HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 0316 CC REG ITEM 09AHARRY 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 93021y
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 vt...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
JII, 1
a:
I-
0
C/
LL
t
II
I
z
c
I-
tJ
a.
0C/
I
a:
t
a.a:
r
0
w
cz
0
0z
J
I
a
0
J;C:
t
z
u
1
z_
f
Wo.
J
0,
II
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
1I
e
r
3
a
II
I +-
I0l
Ql
j
NA
S
3
1
D
III
f:
I
l;
I
3'a:
i
11
1
1
I
I
Qi
j
IIIIIIII
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 Study1.
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 Iable 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-Industi 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/AcreH
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 0t-----t----------
ta~'i'-;JOQ~.U, / .... c. • 0 e e 0 0 I O O 0 ~
COIJ 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 Vf-----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
iV'(. ...... (.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 IT t: D T Ok' A RD :c. C LI [,1 u i... Ar l 'J E I Mr ,; C T ; M·lD T HC 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 DevelopmentJOHNGALLOWAY
Council member
JOHN PATRICK LANE
Councilmember
R. DENNIS DELZEil
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of PoliceMAUREENW. 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 :·,sr
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' LI
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 35. 4 ML High :Jig h 66 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
Councilmember
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
1c/, 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
7rv-,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;tiflt2·••·
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·
tpubfic, 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
rTc_ 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 • Co u n t y Gc 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 , G4 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 OO % 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 G9 -0--0--0-· In Plan Check.
DP327 8,960 8 / 9 6 0 -o-[I, 9 G0 Under Construction.
DP328 8, 9 G0 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 11r. 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, G14
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 PROPOSEDPROJECTDUOCCUPIED --------
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 170PD851 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 APPROVEDFINAL
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 52
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 HI 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 wa 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 hi 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 Ir'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·
1Inn ''"'' 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
Ihr 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
Ihe 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 1will. 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 W1· 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~(_/~