HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2003 1104 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2003 -452
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY - November 4, 2003
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
799 Moorpark Avenue
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2003.
Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public
Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion
item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing
or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion
of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary
for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of
the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item
of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing
must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation
of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion
item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon
each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in
lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion items. Copies
of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the
Community Development Department /Planning and are available for public
review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the
Community Development Department at 517 -6233.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2003 \03 1104 pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
November 4, 2003
Page No. 2
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2003 -452)
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone
Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
500 -0- 120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0 -180 -125, -135, -
145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
185) (Continued from October 21, 2003 Meeting)
Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
comments and continue the agenda item with the public
hearing open to the November 18, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. November 18, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change
No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01
11. ADJOURNMENT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to review an agenda or participate in this meeting, including
auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Community Development
Department at (805) 517 -6233. Upon request, the agenda can be made available
in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Any request
for disability- related modification or accommodation should be made at least
48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to assist the City staff in assuring
reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting
(28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ITEM: 6.A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 21, 2003
Paste 1
The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
October 21, 2003, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic
Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
David Bobardt led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Lauletta, Peskay and Pozza, Vice Chair
DiCecco and Chair Landis were present.
Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community
Development Director; Walter Brown, City Engineer; David
Bobardt, Planning Manager; Laura Stringer, Senior
Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Administrative
Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2003.
MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Vice Chair DiCecco
seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular
Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2003, be approved. (Unanimous
5:0 voice vote.)
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \03 1021pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 21, 2003
Page 2
1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
2 None.
3 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4 (next Resolution No. 2002 -452)
5 A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone
6 Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
7 1, 650 Housing Units on 3, 586. 3 Acres Located Generally
8 North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
9 Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
10 Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
11 500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0 -170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -1351, -
12 1451 -155, -165, -175, -1850, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
13 235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
14 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
15 185)
16 Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
17 comments and continue the agenda item with the public
18 hearing open to the November 4, 2003 Planning
19 Commission meeting.
20 David Bobardt provided the staff presentation.
21 Disclosure by the Commission took place.
22 • Chair Landis stated that he had met with the
23 applicant.
24 • Vice Chair DiCecco stated that he had met with
25 the applicant.
26 Chair Landis opened the public hearing.
27 Kim Kilkenny, applicant, spoke on the project plans
28 (voter assurance and the land plan); preservation
29 (nature preserve, parks, open space, trail system);
30 recreation lake (uses and water); school site and day
31 care facility; fire services and the helipad; college
32 observatory; neighborhood center; and options. He
33 also spoke on issues raised by the public with regard
34 to traffic, grading, impact to hillsides, Fox Canyon
0` 002
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 21, 2003
Page 3
1
Outcrop, visual and fiscal impacts, other plan
2
options, proposed options and the process.
3
The Commission questioned applicant on taxes;
4
maintenance of the natural preserve; no circulation on
5
the west side of the property; previous developers and
6
their issues; commercial center; lot sizes; mixed
7
uses; access, circumference and maintenance of the
8
lake; school site and size; dirt road to be used for
9
construction; the park increasing traffic; and the
10
interchange timeframe.
11
Diane Caro, resident, indicated that she was not
12
thoroughly convinced yet and spoke on water
13
opportunities, the site for the fire station, Fox
14
Canyon Outcropping, entry homes, some homes around the
15
Fox Canyon Outcropping and park maintenance.
16
Michael Garner, resident, met with applicants and
17
commented that he looks forward to the chance of being
18
able to vote on this project.
19
Dorothy Ventimiglio, resident, not in support of the
20
proposal, stated that traffic, water, resources,
21
pollution, toxic substances, San Joaquin Valley Fever
22
and the Unocal property were still major concerns.
23
Cheri Risley Bohnert, resident, spoke in support of
24
the proposal, stating that she liked the second and
25
third story usage of the commercial buildings for
26
residential, access above the college, would like to
27
see the west side used more to avoid impact and wanted
28
to see the larger lots and homes.
29
Judith Roller, resident, stated that she was not in
30
support of the proposal because traffic is still a
31
major issue and there is no extra lane for an
32
emergency vehicle to get through, if necessary.
33
Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in favor of the proposal,
34
stating that without the project there would be no
35
access going through that area. She is a firm
36
supporter of SOAR and still believes in protecting
37
land but stated that this developer presented a more
0'.' 003
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 21, 2003
Pacre 4
1
viable project than the previous project and this
2
project includes more beauty, revenue and jobs.
3
Janet Murphy, resident, in support of the proposal,
4
commented that the developer needs to bring the
5
project to the voters and recommended voting in
6
November and not in the summer months. She commented
7
on the more sensitive habitat on the east side of this
8
project; the City and applicant scheduling on -site
9
field trips for the public and stated traffic problems
10
will be in this area with or without North Park
11
Village, which are issues the City should resolve now.
