Issue· Issue 1 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Policy Policy 1 Should Moorpark attempt to· provide for responsible governmental organization? To promote responsive and. accountable government. To govern in the· general public interest and ·in accordance with principles of fairness, equity and effici_ency. To clarify the delineation of the roles and responsibilities of state, regional and local government. To encourage the incorporation of l·.-,ocrpari<. when a suitable financial base is identified. To encourage better communication and maximum cooperation between Moorpark community leaders, neighborhood councils, citizen advisory boards, and county government. Encourage a responsibl2 and accountable government through communication and cooperation between Moorpark community leaders, neighborhood councils, citizen advisory boards, and governmental representatives at all levels. 33 TRANSPORTATION Issue Issue 1 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Should Moorpark attempt to provide for efficient and economical tr·ansportation facilities? To provide for transportation facilities that will efficiently and economically serve existing and future traffic and transportation needs while encouraging orderly land use development. To provide public transportation for Moorpark as a logical _alternative to automobile transportation. To discourage free access on major arterials by minimizing the number of private driveways, roads and m:nor public roads. To provid~-a reasonable balance between land . uses and transportation fac:!ities. Goal S To minimize traffic congestion by controlling access to major arterials and providing for consisteFit coordination between land use and transportation plan·ning. Goal 6 To provide for freeway construction and design which is in harmony with the design and identity of Moorpark and provides the least amount of visual and noise damage to the environment of Moorpark. Goal 7 To avoid freeway construction and design which bisects and segregates residential neighborhoods, commercial centers and other land uses which lend themselves to the free flow of people and goods. Goal 8 To provide for visual amenities along major roads to make them attractive as well as convenient to the people of Moorpark. Goal 9 To provide for the expansion and proper design of appropriate transportation facilities to meet the needs of industrial development. Goal 10 To provide for the improvements and modifications of certain transportation facilities such as rail and trucks to promote safety and reduce noise and visual pollution. Goal 11 To promote the development of a balanced transportation system -which supports general plans and growth policies, enhances fuel conservation, improves the physical environment, and enlists broad public support. 34 Goal J2 Goal 13 Goal 14 Goal 15 Policies To provide for the efficient and economic movement of people and distribution of goods to all segments of the population_ To encourage car pooling to job locations. To provide for bike lanes as an alternativr:: source of transportation. To encourage planning for safe footpaths. Policy 1 Widening and curve alterations to existing traffic corridors should be encouraged where necessary. Pal icy 2 A public transit system should· be encouraged. Policy 3 Pubiic transportation for senior citizens and the handicapped should be encouraged. Policy '4 Safe,._ separate, arid convenient paths for p·2dcstrians should be constr·ucted so as to alternate forms of non-polluting transportation. bicyclists and encourage these Policy 5 Planting and landscaping along major arterials shall be encouraged so as to mitigate-visual and erosion problems. Policy 6 To review and make recommendation for needed revisions to the Circulation Element of Ventura County as· it relates to the needs of the Moorpark community. Policy 7 To improve interior vehicular circulation involving collector and minor streets within Moorpark to better serve existing needs and to anticipate future needs and land use patterns. Policy 8 To upgrade the current condition of streets and related facilities, such as parking lots, street lamps, bikeracks, etc., and to provide for adequate off-street parking and other facilities in conjunction with future development. Policy 9 To encourage quality design in future transportation improvements. Policy 10 To encourage inter-community public transportation. OIL DEVELOPMENT Issue Issue 1 What should be the character of present and future oil and gas development in Moorpark? 35 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Policies 4S The oil and gas industry should utilize "Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), (not necessarily best economically). Conditions applied to the conditionai use permits for oil development should be enforced to prot2ct the health and welfare of the citizens and the character of Moorpark. To protect residential and agricultural land uses from 2dverse impacts resulting from oil exploration or oil drilling. Policy 1 All existing regulations shall apply and be enforced. Policy 2 All gases emitted from all wells should be collected and used or removed for sale or proper disposal: if feasible. Flaring or venting wouid be in case of emergency or testing only. , Policy 3 Electric production equipment shall be used whenever possible to all~_i_ate air pollution from internal combustion engines. Policy 4 All oil and gas production sites or development shall be landscaped in accordance with an approved plan. Policy 5 All production sites shall be screened from any public road, or residence located within 500 yards by natural terrain or flora which will ·reach the height of production equipment within five years. Policy 6 Drill sites that would be silhouetted on a ridge or prominent knoll shall not be permitted. Policy 7 Drill sites necessitating an inordinate amount of cut and fill shall not be permitted. Policy 8 New oil activity of any kind should not affect the quality or quantity of the present water supply so as to pollute or to prevent the domestic or agricultural use of the water supply. Policy 9 All well sites that have been abandoned or are no longer producing shall be restored to their original condition as nearly as practicable. Policy 10 There should be no refining in the Moorpark community. Policy 11 All oil field facilities shall be kept to a minimum size. Policy 12 • All existing oil fields shall be upgraded aesthetically to meet current standards. Policy 13 All existing permits should be conditioned so as to reflect and support above goals. JE IMPLEMENTATION Issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Policies Should the community encourage the County to establish implementation methods including, but r.ot limited to rezoning? Should this Committee recommend a method of monitoring the impacts of the revised land use plan? Should the Committee recommend a method of fair and equitable development phasing? If yes, how should residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural development, proposed by the community, be phased? To encourage development phasing which should include residential,. commercial, industrial and agricultural uses. To consider a method of monitoring the develorment phasing. To encourage County support in· _ establishing and/or regulations pertaining to -development relates to the Moorpark area. implementation phasing as it Policy 1 Recommend an equitable !and • use plan, which incorporates phasing guidelines set forth in the land use plan and encourage • cooperation at the County level in the implementation of these systems. Policy 2 As soon as possible, the Board of Supervisors shall bring zoning into consistency with the land use element of this Plan. Policy 3 This Plan will take presidence over any previous land use elements within the Sphere. Policy 4 Every effort shall be made to promote•. the establishment of a Moorpark Downtown Zone or District. C. LAND USE In many respects, Moorpark is similar to other Southern California communities. Growth in the last decade can be attributed to a 11 spill-over 11 from adjacent communities which are experiencing the pressures of urban expansion from the Los Angeles Metropolitan area. Traditionally as an 37 urban area expands, development on the periphery ·increases, first with residential units which result in lengthened commuter patterns, then with commercial uses necessary to service the residential population, and finally with industrial development. The predominate growth pattern in the Moorpark Community over the past decade has been suburban residential a:.d has occurred primarily at the termini of the Route 23 and 118 freeways. Consistent with historical trends, employment opportun 1t1es exist primarily outside of the community, a majcrity of the labor force presently commutes to jhe City of Simi Valley or the west Se1n Fernando Valley for employment. Similiarly, major commercial purchases are made in the adjacent cities of Simi Valley or Thousand Oaks. The Moorpark Community is unique, however, and unlike many new areas, is rich in· historical roots. Dating back to the 1800's, the community began as an agricultural center. Many of the original landowners remain today and :the community has emerged as a complimentary mixture of longstanding residents as well as recent in-migrants . . ·• As urban growth has occured, the Moorpark residents h3ve • created a formal comrnil;!~e network designed to evcJluate proposed changes and to assure an orderly progression from agricultural to urba:. center. The citizens of Moorpark display ·tremendous determination to insure balanced growth by expanding internal employment opportur:1ities, and minimizing economic reliance on surrounding communities. The Chamber of Commerce has begun an energetic campaign directed toward increasing the industrial and commercial base. Accordingly, this Community Plan attempts to provide adequate industrial and commercial land uses while preserving the small town atmosphere prevailent today. The Plan incorporates a strong core concept intended to establish a town center. (A concept which has been consistently endorsed by the community.) The strong core ·establishes one geographic area which contains most major commercial, business, governmental, industrial, and some higher density residential uses. Residential areas surround the core, and contain a greater percentage of lower rather than higher density uses, minimal commercial, and the necessary public facilities (i.e. schools, parks) to support the residential population. The absence of major commercial uses in peripheral areas is intended to create a reliance on the downtown. Outlying development is guided along traffic corridors which provide easy access from the residential areas to the downtown commercial faci Ii ties. The commercial development within the core acts a draw for the entire community, serves as the 11 town center" and is as a catalyst toward achieving community cohesion. Moving away from the center, the downtown and residential areas are surrounded by transitional zones, agricultural uses and open space. In the transitional zones minimum lot sizes range from one to five acres per dwelling unit. These zones act as buffers and do not contain commercial or industrial uses. 38 Thus, the overall development pattern progresses from the more intense residential, commercial and industrial uses of the downtown, toward the residential neighborhoods, the transitional zones and finally into the larger expanses of agriculture and open space. 1. RESIDENTIAL Develooment Pattern Residential land uses are intended to develop primarily surrounding the downtown core, and should contain a variety types and densities as well as the necessary ancillary facilities needs of the residential population (i.e. schools and parks). 1n areas of housing to meet the Housing mixes are encouraged 1n order to provide a variety of living accomodations for· persons of all socio--economic levels, ar.d may include some multiple dwelling units, such as townhouses or condominiums. Cluster development is consistent with the intent of the residential areas, and will promote land conservation as well as visual relief, through the use of internal open space, from traditional single family subdivi_sions. Density Averaging The proposed development pattern dictates that all residential subdivisions will develop at the average density of the designation shown on the Land Use Map. "Density averaging 11 is ·an implementation mechanism which provides for development at the mean of the land use category in which a residential subdivision proposes to locate. Table 2 indicates the average allowable density for each residential category. Residentiai subdivisions may contain both single family units and multiple family units, provided the project contains a greater percentage of single rather than multiple family dwelling units, the greatest density does not exceed 20 units per net acre, and the overall average density of the proposed project . is consistent with that outlined in Table 2. TABLE 2 RESIDENTIAL LAND US:: DESIGNATIONS Residential Designation Density Range L Low Density 1. 1-2 DU/Acre ML Medium Low Density 2. 1-3 DU/Acre M Medium Density 3.1-5 DU/Acre H High Density 5.1-10 DU/Acre VH Very High Density 10.1-20 DU/Acre *Represents average density for each residential category. 39 Maximum Average Allowable Density* 1.6 DU/Acre 2.6 DU/Acre 4.0 DU/Acre 7.0 DU/Acre 15.0 DU/Acre SI.A. 'Table 3, Implementation outlines the proceedures development. Procedures for Residential to be followed relative to Development Projects, residential subdivision TABLE 3 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS a. Each residential project shall meet the averZJge density for the land use category in which the residential development proposes to locate. However, a Plarined Residential Community may exceed the average density for the land use category in which it is located provided it can be demonstrated that the additional density is justified in terms of overall ,community benefit and the overall density does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the land use category. b. The average density for each residential category is shown on Table 2. c. A single residential project may include both single family and multiple family dwelling units provided that, unless the project is located in the "H" or "VH" designation, the project shall contain more single-family dwelling units than multiple-family dwelling units. d. The maximum -density for c::;1y res:der.tial de·✓elopmE:r.t shall be 20 units per net acre. Rura! areas are not subject to density averaging and must dev~lop at the minimum lot size established (i.e. 1 acre per dwelling unit minimum). Each residential area shall contain the necessary public facilities to maintain the residential population. Public facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, parks, community centers and churches, and should be located internally wherever possibie rather than on the periphery of the residential area and shall, where possible, serve as centers for the area. The development ratio for the provision of parks adopted by the Ventura County Board of population). shall be that which has been Supervisors (5 acres/1,000 The recommended development standards for educational facilities are as follows: A. Elementary (Grade K-6) 1. 450-750 total enrollment 2. Two acres per 100 students, minimum 10 acres 3. Walking distance -1/2 to 3/4 miles B. Junior High ( Grades 7-9) 1. 800-1,200 total enrollment 2. Two acres per 700 students, minimum 16 acres 3. Walking distance -1 to 1\ miles C. Senior High (Grades 10-12) 1. 1,500 to 2,000 total enrollment 2. 2 to 2\ acres per 100 students, minimum 30 acres 3. Walking distance -1'½ to 2 miles 40 Limited commercial may develop in residential areas as defined by the Land Use Map. Industrial development, unless shown on the Land Use Map, is not considered compatible with residential areas. 2. CIRCULATION Through traffic is discouraged within the residential areas. Loops and cul-de-sacs, consistent with County standards, are recommended. Each neighborhood should contain local streets which provide access to residences and further channel traffic onto collector streets. Thoroughfares located outside the neighborhoods will provide access to the centralized commercial core. A safe and convenient pedestrian system should be included to provide access to the internal public facilities. Residential development should not front directly on thoroughfares and highways. 3. COMMERCIAL Commercial land uses represent approximately 2. 3 percent of the area within thE. growth area boundary. The presence of a regional shopping center· located-in the City of Thousand Oaks, approximately 8 miles south of the Sphere, restricts the commercial market area of Moorpark and limits the likelihood that a regional commercial center will be located within the community for the life of this Plan. Commercial uses are situated primarity within the downtown core and are proposed in limited capacities within Campus Park and the Meadow area. The spacing of commercial uses encourages planned _shopping centers which offer adequate parking, ingress and egress compatible with thoroughfare standards, integrated landscaping and limited commercial signs. • All commercial development shall be subject to the requirements of the Planned Development Permit as required by the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance. Commercial categories include: C-1 C-2 C-1 Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Commercial-Industrial Mix Section) (See Commercial Industrial Neighborhood and General Commercial uses are subject to the terms and conditions of the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance. Wherever possible, shopping center development should conform to the following standards: Neighborhood Commercial Center Principal tenant -Convenience Market 10,000 -30,000 square feet 1 -3 acres Trade Area Population -2,500 -5,000 persons. Trade Area -1. 5 mile radius 41 Community Commercial Center Principal tenant -Supermarket, Office Buildings 70,000 -200,000 square feet 7 -20 acres Trade Area Population -7,500 15,000 persons Trade Area -3 -5 mile r2diL:s 4. COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL MIX Commercial-Industrial (C-1) has been established to eliminate non-conforming uses by reflecting the mixed uses in the downtown core, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad and south of High ·Street. The area presently consists of commercial as well as medium and higher use industrial operations. Existing and proposed development is subject to the following restrictions: Existing Uses 1. All existl_r_g commercial and industrial facilities in operation at the time of adoption ot this Plan are considered to be consistent with this Plan. 2. Expansion of existing industrial uses onto contiguous parcels 1s prohibited. 3. Existing industrial uses, destroyed by more than 50%, can be replaced consistent with the square footage of the facility at the time of adoption of this Plan. Proposed Uses 1. Parcels identified as 1-1 shall incorporate all allowable uses specified in the M-1 zone of the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance. Development standards -shall be subject to all development standards of the M-1 zone and the Development Permit. 2. Parcels identified as 1-2 shall incorporate all allowable uses specified in the M-2 zone of the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance. Development standards shall be subject to all development standards of the M-2 zone. 3. All allowable uses specified in the C-2 zone of the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance. Development shall be subject to all development standards of the C-2 zone and the Planned Development Permit. Map 4, Commercial-Industrial Mix Proposed Land Use, indicates the uses recommended for adoption in the "C-1 11 area. ~ w ~ > " y n (l (l 2 ,; V, ~ z ..J ., } " I 111011 l l!.UJWlUJIIIIIIIIIIIIIU .. UJIWII.UUW,u ... "!.LUWUJUOIHI\UWllliUllU I-2 ~ I-1 _,.A-: ... --,--~-- -u7,\itjmi:;·,'1~,\i,E!!-:.:;~,-;J.~;-._.-,:;,p~;;-,li~1\",l"jftii',1 i[ __ mm ~--_jl __ [ '."'"'"'~r~·:·;::~~-,u-_•-r-.·-."-ll_ll_l~-.,-ll--,~-,,-~~-11-•:-,u--',.~]::lJ" ... ,.,,,,~,,~,;==~•"=n=~]OID'''''''W'' .... , .. ,, .... , , .... "" """ ''""'-"''"""' ., ........ , .... "' ! "'""', _, • 0;, .. :q..,. •'Ec~=-'"· L· ..... : ....... : , "" .. ,, -... r, .... ,., ....... ,111 = POINDEXTER -1r l( i _____ F.;.._,_R_s_r_s_r_.,m _J COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL. ,MIX PROPOSED LAND USE MAP 4 r I DOAOTIIY AVE, 77 t 5. INDUSTRIAL Industrial uses represent approximately 6. 7 percent of the area contained within the growth area boundary. The Plan specifically eliminates new heavy industrial uses, and encourages high and medium uses. The Moorpark community recognizes a potential for increased industrial activity through the use of the Southern Pacific rdilroad arid improved circul2tion corridors. (Refer to amendments to Circulation Element.). • Industrial development is encouraged in order to effect a well balanced economy while enlarging the tax base. Industrial designations include: 1-1 Limited J ndustrial 1-2 Medium Industrial Industrial uses are .primarily located within the downtown core along improved thoroughfares adjacent to Moorpark Road and on Poindexter near Gabber't Road...;_ Generally, industrial uses are not considered compatible with the neighborhood areas, and are intended to be located only as identified on the Land Use Map. All industrial development is subject to the terms and conditions of the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance and the Development Permit. The J -1 designation shall be consistent with the M-1, Limited J ndustrial Zone. The 1-2 designation sh al I be consistent with the M-2, Medium Industrial Zone as identified in the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance. 6. AGRICULTURE The viability of agriculture relies, in general, on the interaction of several factors. Among them are climate, soils, topography, water, parcel size and parcel configuration. Economic viability of agricultural parcels involves land values, water costs, labor costs, value of crops produced, plus commitment and expertise of the farmer~ The definition of a viable farm unit would include therefore, the amount of land necessary to produce an economic return which covers costs, as well as the ability of the unit to respond to market conditions and convert to crop types which the market demands. Finally, a viable farm unit should have enough acreage to withstand the economic impact of variations in climate and other unpredictable hardships. The predominant irrigated agricultural uses within the Moorpark Sphere are tree crops, including avocados, lemons, oranges, grapefruit, kiwi, walnuts, and some vegetables. Non-irrigated uses incluce cereals, primarily· barley. The State Land Conservation Act ( LCA) of 1965 authorizes counties to establish agricultural preserves. An agricultural preserve is essentially a contract between the county and a property owner that makes a commit- 44 ment .on the part of both parties to maintain the property in long term agricultural use. Lands which enter into LCA or an agricultural preserve contract are given tax incentives to enhance the economic viability of agricultural use. Additionally, a county makes a commitment to safeguard LCA contracts by providing appropriate land use regulations. The Board of Supervisors recently (1978) adopted guidelines for the administration of the Land Conservation Act ( LCA) at the County level. In summary, each LCA contract is evaluated for compliance with the intent of the LCA by using the criteria set forth in the guidelines. A key feature of LCA guidelines is to promote the inclusion and maintenance of viable parcel sizes. To accomplish this maintenance of viable parcels, the guidelines generally prohibit the subdivision of prime lands into parcels of less than 40 acres. Additionally, while parcels of 9. 