The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1984 1003 CC REG ITEM 07BLETA YANCY-SUTTON Mayor ALBERT PRIETO Mayor Pro Tern ROGER BEAULIEU Councilmember CLINTON D. HARPER Councilmember JERRY STRAUGHAN Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk JOHN C. GEDNEY City Treasurer 'MOORPARk MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Niall Fritz, Director of Community DevelopmentN/ DATE: October 03, 1984 SUBJECT: Growth Management Ordinance STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney NIALL FRITZ Director of Community Development A. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police At your meeting of September 05, 1984, the Council directed that notice of public hearing on a proposed growth management ordinance be given for this evening and the proposed ordinance readied for consideration. Attached is the ordinance with technical changes recommended by the City Attorney and staff. Also incorporated are those changes directed by your Council. Since the ordinance does not set any limit on the number of building permits which may be issued annually, your Council may wish to give consideration to a separate ordinance which would place such a limitation. If so, it is recommend- ed that such an ordinance require consistency with the population limits incorporated as part of the "208" Areawide Wastewater Management Plan. The population forecasts are attached (Attachment 1). The projected population for Moorpark under that Plan, as well as the Air Quality Management Plan, is 13,500 by January 01, 1985. Based on a review of current building activity, it is projected that this population level will in fact be achieved. As you can see from the "208" Plan figures, a substantial amount of growth in the next five years was forecast. These numbers may be high. On the other hand, in 1982 the Air Quality Maintenance Plan was revised to lower the forecast for Moorpark to unrealistically low levels (Attachment 2). As part of the on-going program to revise the population forecast of the "208" Plan and AQMP, an analysis of substainable City growth rates will be condueted by staff and ·~ this matter brought before your Council for review and consideration. The purpose of adopting any such ordinance at this time would be to insure that growth within the City of Moorpark would be consistent with the presently adopted regional growth plans by setting the maximum number of building permits which could be issued in any given year. Attached for your review is a similar ordinance adopted by the City of Camarillo. Actual housing unit numbers can be incorporated into such an ordinance or as Camarillo has done, be set by an accompanying resolution (Attachment 3). 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 TABLE 1 POPULATION FORECASTS BY GROWTB AREA 1GA) AND NOH-GROWTH AREA (HG): 1985-2000 19n 1985 * 1987 1990 1995 2000 North Half 405 575 520 550 600 650 Silver Strand 2,054 2,900 2,542 2,542 2,542 2,542 Piru GA 715 1,420 -149 753 757 760 N<! 241 225 300 314 327 340 Fillmore GA 8,433 11,200 10,392 11,150 12,050 12,950 NG 2.,050 2_,320. 2,144 2,169 2,210 2,250 Santa Paula GA 19,808 24,068 23,497 24,500 25,350 26,090. NG 1,368 1,700 1,511 1,536 "1,578 1,620 Ojai GA 18,207 23,202 20,456 20,738 21,208 21,678 NG -4,143 4~000 5,237 5,469 5,839 5,957 Vent'U.l:a GA2 75,881 90,812 90,600 93,000 101,000 111,000 NG 1,529 1,658 1,994 2,130 2,355 2,580 Oxnard GA 102,900 136,576 137,700 I 148,500 158,900 183,250 NG 3,446 3,900 3,448 3,448 3,4:48 3,448 Port Hueneme GA 17,23.2 21,000 23,400 24,000 25,400 26,900 Camarillo GA 3 37,490 59,000 62,382 67,459 74,484 79,650 HG 5,707 5,500 7,788 8,144 8,737 9,330 Thousand Oaks GA4 77,377 108,600 111,450 116,400 129,900 144,900 HG 797 l ,950 2,267 2,833 3,777 4,720 Oak Park GA 2,819 5,590 9,547 11,300 . 14,328 17,000 NG 0 90 167 195 223 250 Simi Valler GA 75,250 91,200 95,100 103,000 112,000 122,000 NG 488 900 858 1,016 1,173 1,330 Moorpark GA 52540 • .13 .soo 2312.50 2S 1 soo 21 1 1so 30 1 000 NG 16 470 46 60 80 110 Count-ywi~ Totals 463,896 612,266 637 J345 676,706 736,016 811,305 1. All forecasts are January forecasts. 2. Ventura NG includes North Coast. 3. Camarillo GA i.Jlcludes las Posas Es~tes; Camarillo NG i.Jlcludes Santa Rosa Valley and Las Posas Valley. 4. Thousand Oaks NG includes Sout:h Coast, Lake Sherwood, and Hidden Valley. Revised July, 1980 Re-r.eyjsed March 1982 *On March 2, 1982 the Ventura County Board of Supervisors adopted a revised version ' of the population forecasts for the year 1985. Population forecast figures for later years were not revised at that time. • ArtifGIIMGN T I [ ¼_- Table E-A. l . .