12
Martyn Keats, business owner, spoke on the "small
13
town" lifestyle in Moorpark and that he supported
14
SOAR. He stated that the sports park mentioned in the
15
draft EIR has to be built by the citizens and not the
16
developer.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Two (2) written statement cards were submitted. Their
statements will be included in the record.
Chair Landis closed the public hearing.
The Commission questioned staff about the peak hours
used for the traffic study and public tours of the
site.
Mr. Kilkenny stated that citizens may call their
office at 805 - 378 -1150 and arrange a tour of the
proposed site.
Mr. Bobardt commented on
scheduled for the November
Commission meetings.
the presentation process
and December 2003 Planning
29 Mr. Hogan clarified that the City Council will decide
30 on the voting date for this project and that it was
31 not a decision the Planning Commission could make.
32 Mr. Hogan commented that staff appreciated the
33 comments received from the community, but that staff
34 was still analyzing information on the North Park
35 project, which would be included in a final
36 recommendation.
Wf ". 004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 21, 2003
Page 5
MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Vice Chair
DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff
recommendation.
(Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None.
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. October 21, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting:
a. General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05; Zone Change
No. 2001 -02 and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01
(Continued from October 7, 2003, public hearing
open)
Barry Hogan discussed future agenda items.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Commissioner Lauletta
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.
(Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
Kipp A. Landis, Chair
0''i 005
ITEM: 8. A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo .�
Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Man'
r�
DATE: October 29, 2003 (PC Meeting of 11/04/2003)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change
No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for 1,650
Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of
Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately
Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant:
North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500- 0 -170-
135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -
195, -205, -215, -225, -235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -
175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -145, -195, -215, -225; 615- 0 -110-
205, -215; 615 -0- 150 -185)
BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2003, staff presented a report to the Planning
Commission on the regulatory context for the processing of a
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Zone Change for the
proposed North Park project. In addition, a schedule was presented
suggesting the division of discussion on the North Park project by
topic. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing and began
accepting comments on the project. The agenda item was continued
with the public hearing open to October 21, 2003. That meeting
focused on the project description, additional public testimony was
heard, and the agenda item was continued further to November 4,
2003, with the hearing still open. This report identifies the
General Plan issues staff believes are most critical in assessing
the proposed project. Future reports will provide more detailed
analysis of these issues along with additional staff analysis of
the project applications and the Environmental Impact Report. Such
detailed analysis would be premature at this time without the
benefit of responses to the comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
\ \mor_pri sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \031104
PC Report.doc , ^ O C
v V
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Citv of Moorpark General Plan Histor
Comprehensive planning for Moorpark began prior to incorporation
with community plans for the Moorpark area developed by the County
of Ventura as early as 1964. The County's 1979 plan for the
Moorpark area was adopted by the City as its first Land Use Element
in 1983, the year of Moorpark's incorporation. Subsequently, other
elements were adopted and amended over the years. The following
summarizes the current General Plan goals, policies, and programs
for each element as applicable to the consideration of the North
Park Project.
Land Use Element:
The most recent Land Use Element was adopted in 1992 and has been
amended several times. Applicable primary concerns addressed by
the Land Use Element include:
■ Balanced community growth patterns
■ Land use compatibility
■ Suburban rural community character
■ Preservation of important natural features, agricultural
areas, and visually prominent hillside areas
■ Overall intensity and density of residential land uses
decreases as distance from arterials and shopping areas
increases
Applicable goals and policies are as follows:
Goal 1: Attain a balanced City growth pattern which includes a full
mix of land uses.
■ New development and redevelopment shall be orderly with
respect to location, timing, and density /intensity;
consistent with the provision of local public services
and facilities; and compatible with the overall suburban
rural community character.
■ New residential development shall be consistent with City
adopted growth ordinance policies.
■ New development and redevelopment shall be coordinated so
that the existing and planned capacity of public
facilities and services shall not be adversely impacted.
■ A comprehensive planning approach for undeveloped areas
of the community shall be followed to prevent disjointed,
incremental expansion of development.
Qx. 007
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 3
Goal 2: Establish a logical Sphere of Influence.
■ The City shall strive to obtain and maintain sphere of
influence boundaries consistent with the planned urban
area on the adopted Land Use Plan.
Goal 3: Provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for
all economic segments of the community.
■ A mix of residential densities shall be provided which
accommodates the housing needs of all members of the
community.
■ Residential projects shall include variation of
residential product types, lot sizes, and designs, unless
determined by the City to be infeasible due to the size
of the project.
■ Where feasible, inclusionary zoning shall be used to
require that a percentage of new, private residential
development be affordable to very low to moderate income
households.