1 acres which were created prior to 1978 may be in the program, the guidelines include policies which promote the inclusion of newly created parcels (those created afte_r September 1978) in the LCA program which are at least 20 acres in size. Each preserve area must be a tota! of 40 acres in size for irrigated prime lands .and 100 acres for non-irrigated areas. Each contract is committed to maintaining the land in agricultural production· for a ten year period.-:.:· __ Ten year contracts are renewed automatically each year unless the County or property owner files a Notice of Nonrenewal. Agricultural land uses are directly effected by urban development. Urban densities introduce impacts which result in increased costs to the farmer. Increased insurance rates due to vandalism, limited crop productivity due to diminished air quality, or increased assessed valuation are al I factors illustrative of increased costs which are the result of urban encroachment. Close proximity to agricultural uses of urban development creates pressure_ to convert agricultural land to urban uses and, once· converted, there is little potential for reversion. Conversely agriculture impacts urban areas through the increased dust and odor that accompany agricultural uses, as well as the negative impacts of the use of insecticides and pesticides near residential populations. The Moorpark Community Plan attempts to preserve agricultural land and to minimize conflicts with urban uses through the proposed development pattern. Agricultural acreage is not included in the urban growth boundary by intent, and is primarily limited to areas removed from the more intense urban uses_ Agriculture is not considered a holding zone for future urban development. Rather, it represents an essential part of the economic diversity of the community as well as a mechanism for shaping urban form. The areas designated agriculture primarily represent· 1and presently in agricultural preserves Agricultural designations are not limited to areas of Class I and 11 soils. Further, since the land use designations follow the zoning categories included in the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of designating agricultural areas is to enable property owners to enjoy the full provisions of the agricultural zone, as well as protection from urban encroachment which is prevented through the use of contiguous Open Space. 45 S? The Land Use Map includes two agricultural designations: Aoriculture 1 (Ag 1) -one dwelling unit per 10 -40 acres. Generally, agricultural uses located near the urban area are included in the AG 1 designation. Uses in the Ag-1 are subject to the terms and conditions of the Agricultural Exclusive Prime (AEP) Zone of the Ventura County Zoning Or·dinance. Agriculture 2 (Ag-2) -One dwelling unit per minimum 40 acre parcel. Ag-2 represents uses primarily in the agricultural preserve which are located in areas remote from the urban growth boundary. The larger acreage requirement in the Ag-2 designation limits development furthest removed from the urban area and diminishes the need to expand the urban infrastructure necessary for more intense use. Uses in the Ag-2 designation are subject to the terms and conditions of the Agricultural Exclusive (AE) Zone and the Ventura County Zoning Ordinan'ce. 7. OPEN SPACE The value of preserving open land within urban areas is measured in terms of the benefits derived by the community. Open Space provides improved air and water quality, preserve areas for the production of food and fiber, establishes areas for recreational uses, preserves natural resources, prevents intense development in environmentally hazardous areas and provides relief from the cro\vding and noise that accompany urban development. Open space compliments urban areas and enhances community development. For purposes of the proposed Moorpark Community Plan, open space is considered a vital resource which compliments the urbanizing areas by effectively buffering Moorpark from adjacent communities. Five types of open space and the components for each were identified in the ·open Space and Conservation Element of the Countywide General Plan. Each component was weighted and ranked in terms of open space importance. The rankings consisted of primary, secondary and least. The complete listing and rankings is shown on Table 4. TABLE 4 OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES AND COMPONENTS I. PRODUCTIVE: 1. Soils; Class I and 11 Soils; Class Ill and IV 46 RANKING Primary Secondary X X Least TAB_LE 4 (Cont.) OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES AND COMPONENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. Agriculture; row and field Agriculture; grazing Groundwater; availability Groundwater; aquifer recharge Forests G2oiogy; Mineral Resoruces l I. PROTECTIVE 1 . • 2. Slope; o:ver 25% Slope;· 10 -25% Flood Plains; 50 year Flood Plains; 100 year Flood Plains; existing channels (bank to bank) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Geology; Landslides Geology; Faults, recent Geology; Faults, not active Geology; alluvium subject to ground shaking Geology; Major structures Septic Tank Limit; moderate Septic Tank Limit; severe Erosion Hazard; moderate Erosion Hazard; severe Fire Hazard; hazard area Fire Hazard; burned once Fi re Hazard; burned more 8. Airport; flight path 9. Waste Disposal; sanitary fill 10. Tsunamis and Seiches 47 RANKING Primary Secondary Least X X X X X X X 'V A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TABLE 4 (Cont.) OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES AND COMPONENTS RANKING 111. STRUCTURAL Primary Secondary Least 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Zoning; R-E + R-A Zoning; A-E Zoning; Ag. Element Zoning; Ag. Contracts (LCA) Water; not within districts Sewer; not within districts Other -Plans; Other Plans; Topography Outside city growth area Outside Ventura Co. Tomorrow Pian Urban Arec:1 X X X X X X X X X The open space areas shown on the land use map generally include a minimum of two of the characteristics ranked as primary in the Open Space and Conservation Element. The Citizen Committee included 20 percent slope as a primary component. The Land Use Map includes two open space designations: Open Space 1 (OS-1) -One dwelling unit per 10-40 acres. OS-1 represents those areas which include any of the components ranked as primary in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Countywide General Plan and are located in close proximity to the urban growth area. • Open Space 2 (05-2) -One Dwelling Unit Per Minimum 40 Acre Parcel OS-2 represents those areas which include any of the components ranked as primary in the Open Space and Conservation Elements of the Countywide General Plan and which are either: (1) located in areas remote from the urban growth area; or (2) located all or in part on an identified flood plain. Both the OS-1 and OS-2 designations are subject to the terms and conditions of the Open Space (OS) Zone of the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance. 48 8. GROWTH/NON-GROWTH'AREAS The urban and rural land uses are contained within a defined growth area boundary. (See Map 3, Growth Area.) The growth area boundary incorporates existing uses and includes some vacant areas within which future development can occur. The urban pattern is intended to utilize the infra-structure presently avai I able within the community, and to minimize the costly expansion as well as m;:iintenance of urban services (i.e. roads, police/fire protection sewers or water) into undeveloped areas. Outreaches of urban development are minimized and areas which are best preserved due to the existence of environmental or human-made constraints (i.e. fire hazards, acquifer recharge, flood plains, landslide or slope), or to provide recreational facilities or agricultural uses are protected from urban development, while the core is established to promote an efficient central focus. Table 5 summarizes the proposed land uses within the growth area, the total acreage contained in the growth area and the percentage of the entire area represented by each-land use. -·-. TABLE 5 GROWTH AREA l.:AND USES • Commercial Commercial-I ndusti ral Industrial *Community Service (existing) *Residential Total Growth Area Acres 135 11 384 211 5,013 5,754. % of Whole 2.3% 0.2% 6.7% 3.7% 87. i% 100.0% * Community Facility needs will be met within residential areas as. the neighborhoods develop. Therefore, Community Service will increase ·as a percentage of the whole, and Residential will decrease. Table 6 summarizes the proposed rural and residential land uses which represent the growth area within the Moorpark Sphere, the total acreage dwelling units and estimated population. Table 7 summarizes the proposed agricultural and open space land uses which represent the non-growth area within the Moorpark Sphere, the total acreage, dwelling units and estimated population. 49 TABLE 6 GROWTH AREA PROJECTED POPULATION TO THE YEAR 2000 Total Density*,., Acres DU* DU Per DU RL 2173 5Ac/DU 348*** 3.24 (SAc/DU) RH 764 1Ac/DU 131*** 3.24 (1Ac/DU) L 794 1.6DU/Ac 1,270 3.24 (1.1-2.0 DU/Ac) ML· 928 2.6DU/Ac 2,413 3.24 (2.1-3.0 DU/Ac) M 817 4DU/Ac 3,268 3.24 (3.1-5.0 DU/Ac) H -..-63 7DU/Ac 441 3.24 (S_. 1-·10. 0 DU/ Ac) VH 74 15DU/Ac 1,110 • 3.24 (10.1-20 DU/Ac) TOTAL 5,013 8,981 *Represents average density for each residential category. **Represents average family size to the year 2000. Population 1,128 424 4, 115 7,818 10,588 1,429 3,596 29,098 ***Assumes 20 percent of gross acreage for streets, topography, etc. TABLE 7 NON-GROWTH AREA PROJECTED POPULATION TO THE YEAR 2000 Total Density** Acreage DU* DU Per DU Ag-1 2158 30Ac/DU 72 3.24 (10-40Ac/DU) AG-2 1342 150Ac/DU 9 3.24 ( 40Ac/DU) 05-1 2093 30Ac/DU 70 3.24 (10-40Ac/DU) 05-2 7311 150Ac/DU 49 3.24 (40Ac/DU) TOTAL 12,904 200 *Represents average density for each residential category. **Represents average family size to the year 2000. 50 Population 233 29 229 15? 650 Table 8 is a general listing of all land use designations included in the Moorpark Community Plan. TABLE 8 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Residential RL RH L ML M Rural Low Rural High Low Density Medium Low Density Medium. Density High Density 5Ac/DU Minimum 1 Ac/DU Minimum 1. 1-2 DU/ Acre 2.1-3 DU/Acre 3.1-5 DU/Acre 5.1-10 DU/Acre H VH Very High 10.1-20 DU/Acre Commercial C-1 C-2 C-1 Neighbo~ho;·d Commercial General Commercial -·:-commercial Industrial Mix Industrial 1-1 • Light Industrial 1-2 Medium Industrial • Agricultural Ag1 10.1 -40 Acres/DU Ag2 40+ acres/DU Open Space 0S1 10-40 Acres/DU 052 . 40+ Acres/DU Institutional ( Existing Only) s p Schools Parks D. ENERGY CONSERVATION, BICYCLE PATHS, EQUESTRIAN TRAILS The following recommendations were completed by subcommittees of the MCAC. Energy conservation, bicycle paths and equestrian trails are methods of preserving the unique setting and significant resources in and surrounding the Moorpark Community. Each is an attainable goal with the expenditure of reasonable efforts. The following implementation guidelines and maps are recommendations to be considered for future use by the decision-makers and have not been researched for consistency • with existing Countywide General Plan Elements or Ordinances. 51 Energy_ Throughout the general plan process, issues related to considered of utmost importance by the MCAC. . A volunteered to further study conservation and energy. The drafted the following statement and recommended conditions on all structures within the Moorpark Sphere. energy were subcommittee subcommittee to be imposed Due to the national effort to conserve energy resources, it is the intention of this Community Plan to insure that future structures erected within the Sphere conform to minimum energy efficiency standards. The Moorpark Architectural and Planning Review Committee, Moorpark Executive Board and County staff are hereby directed to establish specific guidelines and procedures to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for adoption in order to enforce the following policies: 1) To minimize thermal energy absorbed during the summer months, unshaded roofs and walls on all residential, commercial and industrial structures inten.C?ed for human occupancy must be lightly colored. 2) The stru~tures referenced in Section (1) will have attics and interiors constructea in such a manner so as to take advantage of the east-west prevailing breezes in Moorpark _for passive cooling. If no such advantage is taken, mechanical .ventilaton devices . must be installed. 3) All south-facing glazed surfaces in said structures must be shaded during the summer months. The construction of appropriate shade-screens, eaves, overhangs and landscaping \.Vi!! be encouraged. 4) To minimize unwanted heat loss and gain in said structures, glazed areas will be minimized and double glazing encouraged. Maximum r·atios of glazed area to gross floor area for all types of structures within the Sphere will be established. 5) Insulation shall be no less than R-11 in exterior wood-frame walls and R-19 in roofs, suspended floors and ceilings. If the HUD specifications exceed those specified, then the more stringent R values will be required. 6) To utilize the winter sun for passive space heating and to minimize the absorption of thermal energy during the summer months, the majority of the outer surface area of said structures shall face north and south. 7) Plumbing stubs shall be installed in all newly constructed residential, commercial and industrial structures to facilitate the retrofitting of solar space and water heating sy'stems. 8) Installation of energy efficient appliances developments shall be encouraged. 52 in new residential 9) Fifty percent of paved parking l_ots and street surfaces shall be shaded with trees to·· lower surrounding summer temperatures. Streets should not: exceed minimum required width to save land and minimize unnecessary thermal absorption during summer months. It 1s the intention of this P!an that the Davis, California Energy Conservation Building Code be utilized as a general reference, in the formulation of a specific Countywide Energy Conservation Ordinance. Bike Paths Bike paths represent a viable alternative to the automobile as well as a significant recreational resource to be enjoyed by 'the entire community. Recommendations for implementation of a system of bike paths a,e included in this Section. A separate bicycle paths map identifies the proposed system. Se~ Map Sa, Proposed Bike Paths. 1. Local bike paths: are· defined as those within the urbanizing area of Moorpark. Regional paths are defined as • those th-at· connect gecgrapb_i_fally distinct urban areas. 2. Bike paths will be considered to be ·of __ equal importance to motor vehicle roadways when construction funds-are allocated. 3. Area of benefit donations from developers will be allocated for bike path construction in a manner similar to the allocation of funds for roadway projects. 4. -All new roads constructed within the Moorpark Sphere will contain-as·. an integral part of constructio~, at least a Class· 111 bike-path and·. footpath. 5. Footpaths shall be incorporated into the design and construction of all bi~e .paths Within the Moorpark Sphere, whe·r~ f~asible~ 6. It is the intention of this Plan that residential, commercial and industrial developments adjacent to the proposed bike paths ·and footpath routes will be required by the County to construct the paths as a condition of project approval. 7. The construction of the proposed system of paths is to be considered a • reasonable local response to the National and State energy conservation goals. Therefore, the local advisory boards (Moorpark Planning and Architectural Review Board, Ventura County Planning Commission) and the Board of Supervisors are strongly urged to implement these policies as specified in this Community Plan. Equestrian Trails A connecting system of equestrian trails enhances the rural atmosphere of a community and provides safe riding paths for all residents. The follow- ing design standards are recommended for the future development of equestrian tra i Is. 53 MAP ~a t! • l .. . . . . • . • t PROPOSED BIKE PATHS ----L0O-L. CLASS I ••••••••• LOCAL CLASS II APMtCXIMA.T[ RC)JT( OF FOO~PATH •••••••• R[GK>NAL 54 AND FOOTPATHS E. 1. Trails can be unimproved paths. 2. Trails shall be approximately 8 feet in width. 3. Equestrian and hiking trails are compatible uses and can be shared. 4. Equestrian trails and hiking trails are not compatible with bike paths. 5. With Fire Department approval trails shall be developed along existing fire roads. 6. Wherever possible, trails shall serve as connectors to the Region. The "Equestrain Trail ~ap" included as a part of this Plan, shall be used as a reference. A separate map identifies the proposed trail system and :s included as Map Sb. IMPLEMENTATION "" Implementation __ . of the Moorpark Community Plan is recommended through the use of therollowing procedures: , Zoning and General Plan Consisting (AB 1301) -·· Section 65860 of the California Government Code specifies that if a dty o, county has officially adopted a general plan, and if the land uses authorized by the local zoning ordinance are compatable with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan; then the local zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the. general plan. • ·Included in the Moorpark Community Plan, and identified as Table 9 is a zoning-.compatability matrix which identifies zone and sub-zone categories in the Ventura • County Zoning Ordinance which are consistent with the Land Use Map. Rezoning for consistency with this Pian is recommended at the earlest possible date. Review of Development Proposals by Ventura County Planning Division All development proposals, both public and private·· which are submitted to the County Planning Division will be reviewed for consistency with the policies of the Plan as well as the designations of the Land Use Map.· In case of reasonable doubt as to the precise alignment of land use designation boundaries on the Community Plan map, the Planning • Director is authorized to determine the precise boundaries of the definite natural or:_ man-made boundaries including, but not limited to roads, property lines, waterways, slopes, and ridgelines. Such determinations must recognize the existence of the goals and policies which are set forth in the written text and must comply with the intent and the purposes of the Moorpark Community Plan. Determinations shall be graphically portrayed on he adopted Community Plan map as soon as practical. 55 PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN TRAILS MAP Sb 56 ♦ • . '; • TABLE .9. . , \ @ J COMl"I\TIBLE ZONING· COMPATIBIL,ITY MATRIX · 1 l NOT COMl"ATIOLE Ventura County Ordinance Cede . . ZONE DISTnlCTS RE$1DENTIAL/ AGRICULTURE • M~~'21·tiL ou~~Rlt.L · --Less lhon Hiqh LOT SIZE 40 Acres 20 Acres 10 Acres 5 l\cres 2 Acres I Acre 1/2 Acre 1/4 Acre l/<l /icre Densily EXAMPLE ZONES A·E l\•E•P•20 A·E·P R·A•5 tic A•t.•2 Ac R•A R•i•?0,000 A·l·I0,000 R-1-6,000 R·2 C•f"•D M·I 0·5•401\c R•l\•20 A·A·IO R·E•5Ac R·E·2Ac R·O·IAc R·O·SF R·l·l:3,000 R·l-7,000 R·3 C-1 M•2 l\•E-P-40 0·5·20 O>S·IO (ondovor) R·E·IAc R·E·20,000-R·1·15,000 R·l·B,000 T•P•O C-2 0·5·30 O·S-15 • R·l·IAe SF n-E R-1·9,000 R·P·0-6 (and oser) PLAN MAP A·E·P-30 A·E·P·15 R•P·0·2 ; R·P·0·/4 R•P·O·G CATEGORIES (or>d ur,tJerl (ond under) (ond under) '---· RESIOENTII\L A IC!\ A ' Rvral low I O.U./!Mc. ml". V V 'al' @ ----~-----+----t-----t-----1 Rvrtl hlfh A 1ft ti\ "' A 11A I O,U./11\c, ml~. W v;, 'Y W W W ~. 0,: z.o o.v. /i.c. G (D @ Q O 6 0 M1rllvm In O Q 0 0 0 @ $ @ z.1 • 3.0 o.u./,.c. ~ld~•to D.U./Ac. e e 0 f.} G e (i O • e ~-,~~10.0 O.U./1\c. 0 (t} 0 () $ 0 @ · () e 0 t-----t---------- ta~'i'-;JOQ~.U, / .... c. • 0 e e 0 0 I O O 0 ~ C OIJ ME n CI "L 1------+----~-----i-----1-----i----------l-----___ o __ ,_ ____ , ! INOUSTnlAL f) 1--___ , AOrllCULT URAL ' ,\9, I 10-◄o "c/0.U. 0 0 e .. ,. l\v. z ◄o + Ac./o.u. (3 orrN SP.\CE A """' l!!llio O.S.I IO·•IOllc./0.U. V W V f-----1-----+----f----i O.S. 2 ◄O+l\c,/0.U. $ ' The Planning Director shall determine the precise alignment of the line separating the 11 VH 11 and 11 C:-2" designations in the Campus Park Area, upon submittal of a project application. : In granting the Planning Director such powers, it is understood th2t any interested party may appeal his or her decision to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the Board of Supervisors ( Ventura County Ordinance Code, Division 8, Chapter 1 Articie 43) and may also file for a General Plan amendment. It is further understood that the· Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors shall be informed of any specific boundary determination made by the Planning Director. Review of Development Proposals for Ordinance and Code Conformante Development proposals shall be reviewed by the appropriate County agencies for conformance with subdivision ordinances, site development regulations, building codes, housing codes and any other local legislation designed to· apply land use controls to meet local conditions. ·••J. Review of Developmer{t Proposals by Local Cornmittees Tht! MoorparR-'--Architectural Review Committee shall review all prcjects, both public and private, for consistency with __ the policies of the Plan as well as the designations of the Land Use Ma~ The local body shall ·make appropriate recommendations on all proposed development within_ t_he community. Phasing The .MCAC determined that the limiting. size of the growth area boundary·- superceded the need to incorpora.te a phasing mechanism in the_ proposed· Community Plan. Development can occur anywhere within the urban area at any time during the life of this Plan~ .On projects which are being phased for approval,_ consistent with the overall density within the limits allowed by the Community Plan, phases which exceed the maximum allowed dens_ity_ may be approved provided the developer enters into an agreement with the· approving agency to dedicate sufficient additional land to the approved phase to bring the approved phase density within the limits allowed by the Com_munity Plan should the balance of the project area not be approved. Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) All CIP 1 s should be consistent with, and accommodate the growth proposed in, this Plan. 58 F. FOOTNOTES •. 1. Telecon: Don Yarnell, Ventura County Area Housing Authority. 2. Southern California Association of Governments, "Retional Housing Allocation Model, " 1978 3. State Department of Finance, 1975 Special Census 59 RESOLUTION NO. 83-52 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK ADOPTING THE MOORPARK COMMUNITY PLAN AS THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN h1iEREAS, the Moorpark Planning Commission held a legal -public hearing on September 27, 1983 on the matter of approving and recommending to the City Council of the City of Moorpark that the staff findings be adopted, that the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report be certified, and that the Moorpark Community Plan be adopted as the Land use Element of the Moorpark General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Moorpark Plqnning Commission approved and recommended to the City Ccuncil of the City of Moorpark that the staff findings be adopted, that the previously_ prepared Environ.'nental Impact.Report be certified, and that the Moorpark· Community; Plan be adopted_ as the Land Use Element of the Mciorpark General Plan~ and ·~ .. • -~ I WHEREAS, the City Council helU on October 19, 1983 a public hearing legally noticed pursu·ant to Government Co9e Section 65355,· on the matter of adopting the staff findings, certifying the previously prepared Environmental Impact • : • Report, and adopting the Moorpark Community Plan as the Land Use Element of the Moorpark General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Councir has considered oral and written testimony on this matter and the staff findings and recommendations, attached reports and-addendums, thereto. _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Moorpark:- City Council }:lereby adopts the -staff findings, certifies the previously-prepared Environmental Impact Report and adopts the Moorpark Community P~an as the Land Use Element of the Moorpark General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk transmit to the planning agehcy of the County of Vehtura a copy of the Moorpark Land use Element, pursuant to Government Code section 65360. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Com- munity Developmerit is directed to initiate before the Plan- ning Commission further hearings to review and refine the Land Use Element. Such review shall include review of the placement and number of designated school sites. Said hear- ings shall begin at the earliest time the Director in his discretion finds to be feasible. 7Z- APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2 n <l day of November , 1 983 . ~~~~_/ LE~_fiANCY-~ ~ Ma)'-Of of thJ:' City of •• Moorpark, California ATTEST: . k d~L.u DORIS.BANKUS, City Clerk -2- .• . ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA CITY OF MOORPARK . ~ SS. ) 1, , City Clerk of the· City of --------------Doris D. Bankus Moorpark~ California. do hereby certify that the foregoing· Resolution }'Jo. 83-52 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day C?f __ N_o_v_e_m_b_e_r ___ -----e'•----19 ~3 , • and that the s_ame w~ adopted J?y .,,.:;--.. ·_ .. - the follmying vo~e.· to Wit: ·, -~ • • ~~- · ·----·.c· • AYES: ··-: :: • ;_:._:· · .. NOES: Councilmembers Harper> ·Straughan; Beaulieu> Prieto __ ,:; and Mayor Yancy~Sutton; None; ABSENT: None· .•• 2nd· WITNESS my hand and the official seal of sa_id City th~-__ _ d • • f .. Novemb.er ay o . . 19 83 ,. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE A. EXISTING PROJECT SITE 1. Assessor Parcel No(s): 2. Location (nearest public road, cross street, community, etc.): 3. Assessor Parcel Area(s): Total: sq. ft./acres 4. Existing Land Use(s): 5. Existing Building(s) and Structure(s): 6. Maximum Existing Slope Gradient (horiz. feet/ea. vert. foot): 7. Distinctive Physical Features: ___________________ _ 8. Existing Vegetation: 9. Existing Access Routes (if any): 'PROVED 8/84 i General -• -i-Prorect Description Questionnaire Page~2 :iF JO. Existing Drainage Facflltles (if any): }/ 11. Exf5tfng Drainage Dlrection(s): 12. Existing Water Supply (if any): 13. Existing Sanitation Facilities (if any): • 14. Existing Utilities & Easements (gas, electrfcal, etc.): 1S. Exist:ng Access Easemznts (if any): _______________ _ 16. Mineral Rights Owner or Leasee: 17. . Describe the no., type, size and location of all existing signs (if any): B. SURROUNDING PROPERTY 1. Land Uses North: South: East: West: 2. Buildings and Structures (indicate approx. distance from project site) North: South: East: West: • ' i Gener.al Projec:t Description Questionnaire Page 3 3. Distinctive Physical Features North: South: East: West: 4. Vegetation North: South: East: West: 5. Drainage Facilities (if any) North: South: East: West: 6. Noise characteristics of the :surrounding area (include significant noise sources): C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Describe in detail the proposed use(s) (attach sheets if necessary: 2. Size of permit area (if different from parcel area): 3. Size and use of proposed buildings or structures: . • t: ~l-• General Profect Description Questionnaire Page 4 :4. s. 6. Percent of lot area to be covered by bulldings: Height· and No. of stories of proposed bullding(s): Size and use of outside storage and/or operation areas (if any): 7. Total No. of people on the project site during each day: 8. Estimated No. of truck deliveries/loadings per day (if any): 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Estimated No. of truck deliveries/loadings between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (it any): No. of parking spaces provided (9'x20'): No. of loading spaces provided (12'x50'): Area of landscaping: Percent of parking area to be landscaped: Type(s) of screening/fencing to be provided: Describe No., type, size and location of all proposed signs: • General Project Description Questionnaire Page 5 16. 17. 18. If applicable, will existing signs be removed? describe: Hours of operation: How will security be provided? If so, 19. Will project be dE:veloped in phases? ___ If so, describe each phase in detail: 20: • Describe any potential noise sources associated with the project. If applicable, also describe what methods would be used to reduce the noise so as not to be objectionable to surrounding uses (attach sheets if necessary): 21. Describe any uses or operations producing significant light or glare. If applicable, describe what methods would be used to shield, enclose or otherwise control light or glare so as not to be objectionable to surrounding uses (attach sheets if necessary): t. General -·~, ProJect Description Questionnaire Page· 6 • 22. Grading Arca to be graded: sq. ft/acres Total volume to be moved: cu. yd:s. Slope ratio of :steepest finished :slope (horlz. feet/ea. vert. foot): Height of highest finished slope: feet Ojsposition of excavated material: How will dust b~ controlled? 23. No. of trees to be removed (count trees with 5 11 dia. or more at 3' above root crown) by species: D. PROPOSED SERVICES 1. Drainage Describe how increased runoff will be handled both on-site and off-site: Will the project require the installation or replacement of storm drains or channels? ________ If yes, Indicate length size ___________ and capacity 2. Water Supply Estimate yearly water supply needs: _____ ac. ______ ft./gal. Water Source (check): ____ Wells ____ Water Pur_veyor • •I• :-.. :} General Project Description Questionnaire Page 7 -eo If wells, attach three copies of a well water quantity and quality report from testing lab. If water purveyor, attach three copies of a water avatlabllity letter from purveyor. Will the. project require the installation or replacement of new water service mains? ______ If yes, indicate length ________ , size ____________ , and capacity 3. Sanitation 4. Sanitation will be provided by (check): private on-site· septic system public sewers -------- If .private system, attach three copies of a soils report and perco- lation test data, and describe the proposed system (leach-field or seepage pit): If public sewersf attach three from sanitary district. Will the If not, Indicate length copies of a sewer availability letter project utilize existing:. sewer mains? • and capacity • of new , size ---------ma1ns. Electricity What Is the projected amount of electrical usage (peak Kw/Hrs/Day): Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size? If yes, describe: Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? If so, describe: ------ Indicate length of new off-site electrical transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project (if applicable): 5. Natural Gas Indicate expected amount of gas usage: "• . -I-- General Project Description Questionnaire Page 8 Do existing gas fines have to be increased lo size? If yes, ·describe: Do existing gas lines require relocation? If yes, describe: Indicate length and size of new off-site gas mains (if applicable): 6. Fire Protection Indicate No .. and capacity of existing -and/or proposed fire hydrants ' aild distance from proposed buildings; BS:dP12h Cf) t:: :::i: .J >- N t::: ~ (J 0 \ Adoption Date: THE CITY OF MOORPARK CIRCULATION ELEMENT Prepared by the Ventura County Resource Management Age~cy Planning Division City of Moorpark City Council on November 2, 1983. Ji ) "Moorpark is a [community] which has progressed slowly, it takes time to build a [community), plenty of work, patience and mistakes along the way. Each generation leaves a bit of itself as a memento. Ari generations have a texture, and when woven together, leave a distinct pattern of living. This is true of Moorpark whcse heritage and strength ·Jie ir. its grass root.s. Today's generat.;c,n is still weaving another texture. With respect for the past, the citizens of Moorpark accept the challenge of building for the future." i Norma Gunter, The Moorpark Stary J; TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .. Moorpark Sphere of Interest Text City of Moorpark Circulation Element Text LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -Spheres of Interest Boundaries Figure 2 -Moorpark Sphere of Interest .. LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -Moorpark Development Trends 1975-1990 iii 6 8 4 5 7 INTRODUCTION Sto The Need for the Amendment The County Comprehensive Circulation Amendment Preferred Alternative ha~ been developed in response to ch.anges in policies and plans of the State, the-County and the nine incorporated cities in Ventura County since the adoption of the 1971 Circulation Element to the General Plan. The major changes are brieilyhighlightcd in the following: *The philosophy of planning has changed to recognize explicitly the many uncertainties of the future. Whereas the existing Circulation Element was based on an ultimate population of between 1.5 million and 2.0 million, the proposed Amendment is based on a population forecast of 632,000 in 1990 as adopted by the Ventura County Association of Governments (VCAG). *The County Open Space and Conservation Element adopted in 1973 reflect·s a cons1.der:able decrease in the amount of land available for urbanization from that anticipated when the Circulation Element was originally formulated. Consequently, many roads shown in the ~irculation Element in areas now designated as Rural or Open Space in the Open Space Element are no longer needed. *All nine cities have either adopted or are in the process of develop- ing and adopting new General Plans which reflect policy changes in anticipated growth and development. *A regional and sub-regional transportation planning effort, as mandated by State law, has been undertaken. The sub-regional trans- ) portation effort has resulted in studies and plans developed in the past four years which form a basis for this planning effort. *Local governments have experienced a decrease in purchasing power for road construction purposes, and have had to deal with increasingly -tighter budgets. Consequently, relatively fewer funds are expected to be available in the future for road improvements. *A change in the philosophy of the State has been evidenced. The major changes include first, an emphasis on maintenance and trans- portation system management as opposed to new construction, and second, the competition for State and Federal highway funds has i_ntensified with a probable reduction in funds for Ventura County (California Transportation Plan, adopted 1977). The Amendment Proposal The Amendment generally includes those roads which provide regionally signiricant tunctions in servicing inter and intra-urban traffic demand. Through 1990 the plan is designed to accommodate the travel demands bet>-1een the various urban areas of Ventura County as well as the inter-County traffic between Ventura County and Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Kern Counties. A road is usually portrayed on the proposed. Amendment if it is a major thoroughfare of regional significance and its expected 1990 Average Daily ~raffic Volume (ADT) is above 1,000, or is a road that is eligible to receive Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) Fu~ds. The latter criteria is necessary because for a road to be eligible to receive FAS funds, the road must be a Select-System Road. The Circulation Element defines the Select System for Federal funding purposes. The County and Cities' Circulation Elements are complementary; however, the Elements are not always identical due to differences in the level of detail. A city is concerned with ~local» roads as well as major thoroughfares; whereas the County is not co·ncerned with "local" roads per se. If conflicts arise the Circulation Element of a city takes precedence over the County Circulation Element in the incorporated areas. Additionally, the delineation of a road on the proposed Amend- ment does not necessarily imply that development should occur along the road corridor. The General Plans and planning policies of the County and respective cities take precedence in land development dis- cussions. The Circulation Element follows and accommodates land use plans, it does not determine them. Four maps accompany this report: the 1971 Ventura Counti Circulation Element, the 1977 Circulation Element Corridor i'1ap, therooosed Maxi- mum Nt.IP.iber of Lanes for the 1990 Circu·lation Element and Existing Roads of the 199-0 CirculatlonITement, April, 1977. The proposed 1977 Circulation Element Corridor Map and the 1990 Maximum Number of Lanes Map are the control docmnents; the text is only a generalized narrative describing the maps. In the event of any conflict, the maps take precedence. ~he Circulation Element Corridor Mao represents more precise alignments than the 1990 Maxi- rnmn Number of Lanes Map due to the printing process. The Circulation Element Corridor Map and the 1990 Maximum Number of Lanes Map are proposed for adoption as official County policy; any_ change in either a general road corridor or maximum number of lanes requires a General Plan Amendment. The maximum number of lanes designation does not necessarily imply that a road will be widened, only that· it may be widened only to the width proposed on the 1990 Maximum Number of Lanes Map. If factors change which require addi- ttonal road widths from that proposed, a G~neral Plan A.mendment will be warranted. For any given road the maximum number of lanes is determined by the following criteria: average daily traffic flow; the percentage of trucks in the traffic; the ratio of peak hour traffic to average daily traffic; the traffic volume on cross streets; left turn move- ments; and traffic directional splits. This report is organized by Spheres of Interest as displayed in Figure 1. Changes between the 1971 and the Preferred Alternative Amendment are noted as deletions, additions, realignments and changes in status. A road proposed for a deletion from the Circula- tion Element which is now physically existing coes not mean that the road will be physically removed. It means that the road is no longer considered to be of regional significance, thus removing it f~om consideration by the Circulation Element. Road improvements such as signalization are not discussed. In most instances, the pro- posed road changes are discussed in the Sphere of Interest where they first appear, from west to east in the county. 2 • Relationship to the Regional Land Use -Prooram Future land use decisions in Ventura County will be determined in 1a-rge part by the results of the Regional Land Use Program (RLUP). This program, a cooperative planning effort of the County of Ventura, local cities and special districts, is aimeQ at managing and coordinating the common elements of four programs mandated by the State and Federal governments. These programs are the Ventura County Sub-Regional Transportation Plan, the Spheres of Influence Plan, the Areawide Wastewater Management Plan, and the Air Qu 9 lity Maintenance Plan. Completion of the program is scheduled for mid-1978. The proposed Amendment to the Circulation Element complements currently approved and adopted land use policies and plans; should these change as the result of RLUP or any other planning efforts, the Circulation Element as proposed will be amended to reflect the later dec1.s1.ons. In any event the Circulation Element is expected to be updated in order to incorporate new development trends and changes in planning policies and other elements of the General Plan. In addition, any amendment to the adopted County Open Space and Conservation Element should inch1de revi~1.y of the Circulation Element since t..r1e latte!:" is in 1·arge part tied to the former. 3 • I I I r I I ) ,. / \. \ \ \ \ \ ' ~---r---' FILLMORE VENTURA _ v~r..:r"J.;"'!' . . ' PORT HUENEM FIG. I SANTA PAULA SPHERES OF INTEREST BOUNDARIES 3-31-76 Pi RU SIMI VALLEY MOORPAR \ :511 ~~~- --.."""""T s LEGEND: SPHERES OF INTEREST ~ CITY LIMITS nzvs;;;:;;:,.,,--... FREEWAY • ·~· a:i:.tQw~ CONVENTIONAL STATE HIGHWAY ./ I .. LOCAL ROAD ~ I .• ---,. +· + / . I • _,, .,,. I ~ I ,, - ~ ,/'1 r ':..---._ ' I • I I ,' I I -'?"'( >rJ fl.-~M-00,~-PA-,-1K __ J · 1'c,s,o H l/1 C') ►c" ' ~ .,11-' ~/ •• \ ('Tl ~ N --i►V'(. ...... (.d ~n ~-i ~•f. -........ • ,~PARK • . ' . . .......... _ -,-..;_ l • ---· ,· ~ -· ·•-· .. . , ~ ,..,'J . . I ... _j / ( ~rr-..,,.-- .. ___ .)\ '-/~ :--. -·-·· ., .. t11111 tl!•~ I . _.. . I ,r··,-:-r .,<. ' ' ~ . ....,,.., .• I. \' '--i·· ·,. MOOR PAR~< SPHERE OF INTEREST ~ " MOORPARK SPHERE OF INTEREST The population of the general Moorpark area is approximately 5,000; the approved 1990 Ventura County Association of Governments adopted population is approxirnately-6,760. The 1974 Moorpark Community Plan Report projected an ultimate population for the planning area of 52,000. The Amendment Preferred Alternative will eliminate previously projected roads in areas no longer expected to urbanize, reflects changes in funding policies, and assures sufficient roads internal to the urban area. The Amendment Preferred Alternative is based on a target date of 1990, unlike the Community Plan which is based on an ultimate population. Figure 5 portrays the Preferred Alternative for the Moorpark Sphere of Interest .. Table 4 displays the 1975 and projected 1990 population and land uses for the Moorpark area as assumed in the Ventura County Sub-Regional Transportation Pl2.n - 1975. PROPOSED DELETIONS Bro2.dway Refer to Las Posas Sphere of Interest. Fenmore Street Fenmore Street currently exists as a two-lane road from College View Avenue to just east of Moorpark College. The extension of Fenmore east of the College shown on the existing Circulation Element is proposed for deletion while still including a proposed extension west of College View Avenue. No new development is proposed east of the College, consequently the proposed extension is no longer needed. Gabbert Road Gabbert Road currently exists north of Los Angeles Avenue. The existing Circulation Element proposes to extend it to Shekell Road. However, since the route's service area is projected to remain in agriculture the extension is no longer necessary and existing Gabbert is proposed for deletion. Happy Canyon Road :12.ppy Canyon Road currently exists for about l½ miles north of Hartford Street. A previously proposed extension would have run from the previously proposed State Freeway 23 to High Street. The majority of the area is projected to be non-urbanized, consequently the existi~g road and the extension are proposed for deletion. High Street The High Street deletion is £rem Wal~ut ~anyon Road to the previously proposed Freeway 23. The road is no longer of regional significance because it will no long.er serve in its intendeo function as an off-ramp for the freeway. .. Development Factor Population Land Use2 Residential Commercial Industrial TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS l975-1990 MOORPARK GROWTH AREA ·• , DEVELOPMENT TRENDSA 1975 4,258 262 32 104 Public Facilities 610 Average Daily Trips3 Jobs in Area 15,300 847 Year 1 Based on 1975 Ventura County Transporatation Study data. 2 In acres 3 Average Daily Trips assumed to be 3.6 trips/perso~/day in 1975 and 3.9 trips/person/day by 1990. • 1990 6,000 359 44 154 610 23 ,·400 1,710 Lagoon Road Lagoon Road does not currently exist, nor is it projected to be needed in the future due to reduced development-plans for the area. Santa Rosa Road Santa Rosa Road currently exists as a two-lane road west of Moorpark Road. The proposed deletion of Santa Rosa Road east of the present alignment of Moorpark Road does not currently exist. The area is now agricultural and is expected to remain so in the future. CITY OF MOORPARK CIRCULATION ELEMENT College View Avenue College View Avenue between Los Angeles and Campus Park Drive is intended to-carry residential and Moorpark College bound traffic until such time Collins Drive is constructed as the primary access route to Moorpark College. Both four-lane roads are shown in Maps 1 and 2 of the Circulation Element. Tierra Rejada Tierra Rejada west of State Freeway 23 the 1981 Circulation Element pending plans. The road as shown shows the provides access for the new development Princeton Avenue was temporarily deleted from a submittal of development completed realignment that in the area. Princeton Avenue and Campus Park Drive are four-lane roads which provide regional_access for the area. PROPOSED STATUS CHANGES State Freeway 23 State Freeway 23 connecting the City of Moorpark with the City of Fillmore has been deleted. State Route 118 Refer to Maps l and 2 which show the rerouting of State Route 118 traffic from Moorpark Avenue and High Street to Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Road. This new routing as shown shall be redesignated with the cooperation of CALTRANS as State Route 118. Grimes Canvon Due to the deletion of Freeway 23, Grimes Canyon Road north of Broadway shall be shown as a conventional State Highway in recognition of its current and projected role as a part of State Highway 23. Al though upgraded to highway status, no substantial improvements are proposed for Grimes Canyon through 1990. ;, Los Angeles Avenue· Los Angeles Avenue and the New Los Angeles Avenue extension shall be developed in accordance with Maps 1 and 2 of the Circulation Element. No specific alignment is specified for the new Los Angeles Avenue extension. Walnut Canyon Road Walnut Canyon Road between Broadway and Los Angeles Avenue is shown as a conventional State highway due to the deletion of State Freeway 23. Furthermore, a new section of a four-lane road connecting Moorpark Road north to a poin~ in the vicinity of the County Maintenance Facility on Walnut Canyon Road shall be constructed pursuant to Maps land 2 of the Circulation Element in order to facilitate the rerouting of State Highway 23 traffic from the , downtown core. However, no specific alignment for this new section of road has been determined. Gisler Avenue Gisler Avenue between Poindexter Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue shall be shown as a four-lane road with a right-of-way width of 68 feet pursuant to Maps land 2 of the Circulation Element. State Route 23 and 118 Connection A connection filling the gap between these two existing freeways is a matter of high priority. Said connection shall include up to six traf fie lanes with a right of way in excess of 118 feet. No specific alignment is specified. Other Roads All other roads not mentioned in this text shall be developed j_n acco~dance of the Circulation Element Maps, Nos. land 2. Bike Trails, Foot Paths and Equestrian Trails All such facilities shall be developed in accordance with Maps 3 and 4 of the Circulation Element with reference to the criteria set forth in the Moorpark Community Plan (Land Use Element:) and the design criteria set forth in Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California published by CALTRANS, June 30, 1978. RESOLUTION NO. 83-52 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK ADOPTING THE MOORPARK COMMUNITY PLAN AS THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN h'HEREAS, the Moorpark Planning Commission held a legal public hearing on September 27, 1983 on the matter of approving and recommending to the City Council of the City of Moorpark that the staff findings be adopted, that the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report be certified, and that the Moorpark Community Plan be adopted as the Land Use Element of the Moorpark General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Moorpark Planning Commission approved and recommended to the City Council of the City of Moorpark that the staff findings be adopted, that the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report be certified, and that the Moorpark Community Plan be adopted as the Land Use Element of the Moo~park General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council held on October 19, 1983 a public hearing legally noticed pursuant to Government Code section 65355, on the matter df adopting the staff findings, certifying the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report, and adopting the Moorpark Community Plan as the Land use Element of the Moorpark General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered oral and written testimony on this matter and the staff findings and recommendations, attached reports and addendums, thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Moorpark City Council hereby adopts the staff findings, certifies the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report and adopts the Moorpark Community Plan as the Land Use Element of the Moorpark General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk transmit . to the planning agency of the County of Ventura a copy of the Moorpark Land Use Element, pursuant to Government Code section 65360. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Com- munity Development is directed to initiate before the Plan- ning Commission further hearings to review and refine the Land Use Element. Such review shall include review of the placement and number of designated school sites. said hear- ings shall begin at the earliest time the Director in his discretion finds to be feasible. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this Zo<l day of November , 1983. Moorpark, ATTEST: A~~ Ati:,~J DORIS BANKUS, City Clerk -2- ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA CITY OF MOORPARK ~ ss. ) I, Doris D. Bankus , City Clerk of the· City of ______________ _..; Moorpark, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resoluri_on-No. 8 3-52 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day (?f , 19 83 -------------' --~ November and that the same was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Councilmernbers Harper, Straughan, Beaulieu, Prieto and Mayor Yancy-Sutton; None; ABSENT: None· WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 2nd November 83 day of-----------~• 19 ___ _ ) ~".:,, LEGEN.D -FREEWAYS CONVENTIONAL STATE LOCAL ROADS ' ' ' -=-INTERCHANGE \ ... E w m m ◄ 0 LOS (§) .l.lJ[. ~ ANGELES w > ◄ ~ ~ g . f FUTURE @ -~~H STA.HT FUTURE: G) AVE. ----'\ ---- y 0 i;; THtS Pt.AN ( MAP l IS PA Pt.AN ADOPTED PURSUI PLANNING LAW OF THE PASSED BY RESOWTION COMMISSION ON OCTOE AND THE CITY COUNCI MOO,RPARK ON NO'✓EMI C- '' ,-;t;. • ~-< "AYOR, Clf/1::0trnCIL~ 09'i \Sl 0, THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor CUNT HARPER, Ph.D. Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Council member JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember BERt;JARDO PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:: MOORPARK MEMORANDUM ...., - CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEil City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer The Honorable City Council • ~ Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development\ February 23, 1987 (CC/PC joint meeting 2/25/87) JOINT MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5.H. LOCAL PLANNING ORDINANCE PROPOSAL The subject was requested to be placed on the agenda by the Planning commission and may best be introduced by that body; the proposed is a very comprehensive method of planning which would formalize the planning process beyond the minimum requirements established by state law. • / I / TO: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PLANNED GROWTH/ LOCAL PLANNING ORDINANCE FROM: DOUG HOLLAND TAKE ONE LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY IS ALLOWING TO OCCUR ON THE HILLSIDES ADJACENT TO THE 118 FREEWAY JUST EAST OF MOORPARK. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE HILLS AND THE VALLEYS HAVE BEEN BULLDOZED, GRADED, AND COMPACTED. WE WILL BE SUBJECTED TO LARGE AND MASSIVE INDUSTRIAL PU!LDINGS VIRTUALLY ON TOP OF THE FREEWAY. IT IS ONE THI~IG TO BUILD A FREEWAY THROUGH DEVELOPED AREAS AND ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT ~F BUILDINGS THAT.WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE THE FREEWAY. IT IS ANOTHER THING ALTOGETHER TO DELIBERATELY DEVELOP THESE KINDS OF PROJECTS AND IHEN HAVE T~iE AUDACIT) TO SAY IT WAS PLANNED. AH, THE PRICE WE PAY TO FINANCE A CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION. THERE APE SEVERAL COMMON THEMES RUNNING BRETHPEN ON THE COMt'i IS'=-I llN. IT APPEARS REAFFIRMATION OF THE CURRENT GENERAL IDENTIFYING AND ADHERING TO A REASONABLE THROUGH THE COMMENTS OF MY THAT THERE IS UNANIMITY IN THE PLAN; STRONG SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT LIMIT; A DESIRE TO ENSURE THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SERVE fHE DEVELOPMENT; AND A BELIEF THAT THE ELECTORATE SHOULD IN SOME WAY BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. 1 3HAPE THESE COMMISS!Ot'-J. OVER VOTED AGAINST ALL INCREASED DENSITY DESIRES WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AT LEAST THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS I HAVE CONSISTENTLY AM/'>1Ei'JDl'1ENTS TO o:JR GENERAL Pi...AN WHICH RESULTED Ir; OR INTENSITY CF USE AND GENERATED ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND DEl'1ANDS ON ALL. QF OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFP.ASTRUC,uRE. OPINION, OUR ULTIMATE PROGRAM OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING: lf'l MY SHOULD o A FIRM AND REASOl'IAPLE GENERAL PLAN AND ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAi', WHICH CAN~OT EAS!LY BE ~MENDED OR MODIFIED ONCE ADOPTED. PLAN SHOULD BE OUR CONSTITUTION GUIDING US TOWARDS OUF: THE Gd-lERAL LIL.TlMATE ANY SYSTEM OR FROCESS BY SIMFi...E DEVELOPER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS CITY. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE 0ENERAL PL~N TO EE AMENDED APP!_ICA>ION t'lUCH LIVE ,c,r-lY Ar'PLIC.:;TI8M FOR A ZONE PI_C.Ni'JEI' DEVELOPME~-lT Fc:;:-M:T. □UP GEt-,ERAi... PLAN AI'I-IEPE"D TO AND IF ADt--T(;''E~iCE T•::: Tf--lE GENERAL FLAN HAS i'lAF ~f,iEr,lD1t-r1ENT OF, A SHOULD BE STRICTL)' THE NET EFFECT ur SHOUL~ ;:'ECC:G~-1,=E THE ~-~CT TH,'.',T CHD.:JGE·=:: "lrl·, BE NECESSARY PEF:or-:CALLY 1(,J DF:DE.r, -:-o El'lSIJPE ,H,"\T our=: GE~:EF:AL :=·LAN :s C:UF;F;Ell, AND VlTAL. WE SHOULi) •~EPFFOPE PE~ronr~~LL.~-REV:E~ OUR SENE2AL PLAN AND ALL OF iT'.:: ELEME~iTS Pt--JD M<";VE ,HE ADJ!...:s,~;~r.-:-:c. TH.";T Mr,,· BE NECESSAE'.-. NE\,Ef.:Ti4ELESS, ,rilS p ~ p r 0 D I C C:[ '.' I E 1.-J '.:: f--' :::: i...l L r-r. E C' R = Er I T t: D T Ok' A RD :c. C LI [,1 u i... Ar l 'J E I Mr ,; C T ; M·lD T H C s C. If-lP,'.CTS C:Hr,_11_D BE "IJ~.L, ::•:D '.:'Oi':FLC'TEL'( ANAL',-=ED. o :JE SHO'_':.r ESTARL~SH TWC L[1 .'~'...S OF '_ILT:MATE r.:ESPCJMSli3lLI,, TC; F'Ul3i..1C FACILITIE'= AND HlFRASTF:1_rCTL 1 f"E, WE SHCULD FIF;:::.r F.ECC•Gl'IIZE THA; THE CUPREI\IT Al'lD PLANMED PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE INTENLED TC SERVE ONL, EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AN~ DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY PLANNED FOR IN THE CIT). IN THE VEPY LEAST, OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES SHOULD BE PLANNED TO SERVE THESE DEVELOPMENTS. NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY PLANNED OR \0\ PROVIDED FOR IN OUR GENERAL PLAN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE OR TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY EXISTING UNUSED CAPACITY IN ANY OR OUR SYSTEMS.( NEW AND CURRENTLY UNPLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FRONT THE COST OF ALL OVERSIZED AND ADDITIONAL FACILITIES WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ACCOMODATE THAT DEVELOPMENT. EXISTING BUT UNUSED CAPACITY IN OUR EXISTING FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD NOT BE COMMITTED OR USED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE GENERAL PLAl'l. o THE CITIZEMS OF OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED HI THE PLANNING PROCESS. OUR PLAN~IING PROCES~ SHOULD BE "RESIDENT FRIENDLY" AMD SHOULD ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT OF ALL SEGMENTS OF OUR COMMUN I TY, NOT JUST DEVELOPERS AND LARGE LAt,:DOWNEF·::,. IM KEEPING WITH THE ABO')[ C:UTL~t-lE Or ccr·:CEF:NS OF: GOALS, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE CITY ADOPT A LOCAL PLANNING ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD GOVERN THE PLANNING PROCESS 0~ THE CITY. THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD FORMALIZE THE PLANNING PROCESS BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED IN THE CALIFORNLA GOVERNMENT CODE. THIS LOCAL PLANNING ORDINANCE SHOULD BE THE COMPREHENSIVE AND DEFIN!TIVE ST~TEMENT AS TO THE METHOD, THE PROCESS, AND THE PROCEDURES BY WHICH THIS COMMUNITY ADOPTS, AMENDS, AND IMPLEMENTS ITS PLANNING DOCUMENTS, :NCLUDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE GEMERAL PLAM. I SHOULD ALSO EMPHASIZE THAT THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD NOT BE C0MSIDEr.:ED AS M·i ALTERNATIVE TO THE MANAGED GROWTH JNJT!ATIVE. CERTAIM PROVISION~ OF THE LOCAL PLANNING ORDINANCE MAY MOT BE AS NECESSARY IF THE MANAGED GR0WTh INITIATIVE PPSSES, BUT q LOCAL PLANNING ORDINANCE SHOULD BE ADOPTED REGARDLESS OF WH~T HOPDENS IN NOVEMBER. PL ANNING QPD I NAt-JCE SHC,ULD CC:NT ,';IN TH:c F:JLLGW HiG; THE ORDir'-l:l.r•JCE Sl40L!LD ~BSOLUTEL'( PROHIBIT Ar-r( Ai•JEHDMEi·ll T~: THE GENERAL PLAN WHICH WOULD HAVE THE RESULT OF INCREASING THE DENSITY OR INTENSITY OR USES. AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN COULD BE INITIATED BY THE COUNCIL ON A UNANIMOUS 1J0TE F0F: SUCH AMENDME,·iT'.::. THAT r,i;;·,· BE ,lECi:.::::.;:,AF, ,· TO AC(;0MODATE THE LOCATION AND I'E'JELC:P~lENT OF :·1_:BLl•: FAClL.: T :Ee., AhD IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS T~E SCHOOLS, STREETS, ETC. o FIVE-YEQR PENEWALS. EVERY FI'-JE YE.C.PS THE C,TY SHOULG re: ·...JHAT: CALL A GENEF.AL PL;...;-; F:c.ilEW,'.',L. AT SUCH TIME THE ENTIFE CITY WOULS BE IN\'GL 1JED IH THE c';EVIC~ C,F ,HE GENEPAL PL.'.\N {';,;DALL::,;:::-IT: ELEMEt-1T;. ,:L:... PE~-:::::11•;= rr,; ,hE C;.::;;,;;,;:...,tlIT",· GEN:C:F·QL ~:...;.r: ,".t;':_" T~lc ::::,--C'::·u:...;:- PA.PT CF Tl-':,'.= Pcr:rcw;.L r--r:·:::,cr:::.::. ..,. Y'\I r> ,-. -.:.. -·. •;.:: ~ HG:.::-.[ , tH--' , W~F.~ i ;C) I Ll I SC ~p DE D ~:=,;_:L.J ::,_ •! E:--;•;, i::::o~n--T~J, AL I t-1F'AC ""." 2EP8P.T WOULD EE • r"\ 'T . --.• ,-..... - r-_·..., :_1.:;.,; 1·1t..:.1 l I,.:_ : jJ E:,.; _;. ; t,E ,,... r. -- . , • - \._ .,_• ! t I .t,, I~ ~·t:. ; rit.. PP.QPC!SED C:l::•IEP.-"'L pi_:u; PE~IE:"l.JA'-, INCLL'I'a:::: -"-:...L FF~::·::::.c:;:;. ;:;;::,J:_,:~i•lc.1'<1::-c,F. AMENJ;MEN,s. BUT THE O.JTIR• CC'"?T c•r '.'"'-'L:-J::::c;_lf'iE!,;:-\,.,;C,,_1LD SE f,,::1El,C: i:;'( THE. PERS'JN:'. ADV:\:"IC ': NG T•.;E r r::.::;FC :-ET .".;::'JUSTMC:r,JTS u,·. ,',i•,E;,J:o~;:.::i,-;-:::. . THE THE At•JP,L • ::, a~-WOULD PROJECT A TRUE AND TOTAL IMPACTS OF THE ESSENTI::L CON'.::-I!"EC·,"..TJ'J~; HERE, !~C 1'..JE'}ER, I'.::, THF,, CERTP.I~ILY BE ON -'.\ CUMt..!LATI\'E BASIS AND WOULD ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT THE CUMULATIVE AND PROPOSED ADJUSTMEMTS AND AMENDMENTS WOULD BE. THIS PORTRA~AL WOULD BE I FAR MORE ACCURATE THAN THE CURRENT PROCESSES AND WOULD PROVIDE ALL OUR RESIDENTS A MORE MEANINGFUL DOCUMENT TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS ON TOTAL COMMUNITY, RATHEP THAN ON A NEIGHBORHOOD BASIS. o FAIR SHARE PLAN. OF (A, u THE ORDINANCE SHOULD MANDATE THAT ANY DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER WHICH RECEIVES AN INCREASE IN LAND USE DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF USE DURING THE GENERAL PLAN RENEWAL PROCESS, ABOVE THE DENSITY OR INTENSIT~ OF USE THAT HE OR SHE HAD UNDER THE PREVIOUS PLAN, SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL AND CONSTRUCT A~IY AND ALL OVERSIZED OR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES OR INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT. o CITIZEN PAPTICIPATION. THE ENTIRE GENERAL PLAN RENEWAL PROCESS SHOULD BE HIGHLY PUBLICIZED AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE GENERAL PLAN RENEWAL SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED AND ACTIVELY SOLifITED. IN ADDITION. ANY GENERAL PLAN RENEWAL WHICH RESULTS 1N AN INCREASE IN PESIDENTIAL VENSITY OF ~ORE THAN 5% ABOVE THE DENSiT) PROVIDED FOR IN THE PREVIOUS GENERAL PLAN SHOULD NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS CONFIRMED BY THE ELECTORATE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF A NEW GENERAL PLAN OR UPDATED GENERAL PLAN WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE THAN 5% MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY THAN THE TCTAL POPULATiON PROVIDED FOR IN THE PREVIOUS PLAN, THE ENTIRE GENERAL PLAN SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO VOTER REVIEW AND APPROVAL. I BELIEVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING ORDINANCE AS I DESCF: I I-:ED I i'l TH IS MEMORANDUM WOULD BE A VEPY PROGRESSIVE AND CREATIVE WAY OF DEALING WITH THE ISSUES 1...JE APE CONt::-t:-c,r-:Tii'lG TGI'/'.'o'. TH:i:S FRGP:JS;;L SUBSTANCE AS IT IS PROCEDURAL IN THAT IT CREATES A PROCESS, A LIVING PROCESS, BY WHICH WE CAN IN FACT REVIEW, RE~FFIRM, ,',ND RENEW OUR GENERAL PLAN. IT WOULD ASSURE ACTIVE AND MEANINGFUL PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION AND WOULD ASSURE THAT THE CITY IS PERFORMING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNIN~ t::-OR THE CITY. LET ME ~M 0 ~osr=E ~GAI~I TWAT ! DO NOT BELIEVE TH~T THIS PROPOSAL IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE MANAGED GRSWTH IN:TIATIVE. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT STANDS BY ITSELF AND. IN MY OPINIO~I, SHOULD BE ADOPTED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE MANAGED GROWTu INITIAT!VE IS ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER OR NOT. I THEREFORE WOULD NOT SUGGEST THAT TH!S PROPOSAL FOR A LOCAL PLANNING ORD! NANCE BE PLACED []~I THE ~lD'✓El'ffEF St:\LLLJT NOF: DO i BEL I EVE THAT THE ORDINANCE PEQUiPES T~E ~ppc8V~L OF -HE ELECTOR~TE. IT SHOULD SIMPLY BE ADOFTED pv T~E C~UNC!L AS 3~011 AS F~::SIBLE AND IMMEDIATLY IMPLEMENTED. Tf--1£: r=-Eor.:_fc 1,.'H,:: (1_:r--r:·E~IT:_·, r:·E::::-<:: !'.: ::::_:.=: C~-:-', HP.\,'E '.·10-:-BEEi; ,~iE PPF:::>,,-.r:::-.-:-:or-1 GP Ar-:irTrr::1r-r c.r-cr_:r: c:•_:P.PE,,, ::-Er;E;::r.i.... Fi.._;::.;. : N\-'GL \/L D CITY CAN DEMCINSTP.CTE f'.. '...JILL INGNE?: ,-;tJI' DE'.c-IRE TD DG THE 1-JECESSAR'i' COMPREHENSIVE PLANNIN0 WHICH THIS CGMMUNIT1 50 DESPERAT~L). NEEDS, AND STRICTLY ADHERE TO THE PLAN ONCE ADOPTED, THE MP.NAGED GROWTH INITIATIVE SHOULD BE VIEWED AS A LEGITIMATE RESPONCE TO OUR !NACTION. p#3 <. I WOULD HOPE THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS COULD ENDORSE AND PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING ORDINANCE AS I HAVE OUTLINED MEMORANDUM. p tt4 \O?, SUPPORT T~( IN THI~ ( RESOLUTION NO. 85-209 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65300 directs the adoption of a comprehensive, long term General Plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted two of the nine mandated elements of the General Plan; a~d WHEREAS, Section 65361 provides for the amendment of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it desirable to screen requests for amendments to the General Plan and to adopt criteria for such screening; ' NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following criteria will be used by the City Council in denying the processing of General Plan ~~~en~ment requests: 1. When the proposed amendment request shares significant similarities with other 2.111endments located in the Sillile general area which have been previously considered and denied by the City Council within the last 12 months. 2. When the proposed amendment request site is located in an area where the Council has directed the preparation of a land use study scheduled for a public hearing within the next 11 months. 3. When the proposed amendment request would create an "island" or spot land use designation inconsistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan, and density or land uses of surrounding properites. SECTION 2. The following criteria will be used by the City Council in approving the processing of General Plan Amendment requests: 1. When the proposed amendment request has a potential for conformity with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. When the proposed amendment request has a potential for compatibility with either existing or planned uses in the area. 3. When the proposed amendment request has the potential for conformity with other City Council adopted policies. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June , 1985. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA CITY OF MOORPARK I, Doris D. Bankus Moorpark, California, do Resolution No. 85-209 City of Moorpark at a ss. , City Clerk of the City of hereby certify that the foregoing was adopted by the City Council of the regular meeting thereof held -------on the 17th day of June , 19 8 5 , and, that the same was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Yancy-Sutton, Weak and Mayor Prieto; NOES: Councilmember Ferguson; ABSENT: Councilmember Woolard. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 17th day of June , 19 85 ---- ' aLa/2~ City Clerk MOORPARK CUNT HARPER, Ph.D. STEVEN KUENY Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney THOMAS C. FERGUSON Council member PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Comm1.11;iity Development JOHN GALLOWAY Council member JOHN PATRICK LANE Councilmember R. DENNIS DELZEil City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM The Planning Commission Patrick J. Richards, Director of * November 12, 1987 (PC meeting of * LAND USE AND CIRCULP.TION ELEMENT Background Community ~- 11/16) * UPDATES TO THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer Developmen:f' THE GENERAL PLAN The Planning Commission last considered the updates to Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan their meeting of October 5, 1987. the at At that time -cne Commission heard from two property owners for proposed changes and two city residents regarding a variety of issues related to each of the elements. Also, the Commission discussed the future 118/23 Freeway Connector. upon the close of the Commission's discussions they directed staff to schedule November 16th to continue the matte~; prepare a summary map and index of areas, existing and proposed General Plan designation; dwelling unit changes and proposed vehicle trips generated. The Commission also desired an on-site visit of those sites located behind locked gates Discussion Scope of Work Attached are listings regarding those areas which the Department of Community Development and Public Works feel merit consideration towards placement on an Request for Proposals (RFP). These listings are intended to be a starting point for discussion and are not all inclusive. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 Page 2 Summary Listing Pursuant to the Commissions request staff has completed a Summary Listing of the requested land use changes. The cumulative changes are quite dramatic. Please consider the attached summary in relationship to the future Carlsberg Specific Plan area. This Specific Plan is not part of the General Plan Update but will effect future decisions as part of the update process. No minimums or maximums were stated by the City upon creation of the Specific Plan area. Where Do We Go From Here? Several options are available to the Commission at this time. First, to continue the "scoping" process and request additional information from the public and staff. Second, close the "scoping" process and consider the Land Use and Circulation requests for their merit. Also, continue a review of staff's proposed scope of work tasks. Third, determine that no further information is needed and make specific recommendations to the City Council regarding the update. Staff would suggest that the next step for Commission consideration would be the adoption of specific project goals. In this way the scope of work can be narrowed. The following goals are forwarded for Commission consideration. Project Goals 1. To assure complete compliance with State law, case l3W, and General Plan Guidelines. 2. To update, complete and synthesize planning documents into a consistent, comprehensive usable document. 3. To propose growth and development policies for the hillside areas within the General plan. 4. To provide a comprehensive General Plan Update that is usable in daily planned activities. 5. and develop specific and realistic policies, programs and standards for physical development of the City, and for viable economic base and new revenue To recommend objectives, planning and creating a sources. 6. To graphically display each of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. 7. To created a computerized base data system. Page 3 Once the project goals have been formulized, the Commission should consider the work task listing prepared by staff. Lastly, specific consideration should be given to those requested land use and circulation changes made by property owners. In considering these properties, staff recommends that an element of timing be the guiding factor. Unless. there is an immediate benefit to the City, consideratron should be deferred until other land use factors within and outside the City have reached their conclusion. _\\0 Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 1987 Scope of Work for Land Use Element Update 1-Lot by lot land use inventory in a form for easy conversion to a geotechnical base system_ 2 _ Identify areas subject to Specifj c Plan approval plus list in general terms land uses permitted within_ 3 _ Identify Residential, Commercial, and Industrial reserve areas in outlying areas_ 4_ Create goals and policies regarding future hillside development_ 5_ Create standards for recreation services_ 6_ Identify potential rental and senior housing sites. 7. Create goals and policies related to the need to protect the visual freeway corridor (118/23 Freeway Connector)_ 8_ Create goals and policies which will ensure and design of development respects the profile suburban environment of Moorpark respects the surrounding natural features. that site planning predominantly low and enhances and 9. Identify the natural features within and adjacent to the community that need to be protected. 10_ Create an urban limit line considering both are;;i_s o.f the Countywide Planning Program ( CPP) need to provide buffe~s o~ t~ansition3l zones_ the non-growth and the City's 11. Establish City gateways and identify land uses to promote that identity. 12_ Create a document(s) that can be used and an effective tool to update the City's Zoning Ordinance. 13. Prepare studies of the existing or future population density patterns within the City_ Empresses must be places on those areas either designated for redevelopment or high-growth potential. 14_ Prepare a report which will provide projections of those elements, such as population, income and employment which will forecast the land required, public facilities needed and future distribution of land uses through the year 2000_ r'DTT /71 /D,-.71,-.'C'l.Tn71 -1- 15. Create goals and policies which promote the reduction of residential densities in outlying canyon areas. 