- 1982 AGMP ACTIVITY D~TA POPULATION IJNITS! PEOPLE ,.-.-., 1,-,,-,,: 1986 1987 1990 1995 2000 Hr.t:.H 70J c,;;1;RILLO GA 59000 60691 62382 67•159 74'i84 7965•✓ C;'.>MARILLO NGA 5~00 5619 5738 6094 6687 7280 FILLl"OF:E GA 112()0 11453 11706 12464 13364 14264 FIU .. HORE 'iGA 2320 2328 2336 2361 2402 2442 MOCF.PAF:K GA 13300 14625 15750 18000 2025-0 22500 riOORF'riF:K '.lG.~ 470 473 476 490 510 540 O:iK F'ARK GA 5500 6084 6668 8421 11449 11121 OAK F'ARK NGA 90 104 118 146 174 20! OJAI GA 23202 23336 23470 23752 24222 24692 UJ:'l! NGA 4000 4042 4083 1315 4685 4ll03 OXNARD GA 136576 140176 143776 154576 164976 189326 OXNARD NGA 3900 3900 3900 3900 3900 3900 PIRU GA 1420 1422 1424 1428 1432 1435 PIRU ?1GA 2'1C' .,.J 232 239 253 266 279 PORT HUENEME GA 21000 21200 21400 22000 23400 2490() SAtH.~ P.4ULA GA 24068 24·169 24870 25873 26723 27463 SANTA PAULA NGA 1700 1709 1718 1743 173J 1827 SiiH 'J:;LLEY GA 91200 93150 95100 103000 112000 122000 SIMI 1.1,;u.EY NGA 900 979 1058 1216 1373 1530 THGUSt:r·iD 0.'1K5 GH 108600 109875 111150 116100 1:/.9600 1H600 THOUSAND OAKS NGA 1950 2139 2328 2894 3838 4781 tJENTUR:H OJAI> GA 10698 10792 10886 11169 12111 13239 VENTURA(BOTHl GA 34472 34776 35080 35991 39027 42823 VENTURA (SP) GA 45642 46044 46446 47652 51674 56700 VENTURA (OJ l NGA 1576 1619 1661 1791 2004 2219 1JENTURA(BOl NGA 19 19 20 21 24 26 VENTURA ( SP l NGA 63 65 67 72 81 89 NORTH HALF 575 585 595 625 675 725 SIL:,'ERSTF:AIID 2900 2900 2900 2900 2900 2900 -----------------------------------OJAI VALLEY AIRSHED 39476 39789 40100 41027 43022 45003 OXH:iRD ?L:'11N :HRSnB 572215 53443Z 596650-63~054 692319 765577 AQ~P PLA~NING AREA 611691 62~220 636750 676081 735341 310580 CG~l/1 fY TO Lil 612266 624305 637J45 6767(6 736016 811305 Data Source: Ventura County Planning Department; April 1982 (Baseline data includes 1980 Census.) The growth area (GA) and nongrowth area (NGA) forecasts are presented as documentation to the AQMP emission forecasts and are not to be used for determinations of project consistency with the AQMP. ORDINANCE NO. 469 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMARILLO LIMITING ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINES I, •• The City Council of the City of Camarillo finds and determines as follows: 1. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control D'strict (APCD) has adopted an Air Quality M,,intenance Plan (AQMP) pursuant to the Clean Air Act; 2. The AQMP relies on lirr.itations upon population growth as a means of controlling emissions and attaining federally mandated air quality standards; 3. The AQMP provides that the County and each city within the APCO is responsible for implementing AQMP population forecasts through land use planning; 4. The c;ty of Cc.marillo is a city within the APCO and is allotted annual population increases by the AQMP; 5. In order to comply with the AQMP, the City may be required, from tirr.e to time, to reduce housing opportunities within the City by restrict- ing the number of residential building permits which may be issued. NO\·I, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUiKIL OF THE CITY OF CAMARILLO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Planning Director shall monitor population growth within City boundaries, shall determine when the number of residents is within 20% of the population increase for the year permitted by the AQMP, and shall notify the City Council of such determination. SECTION 2. Following the notification provided in Section 1, any residen- tial project consisting of 10 or more d1•1elling units, for which a building permit application has been filed ·,tith the City, shall be referred to the City Council for consideration ,1hether the project may cause City population to exceed the AQMP allocation. The applicant shall be notified of the time and place of consideration, which consideration shall be scheduled within 30 days after a complete application for building permit is filed with the City. If the City Council finds that the project may cause City population to exceed AQMP allocation, then only those building permits, if any, ,1hich the City Council authorizes may be issued. :zr-;,; SECTION 3. Following the determination provided in Sectiorr l, with respect to any residential project not covered by Section 2, no building permit shall be issued if the City Director of Planning and Co11111unity Development determines that its issuance could cause City population to exceed the AQMP allocation. Any denial of a permit pursuant