Goal 5: Develop new residential housing which is compatible with
the character of existing individual neighborhoods and minimizes
land use incompatibility.
■ Multiple- family dwellings shall be developed in close
proximity to employment opportunities, shopping areas,
public parks, and transit lines, with careful
consideration of the proximity to and compatibility with
single- family neighborhoods.
■ Landscaped and /or natural vegetation buffer areas shall
be provided around and within residential projects to
minimize land use conflicts and privacy impacts.
■ Clustering of residential dwelling units may be allowed,
if it can be shown that the common area created by the
clustering is designed to protect a public interest or
provide a public benefit such as the following: protects
environmentally sensitive habitat or agricultural land;
promotes land conservation as well as visual relief;
provides a substantial recreational opportunity or an
affordable housing benefit.
0 ?.. 008
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 4
Goal 6: Encourage the use of Specific Plans in the undeveloped
areas of the community.
■ Specific Plans shall be utilized as a tool for
implementation of General Plan policies and priorities
for larger land areas. The intent of each Specific Plan
is to achieve a long -term cohesive development program
which is responsive to the physical and economic
opportunities and constraints of each individual Specific
Plan area.
■ The ultimate land uses, design guidelines, development
standards, infrastructure and phasing requirements
adopted for any given Specific Plan shall be consistent
with the General Plan text discussion of the type,
location and intensity of use determined appropriate for
each Specific Plan area.
■ Development intensity and density should decrease as
distance from arterials and commercial shopping areas
increases.
■ The land use plan shall include adequate land for public
recreational, cultural, educational, institutional
(governmental, police, fire, etc.), religious and other
service uses for the community.
Goal 7: Provide for a variety of commercial facilities which serve
community residents and meet regional needs.
■ Commercial development should be clustered in compact
areas, rather than extended along streets and highways
(i.e. strip commercial development).
■ Commercial uses should be located along major roadways in
order to consolidate centers and provide pedestrian links
to adjacent residential areas.
Goal 8: Provide for new commercial development which is compatible
with surrounding land uses.
■ Commercial development shall incorporate design features
such as walls, landscaping and setbacks, and include
height and lighting restrictions so as to minimize
adverse impacts on adjacent uses and enhance the visual
characteristics of the area.
■ Automobile and truck access to commercial properties
shall be located so as to minimize impacts to adjacent
uses.
0 009
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 5
Goal 11: Identify and encourage the preservation of viable
agricultural resources in the City and its Area of Interest.
Unless property has not been used for agricultural purposes in the
immediately preceding 2 years and is unusable for agriculture due
to its topography, drainage, flooding, adverse soil conditions, or
other physical reasons, it shall be deemed viable.
■ An agricultural land designation should be retained for
farmlands within the City's Area of Interest, which have
been identified as Prime and /or Statewide Importance,
unless the property has not been used for agricultural
purposes in the immediately preceding 2 years and is
unusable for agriculture due to its topography, drainage,
flooding, adverse soil conditions or other physical
reasons.
■ When new residential development is adjacent to existing
agricultural uses, a 200 -foot minimum setback shall be
provided to minimize compatibility conflicts. No setback
is required from ornamental, fruit - bearing tree groves
within a Residential Planned Development (RPD) project
when such groves are provided to emulate the character of
commercial agriculture, based on a City- approved
Landscape Plan.
■ Agricultural uses in buffer areas between Moorpark and
adjacent communities shall be encouraged, and the City
shall support the use of Greenbelt Agreements to preserve
agricultural land uses.
Goal 12: Ensure a full range of public facilities and services are
provided to meet the needs of the community.
■ Development shall be permitted only when adequate public
facilities and services are available or will be provided
when needed.
■ New residential development shall include adequate public
and private open space and recreational uses to serve
residential neighborhoods.
■ The City's current standard of five acres of parkland per
1,000 persons, or such higher maximum standard allowed by
State law, shall be maintained consistent with the City's
Open Space and Recreation Element to ensure that adequate
passive /active parkland is provided in conjunction with
future infill, redevelopment, and new development
projects.
WC 4. 010
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 6
■ Any proposed project shall be required to contribute its
fair share of the cost of providing adequate public
services and facilities.
■ Where determined feasible, future development shall
include infrastructure improvements to allow use of
tertiary treated water.
Goal 13: Achieve a well - balanced and diversified economy within the
City which provides a variety of economic and employment
opportunities.
■ A balanced jobs /housing ratio should be encouraged.
Goal 14: Establish land uses and development intensities which are
compatible with scenic and natural resources and which encourage
environmental preservation.
■ New development shall be located and designed to minimize
adverse visual and /or environmental impacts to the
community.
■ New development shall respect, integrate with, and
complement the natural features of the land
■ New development shall not contribute to or cause
hazardous conditions of any kind.