16. Create goals and policies regarding the extension of public services in areas which provide significant natural constraints to development. 17. The design of commercial areas should complement the which it is located. Create design overlay areas with goals and policies related to development. area in specific 18. Create goals and policies related to obtaining an overall 85%/15% single family/multi-faminly mix based on housing units. 19. Create goals and policies related to minimum parcel sizes in open space and areas over 20% slope (such as 40 acres). 20. Create goals and policies which promotes agricultural uses in those areas over 20% slope. 21. Identify major ridge lines wit:hin the community. 22. Create goals and policies to preserve and protect features of cultural and historical significance to the community. 23. Create goals and policies to save and protect mature trees within the community. 24. Create goals and policies related to the need to adopt guidelines to mitigate the impact of exterior lighting on adjoining parcels and adjacent public right-of-way. 25. Review various drains, land use designations in infrastructure systems flood control, etc.). light (sewer, of service capacity of waste, streets, storm 26. Review and incorporate applicable and appropriate sections of the county of Ventura's General Plan. 27. Need to consider maintenance of the document after adoption - consider computer applications. 28. 29. That the internally Plan. Land Use criteria, GPU/A/PCAGENDA Land Use consistent Element standards. and with Circulation amendments shall be all other elements of the General Incorporate any Measure F requirements, -2- 30. 31. 32. 33. Infrastructure -Identify current as to how development would be expansion capability. infrastructure limitations limited by infrastructure Downtown Plan Incorporate, land use issues, standards, parking, in downtown area -in lieu identification of potential parking areas. goals, design fee concept County Plans (seep. 8, No. 4 in existing Moorpark Land Use Element) make certain that Moorpark Land Use Element is consistent with and takes into account any other applicable. Individual Areas of Concern A. South of Los Angeles Avenue from Moorpark Road to Liberty Bell Road. B. Multiple family residential south of Majestic Court. C. Commercial office designation for southwest corner of Los Angeles Avneue and Moorpark Road. Is it still valid? D. Alan Robins property? E. Freeway Business Center ( Science Drive) . Some of the text and maps in the current Land Use Element show this area as either open space, or "non-growth". Make sure this area is appropriately indicated in the new Land Use Element. F. Happy Camp Canyon Park -show precise boundaries. 34. Incorporate all present GPA's into new Land use Element f/lap and Text Amendments. 35. Land Use Element, page 41 Commercial -do we want to change "Neighborhood Commercial Center -pertanent -Convience Market?" 36. Land Use Element, page 42 Existing section on Commercial 37. Industrial mix. Is it still valid. Perhaps the downtown plan will propose something else. Land Use Element, page 42 projections need to be revised. Growth Tables population 38. Land Use Element, page 57 -Table 9 Zoning Computability Matrix -Any revision necessary? GPU/A/PCAGENDA -3- /. , 1 :·,s r _A_:: _ _!_ I .1 ·1 ·1 I . -... N-F.-5Ac ) . -. <.<-. I'',.·,. . ••>•" ,1.,nH : I I I 1; I 'f' ~ J. -:I '<: ·I "'· • "· ,, :1 f,) 'r )--1: R €-5Ac (•; ,, K,;" •••, :, ]') I ~ ··~.);,; ' .. ,, -t~::: /;·/ }-----·'-J. 3-?·--31 • .SL. ·;: ~:\:::·v'?.H" __ .11$>_!,,Q_J..~,l!J. I j ·j ~ ~ ,; •I I ', " "C -• -~-: ,'.,;•, "~, ~· + """"-"" -,,.,. ~ ,,, . .... I _ " --1 • -, --, , .. . . ., I ""-"" --... : ' -" ,_, ' ,, ' ' ' ' ---I -•,: ' -,.__ _,,_ ,-, TTS ~ I ; I ii , , , ,liJii~A I',. r--~~=---1,••~--""'"' Q· • -: -!i;:;_I\. , r '' "" . -i ~ ,. '' -r .... :n'9'~cc-,";··~40w "''' \. ··-~ '::•~: l Ill\ 'N:' I """!. r' I ,2l ', .:,. ,, -•··r ,-,_,~•·"/ , ' • •,, --,-,-,,~----' • I ···~ "'-· · v~ .,,,. •. " = , , • 1 • ---.-~r----• , "" , . ,, , --, ...... , , .. .. I ,e.,-.. ; ' : ,. I MG ' •• ,.,. ! ---"".!! __ _,,_.. ,,: ~-~ « ' ' ' ' N ·" S ,C • • o ' • CO, -:••-W -• ;' '" •·c _,-' '" • ·••~ , ,.,, --,p, ..... . I ,, -·-" ., ---~----, "'1:!'E.90,,,,1,,,L ---::,,~~.,~· -... ~~~\~~·,:-;.:~'";;;.:~::jf~ .. '.:;,;;_,,._~,;'t._:.-•• ~: --,,,\k,,_;~y-:~•-i.~O~~?~~.~~·-~~f:t~-,~~:~··~;;;;.~---~ • :') •1 .,,.,. (0) /1-cw<Ac ~:.--:: I 0 ;';.';._,/4,_...: ffi .. . . 0 .... _ .. I "" / r• r .. ,. l F " --,~~ ' J ti' .. -·-· ii'" • . . -''""' I 1 •o~Ac, f0l-'-! '-i , ".:c, " ' J f--, ,.;. r,: 0 . , 3 ft:t,E-5 '·'if r. ' 1 • • I ',._,,':;; ' I "C£,._m A-E ~,;: 3- .<Jl_ CtD - R-£-5Ac __ .,'..l.!~.....J'-V"tl-----:.~-~'!.u--l•~!......-- R-A·/OAc I :-: •. ·::· ..J il ~ ~ NEW13~ 70-., • I -~<:.:_1••H) __c_=. 42 AU 11'"'1 ... ,,., ... -, .. 'Ll•"··" ' ,,, ' """ ! .,,,~ ' ,, ,• .. ~-. • 20 ' ··~ -, '" "" .. ·;c,,_ . ~" uo« ,; '"@ , ••~ ' -· '1 .l,l I =~-:;;: ,,,¢" ----'' ... ' ' J @ -l! .,,,,_ .. ~ • e • !;'._L' .. ~ ~ c=1("";, __ • 4 s ' ,, '"" ·, ; ... ff -'"'"-'"" .-,:;z_ • • , •i. ;,1'::'. ·'\,tcc~Y-c::. • ___ ""'=..,..."'==a0=J~-1--:.,::: .. .l.l-1_,,.,""i\]W'ti "• _o {cl .,.. ' ·-!_.'1! -: ' J-::;, 5.0 ·:,;1,)f .;_ : s .. S<. ·1 ,:R Tl --~J-/ u ~® S'.l. R-E-5Ac. ;1, A-c ","',.!ii' "/ ?,-:;co, :51 "-~-L ~~-if~~-, ,J,._ ·:· ,_ ;:·,-i ~-]. ·---·-·-~ ~\,' l : --·-,,.CC%-,,. ' , ••• \ L.-' "'" . .. -i,vi -~ , 0 .,, , , a. B ,c _,._ <,f' L I ,):: ~l;~;~--'-~~" ~~T .·; ;' ,i ~-,·, 0 j/;i:J,•';·· .. e ,.,. • ' .. : ... -iL ... 5@ -_,_ '-· -,,'[I r-·c··-~/·, ' -,: ,_.. '~ ' -&,,-.. _,,_--, '" " ' ,., ' ' '' ' ". \: .. ->f Cs 0' 0 0 ,, "'"\',,., • "" '"' • . , -. " :1" _,, --, ·-"' 0"" ,. ---,-·[. -,-"-----CA • _,., I ! 0 .. , ·, "" -1 · ' ', ' 1; (·) i " ------c__ -• J" ·"· {·' •••• ' ' .--~ :, :~'<~:"'-~"-~'='---:'-,-.8 (=l ~~-- -.. ,, -,-~... €l --i:. t:t::\JJi'.') -. ~ \ 11-... ,, ----~ r--.,=.-:,,·-1 '\7-. ¢' c-;c ··-.... ;·;1 ~•'.., - It --_,p._.,__ ·-· ---r;; 0 )..f/\'d:J I )H:i'of( r --,, _,. ,,, , I I , I : ' -b : ..:-. -) • I I I -t I GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST -1987 Proposed Land Use Changes TRIP GENERATION BY ~DUSE Current Proposed DU Very Medium Rural Rural Mobile 111 ~~i GP GP Change !_lig__b !_lig__.b Medium Low Low !_lig__.b Low fO!fl_fll_:_ Ind. Home Levy 289.4 Ag 1 Ind. 1 lnd. 100 ac. ----3EOO ----600 80 --12,196 Ind. 2 Med. 360 uni Med.Den. .i.H 60 units RH RL 8 units Moorpark Ranch 3 5. 4 ML High :Jig h 6 6 units 1696 660 --------8.566 Very High V-H 257 units Gen.Comm. Comm. 8. 7 ac. Lieb 49.5 Med. Med. 'JH 103 units ! 1030 --1150 350 RL Med. 115 units Med. 35 uni ts C. T. Financial l 275 OS 2 Spec. Pln. VH 30 198 8260 --------5,880 High 826 (3840) (Mobile Home 300) Comm. 6 Union Oil 297 OS 2 Various Urban 1188 units ----11880 '''~" Scaroni 1.75 ML VH 26 units 171 Guny 64.3 OS 1 Low Density 103 units --------1030 Latunski 4. 12 RL Rural High 3 units ----------30 Oakridge 120 RL Low 192 units --------1920 Walnut Canyon 227 RL Low 363 units --------3630 vlestoaks 393 RL Rural Hiqh 393 units ----------3930 Newton 7A 443 OS 1 Low 400 units --------4000 Newton 78 34 VH Gen.Comm. ----------------lnsf.Data Newton 7C 4.32 M Gen. Comm. ------------6774 Newton 7D 26 RH Light Ind. --------------3171 Newton 7E 34.53 Ag. 1 Hiqh (mobile hame)----456 TOTAL 3095 10,076 16,630 350 10,580 4,560 80 21,220 15,367 J ,2 6 fi ·:t4 .:Z;L.._ ..- ~ CUNT HARPER, Ph.D. Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS C. FERGUSON Council member JOHN GALLOWAY Council member JOHN PATRICK LANE Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK MEMORANDUM \\b STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.1.C.P Director of 7 Community Development R. DENNIS DELZErT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE _ Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE TO: City Treasurer Pat Richards, Director of Community Development FROM: DATE: John F. Knipe, Assistant City October 26, 1987 Engineer~ SUBJECT: Scope of Work for Circulation Element Update For consideration during further public hearings regarding the Circulation Element Update, we are herewith submitting a revised Draft Scope of Work. JFK:MSW:go Encl. cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager 799 Mooroark Avenue R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer Mark Wessel, Senior Engineer JN 30201 amo456.mem Moorpark, California 93021 RECEIVE □ ObT 2 9 1987 City ~ Moorpark (805) 529-6864 MOORPARK CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK 1. The potential impact of the 118/23 Freeway connection, as quantified by street and intersection levels of service. It is anticipated that the primary circulation element scenario will be general plan buildout, with a second scenario based on all development preceding the Freeway connection. 2. Estimated volumes of "pass through" traffic, traffic with both trip ends outside of Ideally, these estimates should include through traffic on Route 118 as well as through traffic on Route 23. i.e. that the city. the pass the pass 3. Analysis of the effects of the extension of New Los Angeles Avenue to Collins Drive. In conjunction with this analysis, comments should be offered regarding the justification of downgrading the Los Angeles Avenue width requirements through the Virginia Colony area. 4. Analysis of the effect of the extension of High Street westerly from its existing terminus to Gabbert Road north of the railroad. 6. Recommended aiignment of the Freeway connection effects of this bypass analyzed. a new Route 23 to extend from northerly to Broadway. The construction should also be Recommended alignment and analysis of the effect of extending Moorpark Road northerly froiu High Street to Broadway. 7. Recommended location of the future 118 Freeway ramps in the vicinity of Gisler Avenue. 8. Number of lanes recommendations for collector streets. required and arterials, street section secondaries, and 9. Specific plan recommendation for area bounded by Los Angeles Avenue, Arroyo Simi, Maureen Lane, and Liberty Bell Road. 10. Recommended locations of traffic signals. 11. Major intersection estimated level of service for each of the following scenarios: a. Existing b. Cumulative c. Ultimate 12. Recommended changes to bicycle/pedestrian/equestrian plans. 13. Recommended policies regarding driveway placement, stop sign installation, parking restrictions, inter- section sight distance, meandering~ sidewalk, unobstructed sidewalk, etc. 14. Revisions to County road plates to provide for bike lanes. 15. Standard intersection plates that show required con- figuration for different types of intersections such as primary-primary, primary-secondary, secondary-collect- or, etc. 16. Analysis of the effects of the extension of the Route 118 Freeway west of the Route 23 Freeway. 17. Analysis of the effect of constructing an street south of Broadway and north of the extension west of Princeton Avenue. east-west Route 118 18. Analysis of City Hall access, including visibility, potential secondary access, etc. Revised 10-28-87 amo310.rpt JN 30201 MOORPARK CUNT HARPER. Ph.D. Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern ll1OMAS C. FERGUSON Council member JOHN GAUDWAY Council member JOHN PATRICK LANE Council member MAUREEN W. WAU. City Clerk TO: FROM: DhTE: MEMORANDUM Steve Kueny, City Manager John F. Knipe, Assistant City October 8, 1987 SUBJECT: Traffic Project Priority List STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, AI.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZETT City Engineer JO.HN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police TI--!OMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer Engineer /I- Cal trans has requested the City to determine the priority for each traffic project under Caltrans review or for which Caltrans will be participating in the funding. Below is a list of proposed priorities for all City projects on SR 118 and SR 23. 1. 2. 3 - 4. 5. 6 - 799 Moorpark Avenue Project Moorpark Avenue (SR 23) & Poindexter Avenue Traffic Signal Moorpark Avenue {SR 23) & High Street Traffic Signal Spring Road (SR 118) & High Street Corner Widening Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) & Spring Road Dual Eastbound Left Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) & Spring Road Northbound & Southbound Left Turn Phasing Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) & Maureen Lane Traffic Signal Moorpark, California 93021 Pronosed Priority s 6 2 1 3 7 --RECEIVED - OCT 1 ,, 1987 CITY OF MOORPA:"':' (805) 529-6864 Page -2- 7. 8. Project Moorpark Avenue (SR 23} & Los Angeles Avenues (SR 118) Stonn Drain Traffic Detour Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) Widening, Maureen Lane to Gisler Avenue Proposed Priority 4 To be submitted for second review Please review this list and return it with your comments. JFK:PMD:ls cc: Pat Richards, Director of Community Development R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer Mark Wessel, Senior Engineer Patrick Dobbins, Project Engineer JN 3400 JN 3482 CMO555.MEM CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Council member JOHN PATRICK LANE Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: MOORPARK MEMORANDUM The Honorable City Council John F. Knipe, Assistant City Engineer. October 14, 1987 SUBJECT~ Constrnction of New East-West Street South of Broadway BACKGROUND INFORMATION STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer During its October 7, 1987, meeting the • Council commented t:nat consideration should be given to the eventual construction of an east-west street south of Broadway and north of the prolongation of Route 118 west of Princeton Avenue. The purpose of this memo is to inform the Council that this concern will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration to be included in the scope of work for the update of the city circulation element. RECOMMENDED ACTION This material is provided for information only, and no action is necessary. JFK:MW:go cc: 799 Moorpark Avenue Steve Kueny, City Manager Pat Richards, Director of Community R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer Mark Wessel, Senior Engineer Patrick Dobbins, Project Engineer JN 30201 amo442.mem Moorpark, California 93021 Development RECEIVED - OCT 1 5 1987 r.1Ty OF MOORP/i/F (805) 529-6864 John W. Newton & Associates, Inc. Pto(e~wnal Co~u.llanh Asodurion Professional Bui:ding 165 High S1. Suite 204 Post Ott,ce Box 471 Moorpark. Coltfornio 93021 Telephone (805) 529-3651 November 30, 1987 Mr. Pat Richards, Director Department of Comm11nity Development CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: General Plan Update Dear Pat: Memorandums to the Planning Commission (11/25/87, 10/2/87, 10/23/87) On June 15, 1987 the Planning Commission held its first public hearing on the General Plan Update. At that time I presented letters of interest to you and to the Planning Commission, per your instructions, on behalf of the following property owners: • • • • OS-1/RL to L RH to 11 VH to C2 M to C2 JBR Development Company Fred Kavli Stephen R. Anderson Mr. & Mrs. Charles J. Gisle:c 443.00 Acres 29.93 Acres 3.86 Acres 4.00 Acres On August 22, 1987 I again testified before the Commission at a second public hearing, highlighting the scope, nature and timing of a future project, were the above land use and zone changes granted. This was a Saturday morning. No additional written material was handed out; reference was merely made to the previously submitted documents and maps. On September 28, 1987 I submitted one additional letter and testified on an additional proposal, below: • AG-1 to H (Mobile Horne Park) Grace Lucile Chandler Estes Trust Bill Baker, Trustee 34.53 Acres Please correct the following pages of your most recent Planning Commission staff report of November 25, 1987 to reflect the above: Page 1 -All properties proposed by John Newton have had written letters of interest submitted. REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE Cornmerciof • Industrial • Land Residential Relocation MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Engineering • Land Division • Pefmits Planning • Zoning Mr. Pat Richards November 30, 1987 Page 2 Please reorganize the report packet accordingly, per the last sentence of the cover memorandum. Page 2 -Please reorder Item 7.A. (10/2/87) of the packet to include the above referenced letters. Page 3 -Please correct the introductory paragraph reflecting the fact that both the JBR and Fred Kavli (Kavlico) properties responded to the solicitation, so that as of the 9/23/87 Memorandum, 5 parties had responded. Both the JBR and Fred Kavli l~tters were submitted Page 4 on June 15,1987. Please correct item 7. of the same memorandum as follows: 7.a . 7.b. 7.d. ... changed from Open Space & Rural Low to Low Density 3.86 acre parcel an approximate 30 acre parcel ... (29.93 ac. ) ... for future Industrial Park. Page 11 -Please remove this page. Letters of Interest were on file; testimony was given both on June 15, 1987 and on August 22, 1987. Page 34 -This letter (Item 15) is merely a follow up le~ter presented to you and to ttie Pla11ning Corru11ission at the October 2, 1987 public hearing concerning Circula- tion Plan considerations as they affect the JBR property. This is not a letter of interest.~his is merely a supplement to our June 15, 1987 letter and previous testimony. Page 37 -Please amend the summary of proposed land use changes as follows: 4. 7,11,. 3.86 5. 'JJ'J,l-4.00 6. l-f; 29.93 15. OSl/RL 59 -60 -16 -29 708 650 Your cooperation is appreciated. We would have corrected what appears to be cumulative errors in the memoranda, however, these documents haven't been made available to the interested parties. ohn W. Newton Applicants' Representative John w. Newtoo & Associates. Inc. 91-0( ~ wnal t!o~li. /\sodlJr on Prolessionol &Jik::l,ng 165 High S1. Suite 204 Pos1 Office Box 471 tv'lcx:.-p:1rk Colifomio 93021 1 TelCf)t-one [805) 529~3651 June 15, l9H7 Chairman Doug Holland and Members MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: 1987 General Plan Update Property: 443 Acres of Vacant Land@ Applicant: Request: Dear Chairman Holland the West Terminus of the SR118 Freeway Right of Way, North of Los Angeles Avenue, East of Moorpark Road, and South of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park JBR Development Company Residential, Low Density, 1.1-2 DU/Acre and Members of the Commission: Our firm will be representing the Applicant during the General Plan Update process. Subject property is in the city limits. The above referenced property is vacant land on a mesa contiguous and West of the existing freeway right of way for the SR 23/118 Freeway conneccor alignment, as currencly proposed; North of Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118); East of the Northerly prolongation of Moorpark Road; and South of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park property. Approved Tract No. 3049 is located contiguous to the East boundary, North of the freeway right of way. The property was designated Residential, Rural Low Density (1 DU/5 Acres) and Open Space -l (1 DU/10 -40 Acres) during the 1979 General Plan Update. This was primarily due to the population restriction limits imposed by the County of Ventura at the time which provided only enough of a population projection for Moorpark to accomodate proposed development in the Core. Peach Hill & Campus Park areas. The "RL" and "OS-1" designations were more of a "holding zone" consideration rather than sound land use planning. The Applicant has conducted preliminary engineering feasibility REAL ESTATE ~ Convnal'cial • rdJsn)I • l£Y)(j REAL ESTATE C€VELCYMENT Engineeriig • Lcrd Oivisicn • Peonits Moorpark Planning Commission June 15. 1987 Page 2 Applicant: JBR Development Company studies and will propose a project which conceptually "clusters" development on approximately 250 acres, treating the topogrilphy in such a way as to provide 193 acres of natural open space. It is anticipated that this undeveloped natural open space, approximately 44% of the total land area, would become dedicated as part of the project approval which would restrict any further subdivjsion of that property. The open space provides buffer separation from the future freeway and other properties at the South and East boundaries. The applicant has projected site development costs for utilities, grading, road improvements and other fees, and feels that the Residential, Low Density land use category (1.6 DU/Acre, Average) would net sufficient density to make this large project economically viable. The projected number of residential dwelling units would approximate 700 at the mid-range, or "average target density, for this land use category. Primary access to the project is planned to be a Northeasterly extension of Moorpark Road. A secondary (emergency) access will undoubtedly be required by the Fire Department, to connect to Campus Park West neighborhood circulation via Tract 3049. A third access is located at Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) approximately half way between Moorpark Road and Virginia Colony. This driveway connection on subject property is currently being used by neighboring property owners (May -White -Butler) via access easements from the Applicant. Current preliminary proposals for the freeway connection provide for a freeway connection traversing the southeast corner of the subject property. No direct freeway access is proposed to the property. A potential future extension of the SR 23 Freeway, North to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, and then to Broadway Road (SR 23) could eventually provide a North/South alternate to SR 23 in the downtown area (Moorpark Avenue & Walnut Canyon Road). Should such an extension be something other than a"full freeway", then it is possible that additional access to the property could be considered in the future. The proposed project does not depend upon freeway access. The Applicant requests the Residential, Low Density land use designation for the purpose of developing a quality urban residential project on the North side of the City. The Applicant's preliminary and conceptual proposal provides for a transition from urbanization at the property's South boundary,North to Open Space/Agricultural and public park uses. Natural drainage areas are proposed to be incorporated into dedicated open space. No prominent ridgeline or visible hillside grading would be proposed, consistent with Moorpark Planning Commission June 15, 1987 Page 3 Applicant: JBR Development Company existing policy; to the Peach Hill the developed area is essentially a mesa similar area at the South side of the City. Your favorable consideration is respectfully requested. We will provide additional information, testimony at public hearings, etc., as directed by your Commission. cc: Morris Olian Ed Ramseyer ~arla A. Robertson Patrick J. Richards, John W. Newton, Consultant APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Director of Community Development Enclosures: Assessor's Parcel Map General Plan Map John W. Newlon & Associo1es. Inc. <:P,.o(o-.i.ona.f Con-.u.f.tanl-. /\.v)dur1on P101essionol &J11d1r~J 1 c/, High S1 . Su11c 204 I 'os1 011,ce Box 4 71 t.~o:)(pork. Col,1ornKJ 93021 Ch;ij rman Doug Ho] ];ind and Members MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: 1987 General Plan Update .J u 11 e 1 S • 1 9 H 7 Property: NE Corner L.A. Avenue & Moorpark Road 116 Moorpark Road A.P. No. 512-15-37 & 38 3. 8 6 Acres, Par c e 1 1. 