to this Section shall be in writing and may be appealed by the applicant to the City Council by written appeal specifying the basis therefor and filed within 15 days of said denial. The appellant shall be notified of the time and place for consideration of the appeal, which consideration shall be scheduled within 30 days after the appeal is filed. In acting on an appeal under this Section, the City Council shall determine whether the building permit should be issued or denied pursuant to this Ordinance. SECTION 4. If a building permit application is denied under the provisions of this Ordinance, the application shall be registerP.d to show the time and date of filing with the City. If, after any permit has been denied, it is determined by the City Planning Director that there may be a population increase without exceeding the limitations set forth in Section l and that issuance of a permit - is not in conflict with Sections 2 and 3, then building permits shall be issued accordingly, in the chronological order of their registration. An applicant for a building permit may v1ithdraw the application at any time prior to issuance of the permit. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall apply to any building permit for resi- dential projects and uses, including, but not limited to, subdivisions for which final maps have been recorded, RPO and MHPD permits which have been granted, and single and multiple family dwelling units for which no development permit is otherwise required. SECTION 6. For thOose of this ordinance, population increases shall be determined as set fo;~ resolution adopted by the City Council which shall be made a part of this ordinance. The resolution shall specify a range of densities for various types and sizes of units consisting of single family detached, attached dwellings, apartments for families and adult only, mobile hoffie and retirement projects. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shal 1 cause the same to be published in the manner required by la~,. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llthday of __ J_u_n_e ______ , 1980. ATTEST: MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT C □RPORATl □ N Stephen Anderson Peach Hill Citizens Coalition 13820 Bear Valley Road Moorpark, California 93021 October 2, 1984 RE: MOORPARK GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Dear Mr. Anderson: I've reviewed the petition you have forwarded to me (attached) regarding criteria for a Moorpark Growth Management Ordinance, and while I'm in agreement with the conceptional parameters you have outlined (ie: creating quality projects by establishing development standards applicable to all future projects, review of the impact on community, service or facilities, involvement by the City Council to insure the above occurs) I do not agree that an ordinance "limiting housing" or "managing growth" is a necessary vehicle to accomplish this. All three above mentioned parameters (as well as numerous others) are presently employed in the standard processing of any development through- out the County, or now, through the City. It is up to the City Council to provide leadership as to the type and scope of projects the City will accept. As we discussed Steve, all that you want to accomplish can be done through effective planning by the city. As I further discussed, it is very popular to harp on the responsibility the developer has to the community to create quality projects that enrich the community. However, it is no less true that the community has a responsibility to the developer. The community benefits not only from the project itself, but also by the accompanying street improvements as well as by the fees paid to the community for schools, parks, etc. For instance, Marlborough paid approximately $10,000 per lot in various fees to the County of Ventura. Multiply this by 192 lots and Marlborough's contribution to the community totals $1,920,000.00. Of this total, $326,400.00 was paid directly to the school district. Additional benefits of residential construction are the extended tax base for city revenues and additional customers for local business. ONE CENTURY PLAZA, 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 1550, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 (213) 553-5131 Mr. Stephen Andersen October 2, 1984 Page Two We need to create a sense of partnership between the City of Moorpark and the developers for our mutual benefit. The desire of a developer to create a successful project and the desire of the city to have a community