■ Areas identified as significant aquifer recharge areas
shall be protected and preserved.
Goal 15: Maintain a high quality environment that contributes to
and enhances the quality of life and protects public health,
safety, and welfare.
■ Public and private projects shall be designed so that
significant vegetation shall be maintained and protected,
including riparian and oak woodland vegetation and mature
trees (as defined by City Code).
■ Ecologically sensitive habitats shall be protected and
preserved or replaced with no net loss of habitat so long
as there is substantial public benefit to any relocation
program.
■ Natural and cultural resources having significant
educational, scientific, scenic, recreational or social
value shall be protected and preserved.
■ Development which will not result in a negative impact on
air quality shall be encouraged in order to maintain and
enhance air quality for the health and well -being of City
residents
0(1 UI1.
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 7
■ The City shall require developers to maintain wildlife
corridors to allow for the passage of animals between
designated open space or recreation areas.
■ Development in significant hazard areas, which cannot be
mitigated without resulting in significant adverse
environmental impacts, shall be prohibited.
■ New development projects shall be required to use
xeriscape landscaping techniques which include drought -
tolerant plant species, reduction of turf area,
irrigation designed to meet plant needs, and grouping
plants according to their watering needs.
Goal 16: Enhance and maintain the suburban /rural identity of the
community.
■ The overall density and intensity of development should
decrease as the slope increases.
■ New residential development should complement the overall
community character of the City, establish a sense of
place, and ensure compatibility with important existing
local community identities.
Goal 17: Enhance the physical and visual image of the community.
■ New development shall be compatible with the scale and
visual character of the surrounding neighborhood.
■ Identifiable entryways for the overall community, and
unique or principal business /commercial districts of the
City (i.e., City core and transportation corridors)
should be encouraged.
■ New development should incorporate a variety of landscape
architecture themes and techniques to help organize and
delineate land uses and to enhance the overall visual
quality of the City.
■ Enhanced landscaping shall be used around residential,
commercial and industrial buildings and parking areas as
well as along easements of flood control channels,
roadways, railroad right of ways, and other public and
private areas, to soften the urban environment and
enhance views from roadways and surrounding uses.
■ Design features which provide visual relief and
separation shall be required between land uses of
conflicting character.
o� C% 012
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 8
■ Undergrounding of utilities shall be required in
conjunction with development projects whenever feasible.
■ Visual impacts of above -grade utility structures, such as
water storage tanks, water check valves, electric and
telephone boxes, etc. shall be minimized through use of
landscaping, materials, and colors that blend with the
environment.
■ The City shall encourage the provision of art in public
places and encourage developers to include works of art
or artistic elements as part of commercial and industrial
development projects.
The Land Use Element, as amended by Measure "S ", plans for a total
of 12,511 residential units, all within the existing City limits.
It also includes an urban growth boundary for urban services not to
be extended beyond the City's Sphere of Influence as it existed on
January 1, 1998. This boundary, the Moorpark City Urban
Restriction Boundary (Moorpark CURB), is co- terminus with the
current City boundaries, with the exception of about 56 acres of
open space land south of Special Devices, Inc., which is outside
the Moorpark CURB. The stated purposes of this boundary:
• defining geographic limits of the City,
• concentrating development in developed areas,
• promoting natural resources and open space uses outside the
boundary,
• to protect the small town and semi -rural character while
encouraging appropriate economic development,
• to allow the City to continue to meet its reasonable housing
needs for all economic segments, and
• to ensure that the conversion of open space or agricultural
lands are not converted to non - agricultural of non -open space
uses without public debate and a vote of the people
are included in the full text of Measure "S" (Attachment 1). The
North Park applicant is proposing amendments to the Land Use
Element to include a Specific Plan Area designation for the site,
to extend the Moorpark CURB to include the area of proposed
development, and to amend the tables regarding total number of
housing units (and population) under the Land Use Plan.
Circulation Element:
The City's Circulation Element was adopted at the same time as the
Land Use Element in 1992. The Highway Network Plan in the
Circulation Element is based on roadways needed to accommodate the
growth envisioned in the Land Use Element while achieving the
O1., 013
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 9
identified goals for level of service. Goals and policies of the
Circulation Element relevant to the North Park project are:
Goal 1: Provide a transportation system that supports the land use
plan in the General Plan and provides for the safe and efficient
movement of people, goods, and services within, into, out of, and
through the City of Moorpark.
■ New residential streets should be designed so as to
discourage pass- through trips which do not begin nor end
within the residential area served by the street.
■ Roadways, pedestrian areas, walks, street name signs and
utilities in applicable outlying areas shall be designed
to convey a rural appearance while providing for low
maintenance costs and safe passage of vehicles,
pedestrians, equestrians, and bicycles.
Goal 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing,
approved and planned land uses throughout the City while
maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all
intersections.