2 0 PM 5 6 Applicant: Mr. Stephen R. Anderson Request: General Commercial Dear Chairman Holland and Members of the Commission: Our tirm will be representing the Applicant during the General Plan Update process. Subject property is in the city limits. The above referenced property is commonly known as the Khoury estate, formerly owned by Dennis Johnson. A small airfield once existed on the Eastern portion of the property near the Arroyo Simi. It was also a turkey ranch for a great number of years. A single family residence and approximately 300 avacado and citrus trees currently exist. An out-building near the corner of the intersection is the former turkey rendering plant. The extension of SR 23 to Moorpark and the construction of the long on & off ramp to the Moorpark Road & L.A. Avenue inter- section, in the mid-seventies, divided the property. A subsequent parcel map created the existing legal lot of record. Park Springs Condominiums borders the North boundary and a small 30 unit apartment complex, originally built as Farmers Hom2 Admir.istraticrn subsidized housing. borders the Eastern boundary. The subjec:_ property has 526' of frontage on SR 23 and 319' of frontage on Moorpark Road (SR 118). It is currently designated Residential, Very High Density, and zoned RPD-15. This occurred during the 1979 General Plan Update, primarily to encourage the central commercial core to develop first REAL ESTATE~ Con-Yne<cial • WJS1fd • Lcrd nnr~;......I ~ R£A1.. ESTATE OEVELCRMENT Enginee<rg • Lcrd Oivisi<:)-1 • Permits ~ • 7 rv-,i<v, ~ Moorpark Planning Commission June 15. 1987 Page 2 Applicant: Stephen R. Anderson at L.A. & Moorpark Avenues, where the Towne Center is located today. The Very High designation was also consistent with contiguous pr ope r t y 1 a n d u s e . The s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y w a~ s p r e v i o u s 1 y d e s i g n a t e d Commercial in the 1972-74 General Plan, and ~as zoned C-H, Commercial Highway. The owner at the time, Dr. Elias Khoury, had envisioned a highway oriented commercial services project. Times have changed and so have development patterns and policies. The 23/118 freeway connection will be made and available to thru traffic in 1992, relieving the subject intersection considerably. It will continue to be, perhaps, the most prominent key intersection and primary gateway to the City from the freeway, however. Considering the projected residential land use policy of restricted growth for the City, the property's proximity to the freeway system, its corner location and lot configuration, and the potential for development of a high quality commercial project consistent with the high value of the land; a commercial land use designation will provide the opportunity to enhance the City's eastern gateway. The Applicant requests the GENERAL COMMERCIAL land use designation in order to provide flexibility in consideration of retail, commercial services, financial services or highway oriented commercial services in future development planning and economic feasibility analyses. Your favorable consideration is respectfully requested. We will provide additional information, testimony at public hearings, etc., as directed by your Commission. cc: Stephen R. Anderson L,.--e-arla A. Robertson Patrick J. Richards, f John W. Newton, Consultant APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Director of Community Development Enclosures: Assessor's Parcel Map General Plan Hap John W. Newton & Associates. Inc. g:Ju,f~wnal C!o~an.h Asodu'ion Professional Buildng 165 High SI.. Suite 204 Posl Office Box 471 Moo<pork. Colif()(nio 93021 j Telephone (805) 529-3651 Chairman Doug Holland and Members MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: 1987 General Plan Update June 15, 1987 Property: 635 Los Angeles Avenue North Side of L.A. Avenue, West of Towne Center, just West of Liberty Bell Road A.P. No. 511-08-06 4.0 Acres, Poindexter Subdivision Applicant: Charles J. and Myrtle H. Gisler Request: General Commercial Dear Chairman Holland and Members of the Commission: Our firm will be representing the Applicant durjng the Gen~ral Plan Update process. Subject property is in the city limits. A single family residence. circa 1927, and guest house currently exist on the above referenced property. At one time, two additional rental units existed approximately in the center of the property but were destroyed by fire and never rebuilt. Access to the property consists of approximately 471' of frontage on L. A. Avenue (SR 118) and the present stub out of Everest Avenue, from Shasta Avenue, at the property's West boundary line. The property was previously designated Commercial on the 1972-74 General Plan. It was redesignated Residential, Medium Density during the 1979 General Plan Update, and zoned R-1-8000. The primary reason was to encourage a more centralized commercial core at Moorpark and L.A. Avenues. Since that time, it has become evident that commercial designation too deep. too far South of L.A. Avenue toward the Arroyo Simi, with no significant traffic volume and no visibility; results in little or no commercial development interest there. The subject property is bordered by commercial land use and zoning REAi.. ESTATE~ Commoo:iol • h:iJs1rial • land Ml>ERAL ~ REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Engineering • lCrd Division • Permts • ~ ~--·-- ,... Moorpark Planning Commission June 15, 1987 Page 2 Applicant: Hr.& Hrs. Gisler on two sides; its East boundary and its South boundary, across L.A. Avenue. The site would make an excellent location for a Neighborhood Convenience Center, a Commercial Office Center, or a Medical C~nter. It would be desirable to encourage a development involving off-peak traffic uses in relation to the primary highway volumes on L.A. Avenue. The Applicant requests the GENERAL COMMERCIAL land use desig- nation.in order to provide flexibility in consideration of retail, commercial services. or medical services in· future development planning and economic feasibility analyses. Your favorable consideration is respectfully requested. We will provide additional information. testimony at public hearings.etc., as directed by your Commission. S~erely, i,,~f J \ ./ ;:~-~=7r),--- _.,...John W. Newton, Consultant cc: Mr. & Mrs. Charles J. Gisler v--Carla A. Robertson Patrick J. Richards, APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Director of Co~munity Development Enclosures: Assessor's Parcel Map General Plan Map John W. Newton & Associates. Inc. <J)u,{c.uionaf Conudlanh l\soduron Pro1cssionol Building 165 High SI. Suite 204 Post 011ice Box 471 Mcxxpork. Colt1omio 93021 Chairman Doug Holland and Members MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: 1987 General Plan Update June 15, 1987 Property: Approximately 30 Acres, Applicant: Request: Dear Chairman Holland West of Happy Camp Canyon Drain & South of SR118 Freeway Right of Way, Contiguous to Kavlico' Corporation Facilities. A.P. No. 513-01-19 Fred Ka vl i Industrial Park and Members of the Commission: .. ' Our firm will be representing the Applicant during the General Plan Update process. Subject property is in the city limits. The above referenced property is vacant land on a plateau above and contiguous West of the existing Kavlico Corporation industrial development. The site is essentially at the same elevation as the proposed SR 23/118 connector alignment. Current preliminary proposals for the freeway connection provide for freeway access in the vicinity of the existing Moorpark Business Center industrial park, and Kavlico facilities. This same access can be developed to serve this additional industrial park development which would be bordered by the freeway on its North & West boundaries. The freeway would buffer the industrial development from anticipated residential development to the North and West. Approved Tract No. 3049 is located North of the subject property, across freeway right of way. The plateau site, completely isolated on all sides due to its elevation and the future freeway connection, as proposed, would encourage a very high quality business park type development, most probably R & D oriented. The view and panoramic setting for a South & East facing project would command consideration by California - 500 quality firms. REPi ESTA1E ~.AGE'· • Convnardol • hOJSltll • Land MN:RAL REsornc:E REAL ESTAlE OEVELCYMENT Enginee<ing • Lend Division • Pe<mts . . , ·. . ' Moorpark Planning Commission June 15. 1987 Page 2 Applicant: Fred Kavli J The property is currently designated Residential, Rural l!jgh, 1 DU/Acre which occurred during the 1979 General Plan Update. This was primarily due to the population restricClon limits imposed by the County of Ventura at the time whtch provided only enough of a population projection for Moorpark to accomodate proposed development in the Core, Peach Hill & Campus Park ,ireas. The "RH" designation was more of a "holding zone" consideration rather than sound land use planning. The Applicant requests the INDUSTRIAi. land use designation for the purpose of future development of a high quality business park to attract R & D employment opportunities consistent with the City's economic development goals & policies. Your favorable consideration is respectfully requested. We will provide additional information, testimony at public hearings, etc .• as directed by your Commission. S ?--1') c e r e 1 y , \ i • I //, h /- ~pt,,/. /'¥,,W,'71)._ f~""ahn W. Newton~, Consultant cc: Fred Kavl i t.---'Carla A. Robertson Patrick J. Richards, APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Director of Community Development Enclosures: Assessor's Parcel Map General Plan Map John W. Newton & Associates, Inc. P"I.O{c."i.ona.l Coru.uftanh Asodurion Professional Building 165 High SI . Suite 204 Post Office Box 4 71 Moorpark. California 93021 Telephone (805) 529-3651 Chairman Doug Holland and Members MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: 1987 General Plan Update September 28, 1987 Request: Mobile Home Park (Residential High Density, 7 Du/acre Average) Property: 34.53 Acres, Rancho Simi, N/SPRR Tracks~ approximately 1300' W/Gabbert Road. A.P. No. 500-34-22 Applicant: Grace Lucille Estes Trust, Bill Baker, Trustee Dear Chairman Holland and Members of the Commission: Our firm will represent the Applicant during the General Plan Update process. Subject property is in the City limits and is presentl? designated AG-1 (10-40 Acres/DU). Surrounding land use designations are as follows: North: East: South: West: AG-1, Agriculture AG-1, Agriculture I-2, Medium Industrial AG-1, Agriculture Surrounding existing land use is as follows: North: East: South: West: REAL ESTATE BROl<ERAGE Commercial • Industrial • Land Rural Agriculture/Rural Estate Residential Vacant Southern California Edison property (vacant), SPRR tracks and "M-2" industrial zoned (annual crop lease) Vacant RESOENTIAL RELOCATON REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LOld Division • Pefmts • Zoning I Moorpark Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 2 The property contains a 60' wide meanderi;g,.flood control district easement and flood control channel connecting an upstream debris basin to downstream concrete channels south of the SP tracks. The land is presently leased for row crops on an annual basis. It is essentially level and bordered by gentle slopes at the north, east & west boundaries: a separately distinct small valley, in effect, at the same elevation as the industrial land to the south. Access to the property consists of a private ''at grade" SPRR crossing. Proposed access would be a westerly extension of a street from Gabbert Road, parallel and north of the SPRR tracks. This street alignment would be a continuation of High Street, were it extended west from Moorpark Avenue, in the future. The property owner has been exploring future development concepts for the 32.65 acres of industrial land south of the SP tracks, and evaluating its relationship, if any, to the parcel (subject property) north of the tracks. The Applicant owns both and has since the forties. Given the liklihood of a small industrial park development for the south parcel, and the general availability of industrial land in Moorpark, additional industrial did not seem timely for the north parcel. There is, however, a great need for additional mobile home parks, or the opportunity for a mobile home subdivision in our City. The topography would lend itself well to an enclosed park or fee mobile subdivision. The surrounding slopes provide for natural topographic separation from adjacent land uses now and in the future. The proposed use would work very well in a transitional sense, industrial/SPRR, North to rural agriculture/rural estate. The project can be designed with good sound and visual buffering from the SP tracks at the south boundary, primarily due to the approximate 300' separation afforded by the s.c. Edison parcel separating the subject property from the tracks_ Secondary emergency access is available to the north, with the primary being east to Gabbert Road. We think there is considerable merit in providing the opportunit9 for a new, good sized mobile home park or mobile home subdivision. With an average density of 7 units (typical park density), this project could yield approximately 240 low income/affordable housing units, and/or retired/fixed income homes for Seniors. The Applicant requests the RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (Mobile Jlome Park) land use designation in order to develop such a project. Moorpark Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 3 Your favorable consideration is respectfully requested. provide additional information, testimony at public hearings, in the future, during the process. Since_rely, 1 ... We will etc., fr.1-',ult! ~/M, John W. Newton cc: Mr. Bill Baker, Trustee Grace Lucille Estes Trust Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development Enclosure: Assessors Parcel Map APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ---· September 28, 1987 Hr. Patrick Richards, Director Community Development Department CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: AP Nos. 500-24-09 & 14 Dear Hr. Richards, As owner of referenced property in the City of Moorpark, I hereby respectfully request that as part of the c11rrent Land Use Element Study my property be considered in the General Plan Update, as per my original application, dated April 27, 1985. (Copy attached.) As outlined on the attached map, the property is adjacent to and East of Walnut Canyon Road (State Highway 23). While the topography and good engineering practice would not allow full development, previously conducted engineering studies, geologic and soils analysis indicate that buildable sites, with the feasibility of construction of the necessary access and utility improvements, exist beyond the current restrictions. Please let me know if there is any additonal information you need in suppor_t of my request. Thank you for.your consideration and assistance. Attachments / .--. B // a-0 ~ £-.h-u -(or Abe Guny 18311 Sherman Way Reseda, CA 91335 Tel (818)881-9757 -: ·--·.. StP 2 8 lSti( ~ ~--,~ ~ ....,, ; ·, _., > , cnv'oF MOORPARK James H. Scaroni Lynnette Scaroni 5740 W. Greentree Dr. Somis, CA 93066 September 23, 1987 Mr. Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development CIXY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 484-5417 RE: Development of corner at Walnut Canyon & Everett Sts. APN #512-0-061-040 #512-0-061-050 #512-0-061-060 #512-0-060-210 Dear Mr. Richards, This letter is to confirm our continued intention to develop the corner of Walnut Canyon and Everett Streets in Moorpark. We have expressed these intentions in various meetings, telephone conversations, and letters of intent dating back to November 6, 1985. As before, our request is to submit an application for General Plan/Zone Change to very high density, for the construction of a Garden Style Apartment Complex. We feel it would be in the best interest of the City of Moorpark to have this property upgraded, and would like to be considered in the process of any General Plan/Zone Changes which take place in the city. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, -~' /t:::ynnette :::::; Enc: Map of Property -RECEIVED - f,;~ ~ t 1/-1~87 CITY OF MOORPARK September 23, 1987 C\1' Mr. Patrick Richards, Director of Communi~y Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: Notice of Intent to File for General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Richards: In connection with the current review and update of the City's general plan, We hereby formerly request that the City Council, Planning Commission and Staff take under consideration this notice that the following property owners have agreed in principle to file an application(s) which would seek to change the existing general plan land use designation from OS-2 to "Specific Pian." . I Investment Corporation . Pines Development Corporation . Butler, Robert F. and Jo Anne . Simi-Moorpark Freeway Properties, . Wooten, Steven M. and Kimberly . Turman Lawrence, Inc. T +-,'l J,,..14--"-A. • Further, the "Property" is set·forth on Exhibit A attached hereto consists of approximately 1275 acres extending south from the Arroyo Simi to Tierra Rejada Road and east from existing freeway 23 to the city of Simi. The above property owners offer the proposed land use, Exhibit B, to assist the City in its review of the land use element of the proposed specific plan which would be prepared with the unanamous consent of the property owners. The following factors should be considered in your review of this proposal: . The proposed right-of-way for a Los Angeles Avenue extension east of the 23 freeway extends through portions of this property which are currently outside the City's limits . . The proposed land uses should be consistant with the City's intermediate term development plans and by adopting the designation of Specific Plan, both the City and property owners would be allowed to access the benefits and impacts prior to approval of a specific plan. The Specific Plan designation would permit the City to move the propertyinto its.sphere of • influence,' however, annexation would not. be,required ,.,:, .. ,.... . , .. .· until the Plan and development agreements were approved . . Consideration has been given to open space grading limitations as well as the preservation of the desired green belt. All but approximately 50 acres fall outside the green belt agreement. A proposed swap of open space for green belt area annexed would appear to satisfy the intent of the agreement and preserve the desired buffer zone . . The Property is stategically located and will be "infill" as Moorpark extends its boundries to the City.of Simi or in the alternate as Simi extends its boundries to Moorpark. In conclusion the aforementioned property owners request that the proposed application for general plan amendment be included within the scope of the general plan review and update schedule to commence later in this calendar year, 1987. Yours truly, C. T. Financial Enclosures CC: Members of City Council, Members of the Planning Commission, City Manager, Director of Community Development and Property Owners FAUSSET & ASSOCIATES September 221 1987 Mr. Patrick Richards Director of Community Development City of Moorpark .. -. 799 Moorpark Avenue · Moorpark, California 93021 i Re: General Plan Amendment Screening Oakridge and Walnut Canyon Associates Dear Mr. Richards: In response to your letter dated September 15~ 1987, Walnut Canyon and Oakridge Associates are requesting that the Planning .Commission review their proposed General Plan Amendment a_t their September 28, 1987 meeting. The proposed amendment· would redesignate approximately 350 acres located west·ofWalnut Canyon Road and north of. Moorpark High • School from rural high ( one unit to five acr_es·) to low· { 1. 6 units to the acre) density residential. The-subject property was evaluated in the. 1980 Walnut Canyon Study whkh was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. The study established thG road and infrastructure - necessary for the· development of the area. The proposal would provide for development consistent with the intent. of the study. The approval of-the General Plan screening would permit future development to proceed and permiLCity, staff to thoroughly. evaluate the proposal. In support of the General Plan Amendment request, we would propose that the Planning Commission consider the rural character of the property and the ability to retain this character through proper land planning. Further, we view the proposal as an opportunity to establish a road and infrastructure network needed to serve the northwest area of Moorpark as well as provide a unique quality residential area to the City of • Moorpark. . . C •-. .,.::•:•• ;.:,-·· • .. To: Mr. Patrick Richards Re: General Plan Amendment Screening Oakridge and Walnut Canyon Associates September 22, 1987 Page 2 of 2 We wish to thank the City of Moorpark for the opportunity to re-apply for the proposed General Plan Amendment. If possible, l would appreciate the opportunity to· discuss our General Plan proposal. prior to the September 28, 1987 hearing~ . Please contact me at 805-497-8155. Sincerely, 1/ZwcJ.~ Richard L. Fausset •, ::•-: General Partner WALNUT CANYON ASSOCIATES. OAKRIDGE ASSOCIATES RLF/bfr Encl: Map of Properties cc: Errol. L. Recker James Zevely William D. Fairfield, Esq. .· ·,. ;--... t 1tti~l1~~~1!~tt;tif lt2·••· ...... , ., ... -........ -.-.,:,.,;. .. ·-· HARRY LIEB 8933 Amador Circle lJJ.6-E Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Tel, (714) 969-5047 September 22, 1987 Patrick J. Richards Director:of Community Development CITY OF MOORPARK' Moorpark, Calif Subject: Land and Circulation Updated Moorpark General Plan Dear Sir: This letter of intent is being submitted in response to yours of September ]5th, 1987 and I refer you to my letter dated June 12th, 1987 directed to you, a copy of which is enclosed. I am enclosing also a map showing specific general plan changes I request and advise you that I plan to attend the meeting and address the Planning Commission on September 28th, 1987. ruly yz enclosures. ,J -RECEIVED - SEP21.i 1987 •. • •• ;,: • ,_,, .. ,. ,. ,.,.). h M ,,. h •• \. ,,h •• "-•• '•'•"•••'•.'•:•.•• •• ,.__,,h..,_ h)~•~W.W•, ,,.:.hhhh...t,)~-.'._"._,..,.~ HARRY ll£8 11'133 AMIIOOR CIRCLE 1316-E HUNTINGTON REACH, CA 92646 ·,~3 City of Moorpark Planning Commission 709 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Ca. 93021 . June 12, 1987 Re, Moorpark General Plan Att1 Patrick Richard, Community Development Director Sir: I am-the owner of the following parcels of land totaling 49.53 acres in the City of Moorpark; Assessor's Parcels# 500-06-05, 511-02-02, 511-02-0J, 511-04-19, 511-11-0J, and 511-27-06. The property is located on Casey Road directly across the street from the Moorpark.High School, less than 1000 feet fro!TI the Moor-- park Fire Station, which is itself located across the street from ta Moorpark City Hall and Moorpar~ Library. s.:. It is bordered on the east by a substantial number of small residences located along Walnut Canyon Road. East and south of the fire station are several churches and nearby Main Street is the largest and oldest shopping area in the city. The map of Moorpark discloses that my parcels are alrnust·in the heart of old Moorpark, whereas new areas o:f growth, which have been incorporated into the city, such as the Moorpark Road-Peach Hill area, Los Angeles Ave.