it can be proud of are not mutually exclusive. Both can be accomplished if we are willing to work for it. cc: Moorpark City Council Sincerely, ~r~ Project Manager Marlborough Development Corporation Resident: 4265 Laurelhurst Rd, Moorpark ONE CENTURY PLAZA, 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 1550, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 (213) 553-5131 -, Stephen P. Anderson 13820 Bear Valley Rd. Moorpark, Ca. 93021 To: All Concerned Citizens of the Peach Hill Area From: Stephen Anderson-Peach Hill Citizen's Coalition Dear Homeowner: Once again, I come to you requesting your opinions on an issue of great importance to all of us. Recently, several individuals began circulating an initiative which would have placed the issue of MANAGED GROWTH before the voters in Moorpark in November. Subsequently, after it was discovered that the school district's funds might be linked to the projected population of Moorpark and that the initiative, in it's initial torm, might create a detrimental effect on the educational system, the initiative effort was halted. It was felt that an amended proposal, one that would take the potential effect on the educational system into consideration, was necessary. Additionally, the initiative form ot the proposal was changed to one of an ordinance which could be voted upon by the City Council. Despite recent information to the contrary by certain individuals, it seems that some form of guidelines should be established which will place tuture developers on notice ot those factors which must be met prior to obtaining approval for any project. The proposed ordinance is scheduled to come before the City Council on October 3, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. The Peach Hill Citizen's Coalition would like to know YvUR position on this matter. We have gathered many petitions in the other tracts favoring this proposed ordinance. If you support this proposal, please so indicate by way of a signature on the attached petition. If you oppose such an ordinance, send me a note with your name, address, phone, and any brief comments you may have on the subject. Return the petition or your notes to my door(not the mailbox) so that they may be presented to reflect your views. S~ /7•7 in ete y yours, 'j/ / • (/41 a~,{_dffi'l._ WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS OF MOORPARK DO HEREBY EXPRESS OUR APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF A MANAGED GROWTH ORDINANCE WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL FUTURE PROJECTS 2) AN ANNUAL REVIEW AND REPORT ON THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF ALL PROJECTS ON THE CITY OF MOORPARK 3) A GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE WHICH WILL BE TRIGGERED BY THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT WE ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERCROWDING IN OUR SCHOOLS, THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECTS, BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS, IN OUR CITY, AND WISH THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE AN ACTIVE PART TO INSURE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OF ALL PROJECTS ARE PROPERLY ADDRESSED. WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOORPARK TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO IMPLEMENT SUCH AN ORDINANCE. NArt.E 1. 2. 3 . 4. s. ADDRESS PHONE NO. Please ao not sign this petition if you have a~ready signed one. MARLB □R □LJGH □EVEL □PMENT [□RP □RATl □N Stephen Anderson Peach Hill Citizens Coalition 13820 Bear Valley Road Moorpark, California 93021 October 2, 1984 RE: MOORPARK GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Dear Mr. Anderson: I 1 ve reviewed the petition you have forwarded to me (attached) regarding criteria for a Moorpark Growth Management Ordinance, and while I 1 m in agreement with the conceptional parameters you have outlined (ie: creating quality projects by establishing development standards applicable to all future projects, review of the impact on community, service or facilities, involvement by the City Council to insure the above occurs) I do not agree that an ordinance 11 limiting housing 11 or 11 managing growth 11 is a necessary vehicle to accomplish this. All three above mentioned parameters (as well as numerous others) are presently employed in the standard processing of any development through- out the County, or now, through the City. It is up to the City Council to provide leadership as to the type and scope of projects the City will accept. As we discussed