■ Level of service "C" shall be the system performance
objective for traffic volumes on the circulation system.
For roadways and interchanges already operating at less
than level of service "C ", the system performance
objective shall be to maintain or improve the current
level of service.
■ Project phasing shall be coordinated with the
construction of on -site and off -site circulation
improvements to maintain the performance standards
objectives specified in Policy 2.1 (above) and to ensure
that improvements are in place when needed.
■ New development projects shall mitigate off -site traffic
impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
■ Driveway access points onto arterial roadways shall be
limited in number and location in order to ensure the
smooth and safe flow of vehicles and bicycles.
■ On- street parking on any new arterial streets shall be
prohibited.
■ Adequate off - street parking shall be provided in all new
or expanded projects as part of construction.
Q 014
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 10
Goal 3: Adopt and maintain a set of roadway standards and
transportation system design criteria which supports and maintains
the desired character of the City of Moorpark.
■ Planting and substantial landscaping shall occur along
major arterials to mitigate visual impacts and erosion
problems.
■ Roadways in hillside areas shall not have a significant,
adverse impact on the natural contours of the land;
grading for streets shall be minimized; and harsh cut
slopes which may not heal into natural appearing surfaces
shall be avoided.
■ New collector streets in hillside areas shall be required
to have curb and gutter and graded shoulders, and on-
street parking shall be prohibited, as necessary, in
order to provide extra safety.
■ The use of landscaped medians on arterial streets shall
be encouraged in an effort to preserve the image of the
community.
Goal 4: Provide a public transportation system which serves the
needs of persons living in and /or working in the City of Moorpark.
■ Proposed developments shall include transit facilities,
such as bus benches, shelters, pads or turn -outs, where
appropriate in their improvement plans, or as needed in
proximity to their development.
Goal 5: Provide a citywide system of safe, efficient and attractive
bicycle and pedestrian routes for commuter, school, and
recreational use.
■ New development and redevelopment projects shall be
required to include safe, separate, and convenient paths
for bicycles and pedestrians so as to encourage these
alternate forms of non - polluting transportation.
■ Proposed residential, commercial, and industrial
developments shall be required to include bikeways in
their street improvement plans, consistent with the
Circulation Element Bikeway Network Plan, and to
construct the bicycle paths, or lanes, or routes as a
condition of project approval.
■ The provision and maintenance of off - street bicycle paths
shall be encouraged.
■ The installation of sidewalks shall be required for all
new roadway construction and significant reconstruction
Q1.` OI
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 11
of existing roadways, with the exception of hillside
areas. If installation of sidewalks in hillside areas
would result in significant grading impacts or a safety
concern, special consideration shall be given to either
eliminating the need for sidewalks or requiring them
along one side of the street only.
Goal 6: Provide equestrian trails for recreational use.
■ New development projects shall provide equestrian trail
linkages to regional parks and to regional trail systems
consistent with the Circulation Element Equestrian Trail
Network Plan.
■ New residential developments shall be encouraged to
provide equestrian paths.
■ Multi -use equestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian trails
shall be encouraged wherever feasible.
One road in the Highway Network Plan that crosses the project site
is an eastern extension of Broadway, identified as a rural
collector between the current easterly terminus of Broadway and the
planned Alamos Canyon interchange on the SR -118 freeway. The
applicant is proposing removal of this road from the Circulation
Element Highway Network Plan and replacing it with a connection to
the project site from a planned SR -118 interchange one (1) mile
east of Collins Drive. The Circulation Element identifies the
Broadway extension as one of the more important improvements needed
to be implemented. At the time it was placed on the map, it was to
serve the proposed Specific Plan Area 8, which called for the
development of up to 3,221 housing units. With the removal from
the Land Use Element of planned development for Specific Plan Area
8, under Measure "S ", the Circulation Element was also amended
regarding the purpose of this rural collector as follows:
"Provision of an eastern extension of Broadway Road potentially
connecting with Alamos Canyon Road and the SR -118 Freeway to serve
circulation needs of potential agricultural, open- space, or
recreational uses in the portion of the planning area northeast of
the City limits."
Housing Element:
State law regarding the contents o
specific than other General Plan
Housing Element was adopted in
applicable to the consideration of
follows:
f Housing Elements is much more
elements. The City's current
2001. Goals and policies
the North Park project are as
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 12
Goal 2: Provide residential sites through land use, zoning and
specific plan designations to provide a range of housing
opportunities.
■ Ensure residential sites have appropriate public
services, facilities, circulation, and other needed
infrastructure to support development.
■ Promote and encourage mixed -use residential and
commercial uses where appropriate as a means to
facilitate development.
Goal 3: Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income
households and special needs groups.