-Buttercreek Road area, and the Simi Valley Freeway-Moorpark College area are located miles away from the city center. The community water reservoir was located on my land until it was found inadequate for the needs of the growing community and a new larger reservoir was built farther north on Walnut Canyon Road where it oould service the growing community. Sewers were built, flood control channels were constructed (some of them on easements over my parcels), roads were built and enlarged, and street lights were installed. During all these years taxes were imposed by the county(and now by the city) for the construction and maintenance of all these improvements and these taxes were paid and still being paid by me(on parcels located in the very heart of the city). The above facts would seem to indicate that the zoning of parcels located in the immediate vicinity of the city hall, fire.department, city library, several churches, bank, shopping areas, etc. would be very high density because residents of homes in this area could -RECEIVED~ SEP2.i. 1987 _ CITY OF MOORPARK j easily walk to schools, oity hall, shopping areas and churches, reducing vehicular traffic. HowffV'er, the city of Moorpark, when creating the first city plan, zoned most of my parcels (about 39 acres) as RA-5 (5 acres to one residence) and 11 acres as RE-10,000, although conventional planning would have called for at least a buffer zone of gradually decreasing density between the commercial, high density residential city center district and the agricultural ~and,farther out. The designation of very low density, RA-5 is ganerally given when no ameni.ties, auoh as sewers, streets, schools, fire protection, police protection, etc. are unavailable or too expensive to provide. For all these years I -have beon paying the truces on my parcels for such improvements and have been assessed higher truces for street lighting, street improvements, eto. and yet have been effectively denied tho use of the property in its highest and best use. To compound the injury the action of the City of Moorpark in declaring a moratorium has caused me furthur damage and has reduced the ~urrent value of my property well over 50%• The argument is made that large growth has brought with it greater "!~a£fic, etc. on the streets near my property. Telling me that I cannot improve my property because of this has J.ncreased tra.fftc. brought about because neµ.'growth in outlying areas of the city ignores the fact that these n·ewer areas should have been assessed the costs for the heavier traffic flow into the oenter city. We centrally located property o~mers have already paid for the roads! etc. over the many, many yea.rs of paying truces and should have the pr vilege and right to use the improvements we have·helped pay for. I ask that these inequities be corre,oted by the planniri..g commission by changing the zoning of' my parcels to medium density in the propoced modification of the Oity General Plan. Sincerely, Harry Lieb 299 W. HILLCREST DRIVE. SUITE 200 • THOUSAND OAKS. CA 91360 • (805) 497 4557 • (818) 889-2802 City of Moorpark Planning Commission C/O Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development VIA: Delivered September 22, 1987 Subject: Westoaks Investment #27 Property Dear Pat, We sincerely appreciate all the time and consideration that you and others at the City of Moorpark have given to our property in reviewing different ideas that we have and for its' use. Over the past 18 years the Westoaks Realty Group has been successful in developing residential and commercial projects in the Conejo,Simi and Santa Rosa Valley areas. We feel that the best use of this land is to develop a higher end residential single family homes similiar to the North Ranch development in Westlake Village. This idea was originally suggested to us by Jim Weak. In order to accomplish this we discussed using density averaging with lots varying in size from 1/2 to 1 acre with the balance of acreage left to open space. It is very expensive for a owner to maintain a 5 acre site and we have found that the most successful developments will limit their lot size from 1/2 to 1 acre and have a home owners association maintain the balance of the open space. We are currently considering using the open space for parks, horse trails or even possibly a golf course. Tom Weiscoff and The Pittman Land Planning Group are currently exploring the golf course idea. Under its' current zoning, the property is not feasible to develop and we are therefore requesting a higher density from 1 unit per 5 acres to 1 unit per acre. Thank you again for your consideration, we are looking forward to meeting with and reviewing our ideas. s~<-------- Rick ~rncipe OB Phillips General Partners Investment #27 Encl: Location Map Plat Maps SEP 2 2 1987 ~~\\. ?EP 21 '87 10:35 TOLD CORP 805 499 8210 • ' CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councllmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councllmember JOHN PATRICK LANE Councllmembar • MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK September 15, 1987 Oakridge & Walnut Associates 163 Nob Hill Lane Venturat Ca1ifornia 93003 Dear Gentlemen: . SUBJECT: LAND ·USE AND CIRCULATIOH ELEMENT·UPOATES iO ·THE MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN P.2 STEVEN KUEN'< City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRiCK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS D'ELZElT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer Back in May of 1985 the Moorpark City Council directed the termination of processing General Plan Amendment applications of which you had a request submitted. At that time the councii directed that no new applications for an amendment would be accepted until all the elements of the City 1 s General Plan had been adopted. This letter is to advise you that the City of Moorpark has adopted all the elements to it 1 s general plan and the City 1s considering updat1ng it's Land Use and Circulation elements. The Planning Commission of Moorpark will hold a pub11c meeting on September 28, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 to consider the· merits of specific requests for amend- w~nts. Inasmuch as you had a previous interest to change, this notice is being sent to you. Should you wish to pursue your original intentions please provide a letter of interest to the Department of Community Development no later than 5:oo p.m .• Septemt~r 22, 1987. Your letter should state clearly: 1) what your request is for; 2) include a map of the subject property(s). If you have any questions regarding the above contact the Department of Community Development (805) 529-6864. ·Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development CITY OF MOORPARK ·, . ti \ . ~ l· L J,. 1:,L, ... ==============--==========~============= ff· r~>-799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Callfomia 93021 \ (805) 529-8884. c\-. ' ' 'I.ke 548.kke.nazy '_Ilanch_, -Inc. ~f)J5 • September 21, 1987 Mr. Patrick J. Richards Director of Community D~velopment City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moqrpark, California 93021 Dear Mr. Richards: Re: Land Use and Circulation Element Updates to the Moorpark General Plan In response to your letter of September 16, 1987, this will confirm our continuing interest and intent to process a request 141 for a General Plan Amendment as set forth in our original application and accompanying map. As you will recall, this application calls for a combination of residential and commercial land uses. However, if the community deems it appropriate, we would like to suggest as an alternative to the original application that the entire property be zoned for all commercial retail/office land use. Thank you for your kind consideration. GWN/slg Very truly yours, ~irs~ Executive Vice President Moorpark Ranch & Milling, Inc. (successor in interest to Ashkenazy Ranch and Milling Co.) cc: Mr. Radoslav L. sutnar 1020 N. san Vicente Boulevard, West Hollywood, CA 90069 ~83CKSIXROIXBOtlUN.iAKIXJ0C~1513{XlltQtt~::C~l:ltW:tttOro~R4~x I (213) 653-04 70 MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT L-------~ 30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 September 30, 1987 Douglas Holland, Chairperson Planning Commission City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 De~r Mr. Holland: (805) 529-1149 It is our understanding that your commission is currently reviewing the City of Moorpark General Plan. Please consider this a request that the planning process includP consideration of at least one future elementary school site and one future middle school site. Since the General Plan review will consider areas of future population density, it seems appropriate for the City to suggest potential sites in these areas. I would appreciate your consideration of this matter in the planning process and your suggestions for future school sites, recognizing tnat the final decision for school siting rests with the Board of Education of the Moorpark Unified School District. Thank you in advance £or any school siting suggestions which may result from the review of the General Plan. Please feel free to call me if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, ~ !2. ~ Michael R. Slater MRS:cas cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager Members, MUSD Board of Education Tom Duffy -RECEIVED~ ·):BOARDOFEDUCATION:LYNDAKIRA,Pre~ident; • PATIYWATERS,VicePresident; DENNIS HATLAND,Clerk;. OCT.. ·.21987. }'Z,·. CARLA ROBERTSON, Member:; WILLIAM McMAHON, Member; .. ,MICHAEL R. SLATER, District Superintend~nt • •· • • _: ,·,: .' _,;~{~ }f ; • ·\/-::;{'. • • >: __ ': ' • • ' • '' • • • '--~~/,i~L\Y ; ' ' ' '; ·' ,;, <Sr . CITY 'oF MOORPARK';! An Equal Opportunity Employer October 3, 1987 To: Pat Richards, Director of Community Development Would you be kind enough to make a copy of the enclosed documents for each of the Planning Commission memebers for the Monday evening meeting on the General Plan update, as well as copies for the record. The residential update is probably somewhat changed by now, and if you have a more recent projection, would appreciate a copy. Finally, I am trying to get an answer to the following question: 11 lf every piece of residentiallrzoned property were built to current land use and density levels, how many total residential, apartment and condo type residences would be built if there were no change in zo~ing density and no GPA's granted? Second, if every requested increase in density were granted, how would that change the previous figure. ? Could you please try to interpolate any GPA's that have not yet been submitted ?11 Thank you for yourcontinued cooperation. Very truly yours, W. J. la Perch i1LC..~ . Page 2 . The i-:nterprise Tuesday, May 19. 1987 ~·l-~,iJit\itit:+24kti4ti m:»m .C..iiliMVfbiJW:#8i&tWP2: §!WEtPW>eGIA4frii@5tP!Si!I Southland growth to strain systems,-~ officials prediff>, By Melinda Ryan The Enter~rise Staff Ventura County's population is expected to near the 1 million mark in the next 23 years. Unfortunately, the county's infrastructure is not geared to handle the load. some experts believe. With that beingthe case, public cooperation ·will be nec~ry ~o r;1::ike life bearable in the year 2010, par--.... tieipants in a public workshop agreed on J\ionday_ Though not entirely surprisina the statistics presented ~t the wor~hop, called by the Southern California Association of GDvernments were: indeed formidable. ' ' -Southern California's population is growing at twice Hie rate of the national ayerage. -One out of 420 people in L'l.e world today live in Southern Califor- nia. -Projections show one out of every 15 United States residents will live in California by the year 2010. Monday·s workshop at the Oxnard Community Center was L'J.e first of a series of four regional \'.·orksh:ips !;et'i to announce the findiegs o! :1 SCAG •. report that • projects growth and asscss2s its ir.ma:'.t in .So:,th2m California by the year 2010. • A number of preventive actions should have be~P.. taken in 1he i960s .. to help prepare for the critical grow- ing pains the entire Southern - California region is experienci.Dg to-• day, SCAG representative Dennis".' Maches\;:i said. "Now we need to plan ahead to make 2010 better," he said. By 2010, it is estimated the popula- tion of Southern California will grow to 18.3 million people, from 12.4 mil-· lion people in 1984 -a 47 percent in- crease. Likewise, \'entura County's popu- :~tion is p,edidcd to grow from the it,)proximately {i0(),000 residents to- oa)·, to '.-l()U,000 people by 2010 -a so p-?~ceetincrease. " The birthrate will account for a, ia:-ge part o! that growth, but con- tinued new c.n-ivals will also be an important c:o:1t,ibutor, the report . states. .. ______ :::- Originally,-the SCAG repo.rt :iredicted the county's population ~rnuld reach the one rnillici1 mark by 2010, but :.,\at figure was re :ise<l because o: the passage o; gro-,,_•th con~rol o:-din2.nces in the majority of the county's. communities, said J\~2.cheski.--~ " ••• ,; ~. The a;:r,nur.t o( growth forecast fo;-• the six-county region, as ,1;el1 2s U12 magnitude of the_ dEmogr2 phic • change, is certain i.o significantly af-, feet the regiori'5 socioeco:-iomic balance, infrastructure and the nat- ural environment. , ,-.. -· Topping the list of concerns voiced by the group attending the meeting were transoorkiliun, water supply, waste man~~emeut, ai;:-qua!ity 2nd-_ education -all efforts to maintain and improve the quality of life the county offers. • . But traffic seemed to gain the most attention___ -• Tod.a);, most of Southern •Califor- nia's congested roadways are freeways and major thoroughfares in Los Angeles and Orange ~ounties, although ~ome • congestion also oc- curs on similar roads in _portions of Ventura, RiYersidc and San Bernar- dino counties, according to the report. By '.WlO, the report's projections state there will be five times as much congestion regior.wide. Today, IC! percent of travel time on !be freeways is spent in debys due to traffic congestion. ThirJ; that's bad: linless something changes, deiay . times ·will increase by a whopping '_1,(.00 percent by foe year ~010, ac- :cording to Diane Collins, a transpor- t.2 lion planner for SCA G . .. We'll need 4,000 more lane miles (to accommodate . that projected traffic _increase}:: Collins said .. . "About the distantt from here io· -Y-. ~ .L __ , _ __:,1,-<At-.--l..-,._•U. '"': ... ~· :::/.:.:.~~ -·-:~-~- • Freeway delays attributed to traffic congestion, which now ac- count for IO percent of the average commuter's time on the road, will increase 1.600 percent by 2010.' • Southern California's -popttla- tion is growing at tv,·ice the rate of the national average. ·--", c, One out of 420 peop1c in the • world tcday . li,'e in Southern. California. -:, ___ .. • Projections show one out of every 15 United Stztes residents will live in California bv the vea.r . 2010. -. ·::1~\ . -.. • . • _ c By 2010, 18.3 million people are exvected-to live in the Southland a 47 percent increase from 193-t ': e, The number cif i.~divid~als 65 - . _yC<irs and oider is·:Jlredicted to· grow by 104 percent -in • the next '-', • quarter century._ \~t?f~=\:{ : · _ : • ---.. _____ ·_-,-~~:•,_:_~--·_ ..... - The groupagreed, 'however -·that·~ • the a:15wer to foe problem lies in. ex- • hausting more _plausible aiteriiatives ,. -:-carpooling,'public transportation,: staggered ··worl;-; ·,·boursQino'"'.tiaff'ic meters at freeway onram.ps·to}£gu~ late the flow. . :tJ~.:_::':~~f::~< ,. r The • IJ!"obleri: wit..'l~~nging 'the -~ growing traffic woes· unoer:·:control. 'now; .hov,ever, lies~ jlrimarilj 'in~ -_securing·. the cooperatior:U i·nI :1he· t pubfic, the group a~!~?~~~ _· "'What ·needs to change 0:is cnuiiian 'behavior. .Jt -seems ·-1ike<lt".t'ta"kes a : cnsis:-w-get people .to 'ch~e'fueir :1uibits;" said·, Fiea~::Iliis0~ri ;-associate planne; for/S~mf'.y~ney· .• . He pointed to the gasoline s1iortage , of the late 1970S as an _example :of a crisis forcing changes 'in-beha,,ioral patterns. • . . , :~~~F:'< --, . "We should develop -~a ·system of. thresholds," suggested Ojai ·residen( Russ Baggerly. Baggerly, a member I of a community activist group called. Citizens to Prcsen•e the Ojai, said it ·is time to take action-instead of sim- -ply cor.templatingthe gr-0-,1,ing pains set for the county:s future. , , "All ·1 hear about is helplessness. The time to -deal with it is-now~• • agr~ Barbara. Gilmore, a 20-y~r Tnousand Oaks resident. • n' .f 0 (( .I 1,1 ...: Ill 1· UI ~ , 0 '>-/ ' :z . I< ·U1 '· ~j ~~-/ .... , J°' 11 U) ill ::i a: ci ti 0 .>... < r qf J-;1 >-. ti in <( 111\DAllWAY IIOAll; ::r: • ,L ·o' ---· -~----,t' --..,u . ' s ·J._ C• ~ iNON-Gnown-1 AREA .r------ ~ < .,, I ,,.,,1 ,,,,)-J ,.. :• Jlii:,, ...... ~-1 M/1,~ -< J I' ~\IA.> \'Jip' s.>..... Ir' sr{1J~IQ!l11•'.'::.',"M,'!'!11~1\l!' ~ Jf'~i\ · ¼'. F:11 /w!,;..1i!~- 11n _..,-, ~-c'~ilWfilf?'!i!~~l\'' 11 ST __,/ ~-• y r _ _.-~ _..,,,. --Tc_ ANOU ,, AVL ' I -L ~ .,.... ..--\ I \'h 0 ~ I \~ ~ ,,,,.,, __ _j ,i' \ Y, ~ I 'vo GflOWTI I Ar· -.'.(. __ I···---1'c1 \~"); /' !EAi ,' ~. { J" u -" \, -~ ~ ----Iii J\f) ---n _ __; .,. ----. j ---·-· -----------'-------~-------.....J V e n t u r a • C o u n t y G c n e 1· a I P I ,in ,__ _ __.._a o d \Is e t b roug h_l.;)$ 0::/1.cJ opt c cLL.J.u.l.1/--Lg.30 ~--=~~:~~l~t~k~1·1J,1n Ar·t!c1 lit1u111l,1ry J M00f1PAf11( GGOWTI I AHEA /\NO un0ANIZATION;00LJNOARIES, ~-V\ ...... CJTY OF MOORPI\RK Jt✓DI/STl<IAL l'IWJl~C'l'S AS OF SEI.''l'EMI3ER_L 1986 S'~'l\'l'US REPOR'I' l\PPIWVl:D IJUJ LDING FINAL/ IN CONST./ L) I (( J l' U ~) l< I) PHOJECT so . r~'I~~ ------------·-c:;6::ur°YED STATUS -------------Pl:PMI'l' UNOCCUPIED ------- DP282 1. 0, 7 ll 1\ l_ 0 I 7 0 4 10,71)4 -0-100% Occupied. DP289 5 0, il O 0 S0,000 45,000 5,000 90% Occupied DP291 i... 14 , '2 ;, Cl H, 220 12 I 7 ') [] l, 4 2 2 90% Occupied/10% const.. B. H,2L0 14, 2 '2 () 7, llO 7 I 110 50% Occupied/50'!, consr.. ~. 14,220 14,220 -0-14,220 Unoccupied. DP294 28,000 2 ll, (ID 0 L 8 , ()I)() -0-100% Occupied. DP296 105,000 J O :i, 0 0 0 105,000 -o-Occupied. DP29\I 83,000 nJ,ooo 83,000 -0-100% Unoccupied/Compl~t0. DP300 97,690 97,G90 97,690 -0-100% Unoccupied DPJ0l 104 I 5()(J ]04,500 104,500 -0-100% Unocc.upied/Pla11 Clic,cf .. DP302 1.04,840 1. 0 11 , G 4 0 -0-104,840 100% Unoccupied. DP303 29,912 29,912 29,912 -0-100% Occupied DP304 22,239 22,239 22,239 -0-l O O % Unoccupied. DP305 6 2, 6 ·1 0 62,640 62,640 -0-1. 0 0 't Unoccupied. DP307 1.l,')55 l. l , '3 S 5 -0-H,SS':, Undu: Co :, s t r u c l i o r·, . DP308 9, JGl 9 , JG l -()-9, 3 6 l Under Construction. DP309 11,251 ll,251 -0-11,251 Under Construction DP310 7,896 7,896 7 [l 9 6 -0-100% Occupied. DP3ll 76,189 -0--0--0-CC Approved. ·-------------- TOTAL 857 I 837 781,6/48 616,489 165,159 PilCJcc .) ut 5 E)'-_\u\lt 3 ---· u, t', CITY OF MOORPARK INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS AS OF S_EPTE:MDER 1, 1986 STATUS REPOHT APPI,OV!::D BUILDING FINl'L/ IN CON.ST./ PROJECT ~ Q.:..t.I.L PERMIT OCCUPICD UNOCClWIED STATUS PROPOSED -------··-------··------------------· ·------ DP312 .l 9 I :J () 0 19,500 19,500 -0-50'1, Occupi(~d DP313 57,000 -o--0--0·· In Plan Check. DP314 68,l'H -0--o--o-CC Approved. DPJlS 54,052 -0--0--0-ln Pl,1n Check. DP316 l. 9, 8 .l 3 -0--0--0·· In Pliln ChP.r;k DP317 53,182 53,182 -0-5 :1I18 2 Under Construction DP318 120,000 120,000 -o-120,000 UndGr Construction. DP319 7 I fi 16 7,616 7,616 -0·· 100 Occupied DP320 20,720 -0--0--0·· PC l\pproved DP321 24,516 -0--o--o-PC Approved. DP322 20,720 -0--0--0·· PC l\ppi:OVQd. DP323 14,792 14,792 -0-l4 / ") 9 ;) Under Construction DP324 9 I 3 9 7 9 I 3 9 7 -()-9 I 3 9 7 Unchir Construction DP325 33,360 -0--0--0·· ln Plan Check. DP32G 8, 8 G 9 -0--0--0-· In Plan Check. DP327 8,960 8 / 9 6 0 -o-[I, 9 G 0 Under Construction. DP328 8, 9 G 0 8,960 -0-fl/ 9 6 0 Under Construction. DP329 9 I 4 (J 4 -o--0--0-PC Approved.· DP330 20,800 -0--0--0-· PC Approved. DP331 17,204 -0--0--0-PC Approved. TOTALS 597,056 242,407 27,116 215,291 P;iqr_, ] 0 f s ~ ?~\u~~t? -••/: '---\fl.· "' •• -------------------------!£-'.: ... .-•• . ,. 1\l'l'l,OVED --------PI\U,I !'.C'J' S(l, J'T. -----··------·-- orJJ2 .• 0- DP333 -o- DP334 ll0,000 DP335 1,080 DP33G 3,900 DP337 19,070 DP33B -0- DP339 -0- DP340 -0- DP341 -0- DP342 -0- DP343 -o- DP3 1H -i)- DPJ 4 '.i -0- DP34G -0- DP347 -()- DP348 -o- DP349 -o- DP350 -0- DP351 -o- DP352 -0- DP353 -o-- TOTALS 134,050 ----••• . ---_.--/----------- CITY OF MOORPARK 1NousTRIA1 rr.oJEcTs M;-orscrTsMDER_L l.986 STATUS H.EPORT BUILDING FINAL/ INCONST. / Pi:RMIT OCCUPIED UNOCCUPIED ------·------- -0--o--0- -o--o--0- -0--0--0-· 1,080 1,080 -0- 3,900 3,900 -O·· -o--o--0- -0--0--0·· -0--0--0·· -0--0--0-- -0--0-•• O •• -o--o--O •• -0--0--0- -0--0--0- -0--0--o- -0--o--0- -o--0--0- -0--0---0- -0--0--0- -0--0--0- -0--0--o- -0-•• 0--()- -0--0--· o- ------- 4 I 9 80 4,980 --()- STATUS Proposed . Proposed. In l.'lc1n Check 100% Occupied. 1.ooi Occupied PC Approved. CC Scheduled 9/86 CC Schedul.ed 9/86 CC Scheduled 9/BG CC Scheduled 9/86 CC Sclwcluled 9/BG CC Scheduled 9/86 CC Scheduled 9 / 8 G CC Scheduled 9/86 CC Schcc]11Jed 9/8 1j CC Sc 11 r. r:l 1.1 l_ e d 9 / 8 G Proposed CC Scheduled 9/86 CC Sch c:> d 11 l. e d 9 / 8 G CC Scheduled 9/86 CC Scheduled 9/86 CC Sch0;dulcd 9/BG PRO?OSED 3 9 / 4 2 4 55,008 10,400 12,240 12,240 l O, G 14 10,614 l2,2t,O 10,800 5 / 0 0 () 5, 0 0 0 5, 2 4 G 44,GOO 5, 2 ~ 6 l 5, 3 7 1. :l O, 7 0 l J0,,01 u I GJ'.i 330,0>Jj l',1 ll '; ,1 <' f 5 ~Y--H( \'S '/~ 3 ·-· V\ ~- _!:-OJEC'l' ,p) 5 4 lPJ 55 )P3 5 6 .1?357 TOTALS Pagel Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 GRAND ·roT 1\ l, 1\[lf'HOVl~D SQ. __ !~~-·- -o- -o- -0- -0----- -o- 225,5Rl 857,837 597,056 134,050 -o- ------- 1,811,",2 11 CITY OF MOORPARK lNIJU'.:i'l'HlAL l'HUJt:l"l'S /IS CW Sl,PTEM[}EF l ,_ 198G S'l'l\TUS REPORT BUILDING FINAL/ IN CONST./ PERMIT OCCUPIED UNOCCUPIED --- -0--0---0- -0--0· -()- -0--0--0- -0--0--0-------- -0--0--0- 194,864 132,194 9 / 3 7 () 781,648 616,'169 1GS,l:i9 242,407 27, EG 21.5,291 4,980 4 / 9 8 0 -0- -o--0--0- 1.,223,899 730,779 38~,420 STATUS Propoi;cd. Proposed Proposed Proposed PROPOSED 12,000 19,992 15,852 _l_~ 6G,918 3, 0 7 4 -0- -0- 33,081 66,918 103,07:i P2ge S of S G:XHiGIT 3 • e- •--~i V, C:i:TY OF MOORPARK RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1986 APPROVED FINAL BLDG. PERMIT PROJECT A~PROVED ----ISSUED (OUTSTANDINGl NO BLDG. PERMIT .STATUS PROPOSED PROJECT DU OCCUPIED -------- PC3 2500 460 286 17 54 TR3274 157 Final/Occupied 63 Bldg. Permits Issued, TR3855 143 Final/Occupied TR3864 160 Final/Occupied TR3998 -0-Final/Occupied 139 Bldg. Pernits Issued TR4001 -0-Final/Occupied 84 Bldg. Permits Issued uwc TR3032 LA Ave. 265 220 -0-45 Waiting for relocation of 14 models. ' US Condo TR3070 A, Pl&2 199 17 8 21 -0-All units in construction B. P3 76 -0-76 -0- C. P4 92 -0--0·-92 TR4170 64 -0--0-64 Pacifica TR286~ 309 142 65 102 TR & PD Approved PD851 Regal Homes 120 64 56 -0- Palmer PD1010 370 -0--0-370 CC Approved Palmer ?D1014 -0--0--0--0-On f i1 e, 316 Pardee TR?.8~5 313 -0-143 170 PD851 CC Approved 1.•:-\: t:_~ ~ \~'vt ¼ --~;::. ' Residcntiill p,6 ~. PROJECT Warmington TR3019 PD1021 TR3525 PD941 Carlsberg TR4037 PD1044 Villa Campensina Century Homes PD999 Griff in TR3963 Tandon TR3306 PD914 West Oaks TR3319 Lieb TR3958 Oliver TR4095 ?01046 APPROVED DU 130 87 66 62 30 4 811 22 29 18 27 CITY OF MOORPARK RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1986 BLDG. PERMIT PROJECT APPROVED FINAL OCCUP 1 E.D ISSUSD (OUTSTANDING) NO BLDG. PERMIT . STATUS PROPOSED -0--0- -0·, -0- -0--0·· -0--0- 30 -0- -0--0- -D--0- -0--0-· -0--0- -0--0- 1-30 87 66 62 -0- 484 22 29 18 27 TR & PD Approved TR & PD Approved TR & PD Approved TR & PD Apprpved Senior Citizens project completed TR & PD ApprovcJ Tract Recorded PD Expired Phase I (29) Units) Recorded Phase 2-4 Explred 46 lots, Tentative Map PD CC Approved C-Xt-\ ( 13 ·1 T ( Residential p. 7 ,. --: "Ax . ,rv,J--.J ~ ¥,- CITY OF MOORPARK RESIDENTIAL PRC1JSCTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1986 APPROVED FINAL BLOG, PERHIT PROJECT APPROVED • PROJECT DU OCCUPIED ISSUED (OUTSTANDING) NO BLDG, PERMIT STATUS PROPOSED ------ Chad\.lick TR4081 21 -0--0-21 CC Approved Suter TR3686 7 -0--0-7 Tentative Tract about tu t:Xf)ire, Butler PMJ481 4 -0--0-Li No Activity Brossard PMJ930 4 -0--0-4 No Activity Lincoln Prop. PD1051 -0--0-··0--0-Proposed lJ6 TOTALS 5299 1094 6 L1 7 3558 /, 5 2 City Planner Eaton reported that the Follov1ing requests v1ere antid1bated: Burnette' 13~ Ci3rlsLurg 511 (lt~,e r 1 , 2 Li S that v,ould not reql1ire a GPA and v1ere within current approved land use ,me! cl,;;r1siL'/ for a toli:ll 7,239, v,hich at 2.3 persons re1· hoL,sehold is 16,6119 inhapitants, less the 1,091.i cornplclf.:cl aricl occupied, plus o:Jr 17,000 population is equal to 31,132 people. t__·X H I r3 \ T Lf Fesidentit1l. p.8 Vt ~--"". }: ;.; ~: ~ l Attacrnent c Is, _- GENERAL PIAN AMENIX-1ENI' APPLICATIONS FlLED FOR PRO:ESSI!'K; WTI'H G P UPDATE APPLICT'1--.'T 1 _ Ashkenazy 3 _ Levy , Wa.lnut. Canyou. Asscx.: ... - 5 -Guny 6 -JBR 7 -Kalvioo 8 -Tue.teer 9 -us Cbrx'k:minimL...1 10_ Griffin 1 1 -Fe 11::erg ,"&-1 _-:..::;-2 C::S-1 CS-2 i=:..1 :J..i.., Definitions l0-40ac/Dl'J 4o+ac/D'J 10-40aG/DU 4o+ac/DU P,....u:-al P..i.gh Sac/DU Rural Lc:M lac/DU 35 11 290 349 65 , A") "':t---s...; 30 1 7_5 724 3496 L La,.; [)P___nsity L 6DU/ac M:?d.ium Lo../ [~ i ty 2 _ 6 0-J / c, OJRRINf R;XJESITD G P DESIGNATIO'.'