Steve, all that you want to accomplish can be done through effective planning by the city. As I further discussed, it is very popular to harp on the responsibility the developer has to the community to create quality projects that enrich the community. However, it is no less true that the community has a responsibility to the developer. The community benefits not only from the project itself, but also by the accompanying street improvements as well as by the fees paid to the community for schools, parks, etc. For instance, Marlborough paid approximately $10,000 per lot in various fees to the County of Ventura. Multiply this by 192 lots and Marlborough 1 s contribution to the community totals $1,920,000.00. Of this total, $326,400.00 was paid directly to the school district. Additional benefits of residential construction are the extended tax base for city revenues and additional customers for local business. ONE CENTURY PLAZA, 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 1550, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 (213) 553-5131 Mr. Stephen Andersen October 2, 1984 Page Two We need to create a sense of partnership between the City of Moorpark and the developers for our mutual benefit. The desire of a developer to create a successful project and the desire of the city to have a community it can be proud of are not mutually exclusive. Both can be accomplished if we are willing to work for it. cc: Moorpark City Council Sincerely, ~r~ Project Manager Marlborough Development Corporation Resident: 4265 Laurelhurst Rd, Moorpark ONE CENTURY PLAZA, 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 1550, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 (213) 553-5131 I- Stephen P. Anderson 13820 Bear Valley Rd. Moorpark, Ca. 93021 To: All Concerned Citizens of the Peach Hill Area From: Stephen Anderson-Peach Hill Citizen's Coalition Dear Homeowner: Once again, I come to you requesting your opinions on an issue of great importance to all of us. Recently, several individuals began circulating an initiative which would have placed the issue of MANAGED GROWTH before the voters in Moorpark in November. Subsequently, after it was discovered that the school district's funds might be linked to the projected population of Moorpark and that the initiative, in it's initial torm, might create a detrimental effect on the educational system, the initiative effort was halted. It was felt that an amended proposal, one that would take the potential effect on the educational system into consideration, was necessary. Additionally, the initiative form ot the proposal was changed to one of an ordinance which could be voted upon by the City Council. Despite recent information to the contrary by certain individuals, it seems that some form of guidelines should be established which will place tuture developers on notice of those factors which must be met prior to obtaining approval for any project. The proposed ordinance is scheduled to come before the City Council on October 3, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. The Peach Hill Citizen's Coalition would like to know YvUR position on this matter. We have gathered many petitions in the other tracts favoring this proposed ordinance. If you support this proposal, please so indicate by way of a signature on the attached petition. If you oppose such an ordinance, send me a note with your name, address, phone, and any brief comments you may have on the subject. • Return the petition or your notes to my door(not the mailbox) so that they may be presented to reflect your views. S ./,f,7,7 1n ere y yours, 'Y: 1 Wt t2u4-dffi'L .... WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS OF MOORPARK DO HEREBY EXPRESS OUR APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF A MANAGED GROWTH ORDINANCE WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL FUTURE PROJECTS 2) AN ANNUAL REVIEW AND REPORT ON THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF ALL PROJECTS ON THE CITY OF MOORPARK 3) A GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE WHICH WILL BE TRIGGERED BY THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT WE ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERCROWDING IN OUR SCHOOLS, THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECTS, BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS, IN OUR CITY, AND WISH THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE AN ACTIVE PART TO INSURE THAT THE ENVIRON MENTAL CONCERNS OF ALL PROJECTS ARE PROPERLY ADDRESSED. WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOORPARK TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO IMPLEMENT SUCH AN ORDINANCE. NArt.E 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. ADDRESS PHONE NO. Please cto not sign this petition if you have aiready signed one. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA CITY OF MOORPARK ) ) ss. ) I, _______ D_O_R_I_S_D_._B_A_N_K_U_S _______ , City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify that on ___ S_e~p~t_e_m_b_e_r_1_2~,'------' 19 84 , I caused to be posted the attached ____ N_O_T_I_C_E_O_F_P_U_B_L_I_C_H_E_A_R_I_N_G_r_e_,p_r_o_p~o_s_e_d __ g~r_o_w_t_h __ _ Management Ordinance. at the following three public places, as designated by the Moorpark City Council by Resolution No. 83-11, adopted July 2, 1983: (1) Moorpark City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (2) Moorpark Post Office, 189 High Street, Moorpark (3) Moorpark College, Administration Building, 7075 Campus Road, Moorpark DATED: September 12 1984 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California, will hold a public hearing on October 3, 1984, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Moorpark City Hall, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, to consider a proposed growth management ordinance for said City. A copy of said proposed growth management ordinance is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City and is open to public inspection. Any person may appear and be heard at said hearing. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California, and is dated this 5th day of September, 1984. DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk Proof of Publ ica-r1on In the matter of: F..Ctitist:10 Busi11es3 PJaw,i.Staterneot Na· STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Ventura City of Moorpark I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of The Moorpark News a newspaper of general circulation published in the city of Moorpark, County of Ventura, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Ventura, State of California, under the date of April 27, 1981. Case number SP49672, that the notice, of which the an- nexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and en- tire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit; ~-2_0 __ _ all in the year 19_fy_,__-___________ _ I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated a!Moorpark, Ca~ifor ia, /?i KL~ this__.,_L__day of L,/, , 19, __ ----"2'.:_ ____ _ MOORPARK NEWS i"24D Moorpark Ave. P.O. Box 775 Moorpark, CA 93021 , ''"""" 0.-1-. ~ This space is for the~ Clerk's Filing Stamp • / , NOTJCBOFPUBLICHtilUNG . $.. LIC NOTICE IS HIRE8Y GIVEN that the. City Counoil. af tlw City . Callfamla, will llald a public bearing OD October 8, 1984, at the bo!ar . '-m., In tlw Councll (l!lamban of the Moorpark City Hall, loeatecl 'at 7 , . Avenue, Moaqiuk, California, to COll8idv a ~ ~t ordinance fanaid City. . 'A.,.,,. of Mid JlfGPCINCl·arowth manapment ordinance 18 OD ffle In the •City Clltk of iald City and 18 open to public lupectlon. • ' • • , ~)t!,--mqtppearandbet..rdatllaldlaeerina. • ',f f , notb Ii ,iwn by Grdar af tba City CCllllldl of the City of , !~ ornla, and .. dated tbla 6th day of September, 1984. 1•:' Damb. ,. ' . City • ~--· ( ~ ~ 20, 1984 ,., Proof of Publicarron In the matter of. F-ietitio1:1s Dus1J1esJ Ham~S&atemeot Na· STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Ventura City of Moorpark I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of The Moorpark News a newspaper of general circulation published in the city of Moorpark, County of Ventura, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Ventura, State of California, under the date of April 27, 1981. Case number SP49672, that the notice, of which the an nexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and en tire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: all in the year 19 fy--'---------------------- I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Moorpark, Catrlifor ia, /'") [: C./ this_,_2__day of L/, 19 __ ~----- ( U Signature MOORPARK NEWS i'24D Moorpark Ave. P.O. Box 775 Moorpark, CA 93021 ' <2:ty Tlw; space Is for the~ Clerk's Filing Stamp NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California, will hold a public hearing on October 8, 1984, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Moorpark City Hall, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, to comlder a propoeed growth management ordinance for laid City. A copy of Mid propoeed growth management ordinance la OD file In the office,of the