■ Require, in aggregate, 100 of new units to be affordable
to lower - income households. Establish priority for usage
of in -lieu fee as follows: 1St priority - production of
affordable housing; 2nd priority - subsidy of affordable
housing; 3rd priority - housing rehabilitation; and 4 t
priority - housing assistance.
Safetv Element:
The Safety Element was adopted in 2001. Applicable goals and
policies are:
Goal 1: Minimize the potential damage to structures and loss of
life that could result from earthquakes.
■ Require the preparation of detailed geologic studies for
any development proposal within seismic hazard zones and
liquefaction hazard areas.
Goal 3: Protect public and private properties from geologic hazards
associated with steep slopes, unstable hillsides, and subsidence.
■ Reduce the risk of impacts from geologic hazards by
applying proper engineering, building construction, and
retrofitting requirements to the development process.
■ Require that slope stability analyses be conducted for
new development in hillside areas.
■ Require that hillside developments incorporate measures
that mitigate slope failure potential and provide for
long -term slope maintenance.
Y.31 ( 017
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 13
Goal 5: Reduce the risk to the community from hazards relating (to)
flooding.
■ Ensure that future projects include mitigation for
hydrological impacts. Mitigation can include catch
basins, stormwater pipelines, and detention basins.
■ Consider floodway management design that includes areas
where stream courses are left natural or as developed
open space.
Goal 6: Reduce the risk to the community from hazards related to
wildfires and structural fires.
■ Continue to implement the fire hazard reduction goals and
policies set forth in the Ventura County General Plan.
■ Continue to require noncombustible roofing materials for
new and replacement roofing.
Goal 7: Improve the ability of the City to respond effectively to
natural and human - caused emergencies.
■ Ensure that new critical facilities are not permitted in
floodplains unless they are elevated above the projected
inundation depths and /or otherwise protected.
Noise Element:
The City's Noise Element was adopted in 1998. Applicable Goals and
Policies are:
Goal 1: Protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the
public from adverse noise impacts.
■ Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning
decisions to prevent or minimize future noise and land -
use incompatibilities. The analysis of traffic and other
noise sources shall consider future conditions at General
Plan build out.
■ Require stationary noise sources to limit noise to levels
that do not interfere with adjacent uses.
■ Require new projects to contribute to the mitigation of
off -site traffic noise to the extent that these impacts
are generated by the proposed project.
■ Limit the impact of nuisance noise sources upon
residential areas.
� : 018
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 14
Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element:
The Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element was adopted in
1986. Applicable goals and policies in the consideration of the
North Park project are:
Goal 1: Preserve and enhance the unique aesthetic and visual
qualities of Moorpark as a city with scenic topographic features
and elements that promote the quality of life that Moorpark
citizens pursue.
■ Protect the scenic viewsheds both to and from the City of
Moorpark. This shall include those views extending north
to the Santa Susana Mountains and south to Tierra Rejada
Valley. This will extend to any new development and to
any future renovations and additions that may potentially
obscure a viewshed.
■ Develop a hillside conservation, preservation and
management program that functions to discourage ridgeline
development and /or alteration.
Goal 2: Acquire, provide and maintain public parkland for both
passive and active use that is equally accessible to the community
on a neighborhood, community, and regional basis.
■ Provide recreational /leisure parklands at the standards
set in the Moorpark Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Goal 3: Ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the
public through designating land uses that will minimize the risk of
danger to the public.
Goal 4: Preserve and maintain the physical and biological
environment from future growth - related degradation. In those areas
where degradation is inevitable, ensure the restoration of affected
areas.
■ Conserve and protect water quality supplies through
cooperative efforts with the Ventura County Water
Conservation Plan and any future regional water quality
and water supply plans and programs that may be
instrumental in reducing water quality related problems.
■ Conserve, preserve, and enhance the quality of biological
and physical environments throughout the City of
Moorpark. Require restoration of those areas
unsatisfactorily maintained or subsequently degraded.
■ Protect agricultural areas from future development. This
policy applies to those that are agriculturally
productive and /or have beneficial qualities for
0(" 019
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 15
designated use as open space corridors, existing
viewsheds, or open space.
Goal 6: Maintain and enhance the open space and designated non -
growth areas for conservation, agriculture, ranching, recreation,
leisure and aesthetic purposes.
■ Maintain open space lands that are well suited to their
intended uses and that will result in the most efficient
use of land. All such lands should be designed and
managed for the convenience, health, safety and pleasure
of intended users and should represent positive examples
of open space planning and energy conservation.
Goal 7: Protect scenic and recreational resources from adverse
impacts resulting from oil exploration or oil drilling.
■ All oil and gas production sites or development shall be
landscaped in accordance with an approved plan.
■ 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 the
production equipment within 5 years.