-l Gp DESIG-0\TICN C-2 AG-1 RL OS-1 RL l48ac OS-1 295ac RH RH AG-1 OS-2 M l·'k---:.:lit..:.71 De.nsi ty 4!.YJ/ ac !-i riiah [)c,____r-..si ty 7rfj/ ac VH v~ High Censi~y lSru/ac C-1 z--;2icj."il::orhcx::xj Ccmrerci cl C-2 Ceneral C.cn~-.::::ial I-1 Light Irdust.rial I-2 !·'.t'.:riit.an I.rdustrial H 9 _ Sac/ 6HXJ Vtf l 7ac/255 c-2 s_sac VH RL ~Qac/800 RH 602..c/S0 M 90ac/360 I-1-40ac I-2 60ac L L L I-1 M VH RH l58ac/158[XJ L 130ac/208 ML 31.a.c/81 M 94ac/376 H 44ac/308 VH 52ac/708 1-1 77ac C-2 6Sac L 175ac/280ru ML 21Sac/559 M 1250ac/5000 H 635ac/4445 VH 353ac/5295 C-2 7Sa.c C-1 75ac I-1 200ac 'IDTAL t-21' Q--lAN::;E IN U.'.1ELL Il-X; UN r. +231 +165 +489 +98 +650 -30 +3 +113 +1839 +15,492 +19,449 cU'.5_:·•.!tJ:?:t,N: f",ASS0Cl->TES. 1t<C .• LAND PLANtHNG C0NSULTAIHS • 31320 VIA C0LltJAS • SUITE 104 • WESTLAKEc VILLAGE.CALl,ORNIA 913b 1 • (213) 99t,o April 21.i, 198S 11 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Robe1-t Felbu1·g Luis Manzano & Associates, Inc. DEVELOPMENT PLAN /\ND GUIDELINES Proposed Development Plan This development plan is prepat·ed to conceptualize the proposed land use for the site. The development plan proposes 1S, 579 dwelling units at density 1·ange averaging from 1.6 D.U. pet-acre to 1S.O D.U. per acre. About 13.9 pet-cent of the r:,rope1-ty would 1·emain in the form of undeveloped uses (i.e., open space, agricultural, 01· pa1·k). P1·oposed land use designations and respective percentages of the site's total land at·ea an= as follows: Designated Use Low Density Residential l\1edium Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Ver-y High Density Residential Genera! Commercial Neighborhood Commer·cial Commer-dal Industrial i nstitutionai Open Space Ar-ea TOTAL: Acres 175 215 1250 635 353 ~c I _., 75 2 00 250 523. 12 3758. 12 % of Site 4.7 5.8 33.3 16.9 9.4 2.0 2.0 5.3 6.7 13. 9 100 Aver·age Density 1. 6 2. 6 4.0 7.0 15. 0 Residential Units Total: # of Units 280 559 5,000 4,445 5,2.95 Residential use would constitute the major developed use, totalling approximately 70% of the total area. It is anticipated that a mix of housing types (single-family, 0-lot line, townhouse, a11d multi-family) and density pc:itten-;s would b2 develcped. The housing units would be E:venly dividE:d into three groups, single-family, 0-lot line and multi-family, in ordei: to satisfy the perceived need fo1-different income groups in the area. Land designated for neighborhood commercial and light industrial would serve the immediate needs of Solaris residents. The development of Solaris is expected to be phased over a 10-15 year period. Potential population in Solaris: 15,579 Units x 3.24 Persons/Unit= 50,476 Persons Development Guidelines The following guidelines are designed to reflect the basic concepts in this development: 1. Five to six village 01·iented residential communities with up to 3,000 dwelling units, or 10,000 per-sons per village. 2. /✓1ixed housing types in each village to r·eflect the suburban character-. 3. lnteg1-ated commercial deveiopment to serve the residents. Preservation of ope:rn space on teeper slopes as visual and ,-ecr·eationa\ use. 5. Approp1·iate public facilities to serve the communities. 6. Direct access to Freeway 118 and other major employment areas in Moorpark and Simi Valley . ,~, BY: BILL LAPERCH P r oy r nn n cs,· r i pt ion NANTUCKET I.AND !..,ANK PROGRAM Tn,-:: t,ant uc·,:et Land Bank Program is thP first of its kind in the natior ~ i by the constitutional limitdtions of conventional police power r '-, ~-1 c : i::; , t n c b o l d and i n no v a t i v e me a s u re w a s con c i eve d a n d ca r r i e d o u t b/ t:1:.. :~3n 1 ucket Planning & Economic Development Commission as a means to pr Oti•ct Ndnt 11cket Island's unique and endangered landforms and to. secure ::,1: ,. ·..:rs,. to its shores. The program imposes a two percent tranfer tax o;. ''H ;a}, ): ,,ll real estate on the Island, the proceeds of which are LlSed tc acquire be.::i.ches, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, moorlands, ~eathes, and any other lands which help to shape the settlcm~nt pattern of ~he co;rununity by promoting a village concept rather than suhurban sprawl. 'Th', measure, which required a special act <)f the Mass,,chw~e;-ts legislature, \..!,-impleJT2;·,tr-i on February 1, 1984 ano is already carr1t:1a e;0;er $40,000 per ,...,c,_,J.: 1n rcvenc1es. or about. $2 millior r~r year-. Revenui collection and decisions to buy pa~t1cular p3rcels of land are th• responsibility of a five-membPr e1ectea LanJ Bank Commission. The "1-:ar.tucket Island~~ Land Bank Act" i:_;ives th 0 _:01renission a great deal of flexibility in carr;1119 out ·ts duties and respor,sibilities so that it can take advant2ge of innovative land s:=i-11ing techniques. It may enter into agreements of sale, options, rights of first refusal, and life estate. ayreements. The Co;nmission may acquire fee or less than fee inte1·est·, such 2s development rights, scenic easements or rights of way. It may also use t..t!(o conceµt of limited development to save land. The Act gives the Co,.trr,i ;sion ample authority so that it is able to compete on ar. equal f o o t i n g i n the ma r k e t pl ace w i th pr i vat e de v e lope r s -.., ho a r e seek i n g to acqu1re tracts that the Conunission feels should be I-1· est~rved. The Cc~mission has the power of eminent domain. The La n d Ban J.: Fund i s s e t up as a rev o 1 v i n g a cc o u n t. w h i ch ca n be d r awn upun to pay for acquisition, staff and overhead, pr)f~ssional services and costs associatt?d with t:'r1e management of the Le1nds i, has acquired. In addition to r~vr 1:ues rol lected from the transft?r t.o/, t ne Fund ma.y take in tax-deductible gdts in the form of c,-1sh, securities or land and may invesi::. its monies, the income from which accrues to the Fund. The Commissior. may incur debt by issuing bonds or signing notes or mortages. The planning arid implementation of the Land Bank Proyram .i.S viewed a:,, an excellent example of the wisdom of thoroughly involving the public in a comprehensive growth management planning effort. The concept was l-•orn of a fifteen-hour think tank entitled "Nantucket in the Year 2002" at which 20 off-lsland professionals challenged Nantucketers to be bold and innovat1ve 1n its planning efforts. The conference was followed by a twelve month concensus-building effort that generated strong support for the measure [r0rn local residents, contractors and realtors, and rcsulrr,d in the 28-page c;r::-iw~h policy statement entitled "Goals and Oojectl'JCS fur f\alanccd Gft.)\.;tn", one eJement of which was the la;1d bri.nk ,0r"::cpt. Tr:'..' Goals and Q;.jectl\'E:S dc~r:um(~nt was adopt,,d l:nc11,·~•i 1 ,usly !::>y r_'r• ·;·own ilS the Island's first ....,-ritten growth rnc1nc1qeml:1t. policy. Tnwn Mcc-t1r1u \<)ted to authnrize the fi 1 i n g of 1 e g i s 1 a t i on f 0 r a 1 and ban K b 1 ? ·-1 o t e of 4 4 6 to on c . k~•pl .cat ... or , .f ! r.0 r:n .. -•!pt t~, ,)th," "~•.'.c!" 1s r,r, f1'ising. The concept has al.read/ ::-.p:,•ad Lu tr.e Island of Mar~has \111.yard, t.o Cape Cod and to the "so 1, th fork" of Long .r sla 11d where ram pant. spcC"u lat i ve seasona 1 development threat.ens the very scenic, environmental and recreational resources that at t r a c-t re s i de n t_ s and v i , , i t or s t. he re in the f i r s t p 1 ace . T'ht l\<~101, Suru"ttv Glotw-IK"rc111l;,,•1 '.:f. J ~1.•-1 E,re11 tl~e skeptics 110,v })raise flc'llgli11g ~Na11ti1cl(et Ija11d ·Bank ll, C:,rv Ch\<1\0 Glqlw 1,.'01 Tespondcnt YAH~IOUTll POHT -Vlcwc-d fn,111 1111· Hlr. N;,roluckcl's rolling. ru...,l ·ndorf·d lllO<};S and dcwbtc l,·.,ch front nrc clotted with hu· man Int ruslnns -poure<l-concrcte lou11rlailons and lhc wooden skrl· t'\nn, nf l1m1scs on the way up. T\1,u' hundred hous.c-s. most of lhrn1 ~,·wnd homrs for off-tsland- rrs. ;,rr built each year on the ts· la ncl. a n_d _750 lots w!II be a p- pro\'l'• I for development this yc;ir, ar<'uullng to Nantucket Count,· pl.11 1H-r.s. The scramble for land ,111 I his ,slC1ncl 2G mllrs from the m:tinland Is Intense. .\'11lll1CKCI ,,as tlll milts 01 twarh I r'onl. but th~ p11bilc has ac ,·css tn l<-ss than a mile and a half of It. t hr res! Is prlv'llcly own,-d. r:,·,·11 with tough ,onlng ancl rigid· 11· .-nfmce<l wcllanrl bws. Nan· 1, .. ,,.,·. $I 00 mtlltn1i-.,-year c!n·cl· "f"ll<'11I lnduslr)' kl'q>S !(oblillng u;1 11w i ... \.,nd ·11 \,·,·a1n,•cl1·,1r w,· had to take i ... 1ld ,H·tton If we Wt"1t' to save any !;i111t t .. r ,1ur rhllclrcn In the 2lsl ('1·11111T\" ... \V!!l!<:m Klrtn. dlr('{'tor "I l\i;111i11l'l«·t·s Planning and F..co- 11111n11· l>eq:\opmrnl Commission. ~11d In ,1n Interview 1.-ist week. llial bold arllon was the Nan· li1ck,·t Lnnd 11;,nk ·• a preS<"rva· 1 Inn ''"'' under which a 2 percent lax Is tmpost,l on nil real eslalc lrans:icltons. The rcvrn11c raised \Jy the hank. lx:llrvcd lo Ix the only one In the nation. t.s uS<'d lo purcha~ land for publtr rts·rca- tlon nnd cons,:rval\on. In the 10 month~ the lax has been n,s,-sscc!. Nnn111ckel has spent $400.000 to buy and presrrve 65 acres of kach and fragile moors. Witt, revenue of $40.000 per week -that works out to about $2 million a year -the five elected land b::lnk comrnls.sloners are now competing directly with develop- ers for wetlands. beaches and wa· ter supply recharge lands. Accord· Ing to \\ ayne Viera. chairman of the land bank commission. a $12 million deal Involving 750 acres In eight parcels ls undcr·negollallon. "That $12 million may sound like a lot. but here on Nantuckcl. that doesn't buy much. The dcvcl• orx·rs haven head star! 011 us and thccc·s no discount for conserva- tion land. We're bidding ngatnst the clcvclopers:· he said. l::vcn with the $1.4 m!l:ton already col- kckd. the commission wtll have to borrow money to fun<i land pur· chases. Viera said an acre of raw l.lnd can cost $40.000. and two ncrcs of ocean-front bncl rC'("cnlly sold for $500.000. • The land bank Is Nan1u,krl's \;1st ri1;,nL·c ~or land µr~r·:.-;tl0n. Vtrra said. becau~ such lradl \tonal mclhoc!s ns ,.ontng and lhe ,;tall' wetland prolccl\on acl cm1\d not control the lnt,·nS-(' dcvt'lnp- mc-nl. ·'\Ve ti-led a bi!!!rl!ng 1:ap. \\-'c p.1~1scrl onr.·acrr mlnlrn11m .c0ntng on l11c whole tslan,I. llut \\'C "-lartc-d tw lak ~o prCS-ITVC N;1nt,11·Kct." hr s..,lrl. 1,,t'III ae1~·~·d: .. ,ve \,\fnt ;JS. far .is 11«· bw would go. The hard ''"' h was that we couldn't pre- sc, vc lhc m<xlTs oc gtvc the public \)I·,., Ii "~rcss without paying foe 11.' Wl_.':~-~.uv~rt of dcvclop,:r, Some developers nnd members of lite rr;il c:state community Int- l tally wrrc concerned the ·lend b:1nk lax would discourage sales nnd IH1rl \n1sln<'$S. But tn,crv\ews las!_ week Indicated both groups have no problem with Ilic land bank. 'As f:tr ns our sales <1rc con· ,r, ,,.,!.11 hasn't J,ad any lmp:icl." s,ol<I flint Kanney. ow11rr of \), 11by Hral Estate. "Most of I he P''>Pir buying on Nantucket know I hr 2 {X'rrtnt tax Is going for a ·00d purpos,-. ~ nd they n 1,-.o gcncr· 'ly u,, Jff0rcl lhe ,·xlra prier·· • "()11 the whnk. c ,,eryb<xlv 111 • 1n011~•n· t.s fnr U." ~lrl Rc~l"·rt ·y ., rc~I cslalr broker on Fc;rnkl\11 ~111·1'1 "We arc all rognt· 1.a nl nf I ht f.u:t we h;1 vr a vrry l!rn1:,"(J ,,·,~·.:rl'c hcrr \Ve don't w.1111 a11 !.1·. '\lon ot ln1ck~,kr!> r01Hlng hell 1nJ 1ln,·loptnr, ail I he land ... One facl,,r tl1a1 convinced skepltr:,I !'.anluckelcrs 1,f the val· ue o[ lh<' 1,tnd b.1nk 1>r,s ~ $100.0(>0 C,l'rnpllon allow<:<.: ft1st· lime home b11ycrs. Reslrlcnls al a town meeting IJsl April voled 444· l for the land bank. Martha's Vlncyar~ .ind Cape Cod hoµe lo follow ln ~~nturKd :; palh. Both have tnkcn steps to create their own versions of the land bank and have flied bills to establish them w\lh the ~gtsla· tc:re ur.der the sponsorship o[ Heb. Howard C. Cahoon Jr. (R· Chatham). They arc expcctL-d to be ta ken up In the next legislative SC"5lon. Cahoon said. C• pc bill oppoocd • The Cape Cod bill may have loul(h going bt-causc of opposition fmrn such groups as the Mass· ad,usetls Home Builders Assn. C1·tt1cs sa_v a land bank may work 011 a small Island such as Nan· tuckcl but It's too compltcaled for llarnsla\Jlr County and Its 15 towns. .,ltoon dtsagr=. saying the l·,,: ·~.0·1 \JIii can be Jmendt-d to .•, . .:11 • e;1\·h tov,:n·s wlshc~. . C011Ccpl ts being Sludtcd by nw . >unit ,cs oui uing Island and ll\l; , .. 1 I Ind. S.C .. arc.as hard hit by .--~--con'! home "nd resort-dcvel· op1T1enl prrsSlHCS Kl,tn r,ckn,;wkdgcs !hat lhe lfk~t worh-.. lx.-st under ~c:rt:l\n con- ditions. "\ think it's best ;,pplicd In lxl()J11t11g rcsorl areas with a highly spn-ulal\vc real c,ilate mar· kcl. Rlgl;t no" that describes many et.histal cornmunltlcs." he said. Land bank clones could work In rnounlaln and lake resort rnmmun\'les lhal arc allracltng &c-eond-h~1nc buyer&. he .<;.aid. "The-,people attrnctcd by the qulcl ?nd beauty of th= places shDl•ld l',r topp<"d f111anclally to !1clp 1,·sl.•f\·.e thrrn." said Kll"in. ;1rldtr,C, They lta,c a st:.i<t In ihe [ut11rc of thr corrnnunlty." Th~ yca.r before tnc land bank was ,,lartcd. real estate s.llcs to- la1"I $HU million. nnd county sto- l\st1rs lmllcale that the ftgurr for 198-l should re;,,h $100 m1.tllon Klctn '-'YS lhtre havt tx't'n frw complaints from !hose who have paid thr tax. which a,nages ;,t)l)lJ( $1(;oo tll'T one-a1 re Jot. "Prop!, ~ ... ,.y tiv,·, -1•)•1,111,·r 11 :1t Its a ,L~v 1.,l,_µ1:,1,·, rir,.! tl.rh II vest· 111r11t." ~:,,1 )"J• IP ') TllE INQUlREI\ ·;\~D MDUlOH, NANTUCKET, MASS. THUtSD/.Y, JANUARY 19, 1984 TWENTY PAGES Land Bank establi~hed· ·by overwhelrning vote at Special Town Meeting; effective February 1 In a packed auditorium at he Nantucket Elementary ,chool, an estimated 400 p~o- >le listened lo a state senator, 1 local repre~e11tntivc rnd \'alter Beinecke Jr. speak out n favor of the only article up or· consideration at ,uesdny's special town nee!.ing. Only one man, 3t- orncy Michael Driscoll, . p:>ke 11gainst the ;irticle. The special Town Meeting l"as held so that Nantucket • ·oters could deeidc wnether 1r not to accept Chapter 669 of he Acts of 1983, legislation l"hich, if acc<'ptr.d, would :stablish the Nantucket sland., Land Bnnk. Thirty ninutes after the article was >rought out on the· noor, a :otc was fakrn. Thr r0t;nt 1·as 29:l-i2 to n<'CPpt Article lne. Thr I~111d Ba11k h:1d ,3SS('d its final test. The vote signified the nc- :eptance of landmark legisia- io!I for Nant11ckt'l. kgislati'.Jn hat was design,•,: , . i;r11tecl he open space:,.; i :!: • i,l;nd through the creation of a two percent rr.al estate transfer tnx. The monies from that tax will be :idministercd by a yet to be appointed l~1nd Bank Commission whose job will be to purchase open lands with those fu:ids for the purpose of p11blic r<"crcation. Last ve:ir's real estate transfer·s totalled in the vicinity of $1\5 million. If the Land 13ank were in effect in 1983, it would have taken $1.7 million dollars into its coffers. Nantucket is the only com- munity in the Commonwealth of Massacht15elts lo have such n tax. State Senator Paul Doane who was instrumental in pushing the bill through the Senate was the first person to speak in favor of Article One. Doane said that it was a "long and Herculean effort" to get the bill through Beacon Hill. ·•1 am here tonight with the hope that 11·e c:rn cJmplcte the final ac:l, and also to answer !rgisbli\'C questions," S3id Doane. None were directed to him. Then Nantucket's legislative liaison, J. Sydney Conway, took the noor. Con- way gave the background of the legislation which was first introduced in the Senate early in Jn83, after the concept was accepted almost unanimously by voters at the 1983 ,rnnual town meeting . The Senate made four amendments to Senate Bill 2123,. as the bill was first known, said Conway. Those changes which appeared in Senate bill 2187 were: 1) that the Secrct.1ry of Envirorunen• uil Affairs be :idvi~cd and ap- prove all changes made to the natural landscape of any land purchased with land bank funds; 2) that a yearly report be filed accounting for thl' Land Bank Commission's ac- tions in acquiring land, show• ing consistency with the town's master plan; 3) that an annual accounting be made under Section 45, Chapter 35 of the General Laws of Massachusetts to the Director of Accounts; 4) that the first $100,000 of the purchase price be exempt from the transfer tax ror first-time-eve, rc;;l estate buyers in Mass:dmsetts, ,ind ih;;t they hold that real estate for a minimwn of five years before selling it. Then the bill went on to lhe House of Hcprescnlatives where four more amend- ments were made. ''I felt vcrv strongly about these," said ·conway. '·Thc:,e amendments savei.l the bill from defeat. Without them, I could not have supported it." The amendments mnde by the House were: 1) U1c deci- sion to purchase l;Jnd must be by majority vote. of the Land 13ank Commission (LRC), with at least three rncml:lers present; 2) eminent domain procedures can be instituted only after four members of the LBC have voted for it, followed by a two thirds vote by voters at the annual town meeting; 3) disputes with the LBC can be taken to either the District or Superior Court. After summarizing the history of the legislation, Con- way strongly urged voters to support the bill. •·vou will m•ver again have the opportunity which is yours t..1night to preserve ... for time immemorial the treasure Uiat is before you. Never again will you have U1e opportunity which is before you tonight. You!· future and mine hangs in the bJlance," said Conway. Then the only dissenter of the evening spoke. "My name is Michael Driscoll. I realize I am here in a vain at- tempt. I was the lone i dissenter at the tomi meeting f in April. I don't believe U1e t to1111 of Nantucket shculd let a -t ! L:0unty bill mle the town. Titls r bill is very deficient. It's a f dangernus piece of !cgisla• tion. It was railroaded through the le[:islature. If it was such a good bill it wouldn't have needed all this pressure," said Driscoll an 18 year resident of Nantucket. "There is no sunset on the bill," said Driscol!. He pointed out that after all the land was bought up, the Land Bank Commis!:ion would still be collecting a 2% transfer tax. • Driscoll then pointed to the efforts made by the Conserva- tion Foundation towards preserving open land. He mentioned some of the foun- ding f;;the,~ of !.!Dt org:miz2- tion. "h·ople forget Roy l..ar~i:i, ., Bud 13einecke, Rip Larsen ... This is a bad bill. It's tracic. It's short sighted .. .! strongly urge 51 percent of the p•:opk here tonight to say no," concluded Driscoll. Next came the voice of \\'<1llcr Beinecke Jr. "I dicln't intend to comment on th.is, but since Mr. Driscoll used my name 1 will. I'm very proud to . be o founding memb<!r of the (C-0nserva- tion) Foundation. It pl3yed the proper role in being a lit• tie ahead in constituting a proper effort towards conser- ving land. 13ut we've done all we can on a major scale." "I think that it's marvelous that the community as a whole has come together to address this problem. I urge:·· e•;erybody here to heartily support the bill." With the exception of one other man; Ed Scott, who gave :vioderator Wayne Holmes suggestions on the ii°!1pkrnt·nuwon of the bill, that w;,s the debate. Article.· One pa:,.<;ed, and Nantucket got itself a Land Banlc. Courcilmembers, Planning Commissioners Fellow residents: 1 When you complete your information hope you will provide zoning for all people. The policy developed by the County prior to incorporation was one of little or no development north of the railroad tracks .. From past experiences of Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley we should be aware that there needs to be development City wide for all kinds of people. Commercial should not be limited to south of the tracks. Simi started that way b~t soon learned the railroad cut the city in half. There should be a policy of commercial north of the railroad also. Zoning should also tncompas all facets of living. At present there are no 1/4 1/2 3/4 or 1 acres zoned for horses and designated as ranchland. Many people have chosen Moorpark just for this reason. In all other Cities this has been found to be in demand. The hills north and east toward the College could be developed as ranches without extensive grading that would destroy their natural beauty. Moorpark has no property zoned for Motels which is another need that is not addressed. There is a need for this type of housing. The update should try to close the gap between areas that are already developed. Now we have development at Campus Park, Peach Hill and the butter Creek area and the northern part of the City is without any developmant at all. With open space of 5 to 20 acres it never will develop. because of high land costs. This entire area could be developed into the most desireable olace to live in all of Moorpark. BridJe path in Simi, North ranch and Lynn ranches in Thousand Oaks are good examples. When the last update was made it was orchestrated by the County with only the tax dollar income and approval of tracts by Urban West and a few builders that need certain changes to be legalized. Now is the time for the City to determine its own destiny and to see that this City has a chance to develop the way the resident of Moorpark want their City to develop. Something for everyone should be the goal for all City Officials to keep in mind with the new update of the General Plan. The biggest problem facing Moorpark iY the dumping of two freeways onto the surface streets of Moorpark. Not only should the City persue the linkup but stress the extention of both freeways to the City limits in both the northerly and westerly limits. The County is in the process of developing a recreation area in Happy C, all this traffic will have to come thru Moorpark and not add any revenu1 to our City treasury. A concerted effort to get the County to provide adequate rends to and thru Moorpar are needed now. page two f W 1· th the adding of more lanes to the 101 and 118 freeways we will •· have more traffic soon and will experience qridlock on our own City streets. It is necessary for the City leaders to make this problem their no 1 priorty item before any more building is allowed in or around Moorpark. All development around Moorpark does and will dominate the traffic conditions that are here and increasinq dailey. These are but a few items that should be considered when the Undate of the General Plan is adopted. Forsight is needed rateher than a disregard for all the future problems that will soon be uoon us. Haveing been a resident of Moorpark for 27 years I feel that I am well versed in the comings and goings of our fair City. I do not have any rose colored glasses to look thru and I believe in the old ada~e an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Thank you r~(_/~