City Clerk of laid City and ii open to public lnapecdon. Any penon may api,.r and be Mani at Mid hNrlna- Tbia notice ii liven by order of the City Cauncll Gt the City pf_ Moorpafk. California. and la dated thia&thday of September, 1984. •• ' • • • DorilD.B..,.... City Clerk ~llilh: September 20, 1984 (Seal) AFFIDAVIT OF PUbrfCATION In the Matter of the Publication No}ice of Public Hearing STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Ventura ss. Mary Selznick , being duly sworn, deposes: I am a citize~ of th~ United States, over twenty-one years of ag~, and am in nowise interested in nor a party to the above entitled matter; I am and at all times stated herein have been secretary to the publisher of THE ENTERPRISE which is and at all times stated herein was, a newspaper of general circulation as that term is defined by Article 1, Chapter 1 of Division 7 of Title 1, of the Government Code of this State, and published weekly for the dissemination of local and tele• graphic news and intelligence of a general character, having a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, which paper is not and has not been devoted to the interests or published for the entertainment or instruction of any particular class, pro- fession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or for the enter- tainment or instruction of any number of such classes, profes- sions, trades, callings, races or denominations; at all said times said newspaper has been established, printed and pub- lished at regular intervals in the said county and state, for more than one year next preceding the first publication of the notice herein mentioned; and that said newspaper has been established as a newspaper of general circulation as provided by Article 2, Chapter 1, of D1vis1on 7, of Title 1 of the Govern- ment Code of this State, by a Judgment of the Superior Court of said County and State, which said judgment has not been vacated, modified or set aside prior to date hereof; said notice was set in type not smaller than nonpareil, and was preceded with words printerl in blackface type not smaller than nonpareil, describing and expressing in general terms the purport and character of the notice intended to be given; the. ____ _ said notice of which the annexed is a full and true printed copy, was printed and published in all the regular issues of said news- paper for ___ o_n_e _______ .consecutive publication September 20, 1984 weeks, to-wit: o ._ _______________ _ and further I sayeth not. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. " }If • 'ff} ~k1/.--! ~ September 26, 19.JB.. Date ,K , er. ' ' <t. "'-,~ diw-' .... (fl<~OQil!·· Cl!ffll .-, t ~~0.8.f-127~ RECEIVED SEP 2 8 1984 City of Moorn~'~ AFFIDAVIT Of, r'UBLICATION In the Matter of the Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Ventura ss. I Daniel J. Schmidt , being duly sworn, deposes: I am a citizen of the United States, over twenty-one years of age, and am in nowise interested in nor a party to the above entitled matter; I am and at all times slated herein have been a representative for the publisher of The Mirror. which is and at all times stated herein was, a newspap general circulation as that term is defined by Article 1, Cha~ of Division 7 of Title 1, of the Government Code of this State published weekly for the dissemination of local and telegrci news and intelligence of a general character, having a bona subscription list of paying subscribers, which paper is not has not been devoted to the interests or published for the e tainment or instruction of any particular class, profession, tI calling, race or denomination, or for the entertainment or ins tion of any number of such classes, professions, trades, call races or denominations; at all said times said newspaper been established, printed and published at regular intervals ir said county and state, for more than one year next precedin~ first publication of the notice herein mentioned; and that newspaper has been established as a newspaper of genera culation as provided by Article 2, Chapter 1, of Division 7, of 1 of the Government Code of this State, by a judgment o1 Superior Court of said County and State, which said judgr has not been vacated, modified or set aside prior to date he said notice was set in type not smaller than nonpareil, and preceded with words printed in blackface type not smaller' nonpareil, describing and expressing in general terms the pur and character of the notice intended to be given; the said no of which the annexed is a full and true printed copy, was pri and published in all the regular issues of The Mirror. for one weeks, to-wit: on consecutive publication September 20, 1984 and further I sayeth not. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. , NOTICE OF PUBLIO:·IIARING. • PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the ·· City Council of the City of Moorpark, California. will hold a public hearing on October 3; 1984,, at the hour of, 7:00 p.m., in ,ttle Council· Chambers of the Moorpark City Hall. located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, to consider a proposed growth management or- dinance for said city. A copy of said proposed growth managerne,qt.,, · ordinance is on file in the office of the Qly()111jJt;' of said City and is ope~ to public in~i,ot:i. ,-) Any person may appear and be heart( ttcaafd f hearing --'"' -c' :~ This notice is given by order ott,t,e City \: cil, of the City of Moorpar~ :Cefi , -• -· · "c dated this 5th day of.Se~.:i,'.f. __ -' .. ' ~ -' '. -,_ :.. . • ·:·-,,t ,,:., /sfOORtS--:f)1. BANKUS ,City,Cfldt. -- ~-., ,.,,~;,); Lf_,,/_,.,.J MOORPARK u NIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC '====3=0 =F L=O=R=Y =AV=E=N=U=E.=M=OO=R=P=A R=K=. =CA=L=I F=O=R N=IA= -=93=02=1==.::::'=··-=· === TELEPHONE: (805) 529-1149 July 13, 1984 Members of the City Council City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Council Members: It is the understanding of the Moorpark Unified School District that the Moorpark City Council will be addressing the issue of growth control at a meeting in the near future . . Any decisions involving rates of growth impact the school district and can be critical to the orderly process of providing adequate and timely facilities for the education of the young- sters. We realize that the council shares the school districts concerns, and we, therefore, feel it incumbent to clearly delineate these concerns and district positions so that any actions taken by your council will have been made with full and complete knowledge of same. The school district appears to be qualifying for state funds to construct phase one of a new high school now scheduled for State Allocation Board action on August 22,1984. If this occurs, the district will be greatly enhanced in its ultimate ability to provide a comprehensive high school program in a modern facility. The qualification of this first phase element will have been the result of the very rapid growth in Moorpark during 1983 and 1984. Most particularly, the existence of approximately 900 homes under construction, when added to the enrollment growth projected through 1986, provided 70,000 square feet of entitlement for construction. For a small school district such as Moorpark, this combination provided essentially the only possibility of obtain- ing a new high school. While this circumstance appears to be highly fortuitous for the district, there are now grave concerns as to the prudence of committing the construction of this 70,000 square foot increment. This emanates from fears that growth might be slowed below the current pace, thereby shutting off further entitlement to complete the high school within a few years. This situation would occur if the houses under construction drop below the previously utilized count, and compounded by any reduction in the rate of growth of student enrollment. Members of the City Council July 13, 1984 Page 2 Many small school districts have been seriously impacted by slowed growth during their school construction period by reduced rates of growth occasioned by many factors, such as initiatives, interest rates or other causes. A partially constructed high school constitutes a serious compromise to educational oppor- tunity and facility adequacy, and should be avoided if at all possible. Were the school district able to construct high school facilities with its own bond funds, developer fees or any other local funding, this problem would not be of concern, or if the district were larger it could qualify for a complete high school under the state program. Since neither is the case for Moorpark Unified School District, our only hope of completing the high school with all of its essential elements, requiring approximately 130,000 square feet is to sustain rapid growth for, perhaps, four to five more years. We respectfully urge the council to consider this critical matter when deliberating growth control matters. We will be pleased to provide you with any additional information you may require and are available to answer your questions. Very truly yours, Board of Education Moorpark Unified School District rn