ANALYSIS
Staff has identified 10 key issues related to consistency of the
proposed North Park Specific Plan with the City's General Plan,
mostly related to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. These
are:
Maintaining the Suburban / Rural Character of the Cit
The proposed North Park Specific Plan calls for the development of
1,500 single - family houses on 761.4 acres of the project site. At
a density of just under 2.0 units per acre, this density would be
among the lowest in the City if the project is approved. Its
density is comparable to the development in the northern end of the
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan project (Pardee) at 1.9 units per
acre, and slightly higher than Country Club Estates (Toll Brothers)
at 1.5 units per acre.
Preservation of Important Natural Features, Agricultural Areas, and
Visually Prominent Hillside Areas; Integration of the Proposed
Development with the Natural Features; and Consistency with the
Hillside Management Ordinance:
The proposed North Park Specific Plan focuses its development in
the southern, less visually prominent portion of the project site
with the development area of approximately 1,140 acres taking up
about one -third of the project site. There are no prime farmlands
0L ,. 020
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 16
or farmlands of statewide importance on the project site; however,
it is used for cattle grazing. The Specific Plan proposes mass
grading on the development area, but preserves approximately two -
thirds of the site, primarily in the steeper northern portions of
the site. The Revised Draft EIR, comments, and responses to
comments will address these issues in detail.
Variation of Residential Product Types:
The proposed North Park Specific Plan offers essentially one type
of market -rate housing product type: large -lot single family
housing. Densities within individual planning areas on the site
range from 1.4 to 2.6 units per acre. Some variety is provided
with the affordable housing, which is proposed at 18.1 units per
acre.
Availability of Public Services and Facilities:
Key services for consideration include the provision of water and
parks. Potable water is proposed for the lake, and recycled water
is proposed to irrigate common landscaped areas. Water issues will
be addressed in detail in the Revised Draft EIR, comments, and
responses to comments. With 38.3 acres of public parks (6.63
acres /1,000 residents) and 26.1 acres of private parks (4.52 acres/
1,000 residents), the North Park project exceeds the City's
standard of 5.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents.
Expansion of Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) /
Buffer Areas between Moorpark and Adjacent Communities:
The North Park Specific Plan site is on land between the Cities of
Moorpark and Simi Valley. The proposed Specific Plan involves
consideration of an expansion of the Moorpark CURB. The process
would involve consideration by the Moorpark voters, consistent with
Measure "S ". The question of the expansion of the growth boundary
of the City touches on issues related to the ultimate size of the
City and its effect on the goal to maintain a suburban /rural
identity, appropriate buffers from development planned in Simi
Valley, open space issues, continued use of the site for cattle
grazing, and wildlife corridors. The City of Moorpark is currently
forecast to have a population of approximately 44,000 at build out;
this would increase to approximately 50,000 (14o increase) if the
North Park Specific Plan is approved. The Canyons project site,
which abuts the North Park project site to the east in Simi
Valley's Sphere of Influence, includes two proposed residential
villages at its western edge, separated from development proposed
on the North Park project site by the eastern portion of the North
Park Nature Preserve. Attachment 2 shows the relationship of the
North Park project site to the Simi Valley Sphere of Influence and
the proposed "Canyons" project.
0%--021
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 17
Preservation of Significant Vegetation and Environmentally
Sensitive Habitats:
With the development area covering approximately 1,140 acres of the
Specific Plan site, potential native grassland, coastal sage scrub,
oak woodland and riparian habitats are all affected. The Revised
Draft EIR, comments and responses to comments will address these
issues and the ability to mitigate for the loss of habitat and
mature trees.
Mitigation of Traffic Impacts and Phasing of Traffic Improvements
with Development:
The most impacted intersection in the project vicinity, the
intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive, is currently
functioning below City standards during morning and afternoon peak
hours. Improvements to this intersection are proposed as part of
the Specific Plan. One key issue for consideration is the timing
of proposed new freeway interchange with the development of the
proposed project. The Revised Draft EIR, comments and responses to
comments will address these issues and the ability to mitigate
project traffic impacts.
Provision of Public Transportation and Trails:
The Circulation Element does not address bikeways on the project
site but does include an equestrian trail connection through the
site. An extension of planned trails to be consistent with the
goal for a citywide system of safe, efficient and attractive
bicycle and pedestrian routes is a critical issue for
consideration, given the size of the project site. Consideration
should also be given for facilities for the City's transit route to
serve the public parks and commercial center if this project is
approved.
Avoidance of Hazards:
Issues related to geologic hazards, flooding, and existing oil
extraction activities will be addressed in the Revised Draft EIR,
comments, and responses to comments.
Noise Compatibility:
Traffic noise and noise compatibility of the proposed park site
will be addressed in the Revised Draft EIR, comments, and responses
to comments.
0 1' !. 022
Honorable Planning Commission
November 4, 2003
Page 18
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Continue to accept public comments and continue the agenda item
with the public hearing open to the November 18, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting.
Attachments:
1. Measure "S"
2. Simi Valley Sphere of Influence Map
0C?!:*023
MEASURE %% S"
The Measure "S" Initiative Ordinance
was adopted by a majority of the voters
at a Special Municipal Election held on
January 12, 1999, and became effective
on February 13, 1999, pursuant to
Moorpark City Council Resolution No.
99 -1572, adopted on February 3, 1999
To the Honorable Clerk of the City of Moorpark: We,
the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of
the City of Moorpark hereby propose an initiative
measure to amend the Moorpark City General Plan. We
petition you to submit this measure to the City
Council for adoption without change, or for submission
of the measure to the voters of the City of Moorpark
at a SPECIAL ELECTION. The measure provides as
follows:
SAVE OPEN -SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
MOORPARK CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY
FULL TEXT OF RESOLUTION
The people of the City of Moorpark do hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Title.
This initiative measure shall be known as the Moorpark Save
Open -space and Agricultural Resources, or Moorpark SOAR,
initiative.
Section 2. Purpose and Findings.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this initiative is to adopt
for the City of Moorpark an Urban Restriction Boundary. The
Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (Moorpark CURB) line
has the following objectives:
1. To promote stability in long term planning for the
City by establishing a cornerstone policy within the General
Plan designating the geographic limits of long term urban
development and allowing sufficient flexibility within those
limits to respond to the City's changing needs over time;
PC ATTACHMENT 1
Measure "S"
2. To encourage efficient growth patterns and protect
the City of Moorpark's quality of life by concentrating future
development largely within existing developed areas consistent
with the availability of infrastructure and services;
3. To promote
ongoing natural resourc
Government Code Section
natural resources, publi c
that foster public healt h
for farming enterprises;
on lands outside the Moorpark CURB line
e and open -space uses as defined in
65560(b), such as preservation of
and private outdoor recreation, uses
and safety, and productive investment
4. To manage the City's growth in a manner that
fosters and protects the small town and semi -rural character of
Moorpark while encouraging appropriate economic development in
accordance with the City's unique local conditions; and
5. To allow the City to continue to meet its
reasonable housing needs for all economic segments of the
population, especially low and moderate income households, by
directing the development of housing into areas where services
and infrastructure are more efficiently available.
6. To ensure that the preservation and protection of
(1) open- space, (2) environmentally sensitive habitat, and (3)
agricultural production are inviolable against transitory short -
term political decisions and that watershed, viewshed, open -
space, and agricultural lands are not prematurely or
unnecessarily converted to other non - agricultural or non -open-
space uses without public debate and a vote of the people.
B. Findings.
1. Continued urban encroachment into open- space,
watershed, viewshed, or agricultural areas will threaten the
public health, safety and welfare by causing increased traffic
congestion, associated air pollution, and potentially serious
water problems, such as pollution, depletion, and sedimentation
of available water resources not only for the City but for its
jurisdictional neighbors and severely impact the viability of
adjacent agricultural lands. Such urban encroachment would
eventually result in both the unnecessary, expensive extension
of public services and facilities and inevitable conflicts
between urban, agricultural and open -space uses.
2. The unique character of the City of Moorpark and
quality of life of City residents depend on the protection of a
substantial amount of open - space, rural and agricultural lands
2
() (1� AW
L-Jt=d5ure 0
and their associated visual resources. The protection of such
lands not only ensures the continued viability of agriculture,
but also protects the available water supply and contributes to
flood control and the protection of wildlife, environmentally
sensitive areas, and irreplaceable natural and visual resources.
As importantly, adopting a geographic urban limit line around
the City of Moorpark would promote the formation and
continuation of a cohesive community by defining the boundaries
and by helping to prevent urban sprawl. Such a boundary would
promote efficient municipal services and facilities by confining
urban development to defined development areas.
3. The protection of existing open- space, watershed,
viewshed, and agricultural lands, within and surrounding the
City of Moorpark is of critical importance to present and future
residents of the City of Moorpark. Agriculture has been and
remains a major contributor to the economy of the Moorpark area
and County of Ventura, directly and indirectly creating
employment for many people and generating substantial tax
revenues for the City and its surrounding area.
4. In particular, the City of Moorpark is a component
of Ventura County and a gate- keeper to the surrounding area,
with its unique combination of soils, micro - climate and
hydrology, which has become one of the finest growing regions in
the world. Vegetable and fruit production from the County of
Ventura and more particularly from the soils and silt from the
Arroyo Simi, the entire Calleguas watershed area, the Tierra
Rejada Valley and alluvial plains adjacent to the City have
achieved international acclaim, enhancing the City's economy and
reputation.
5. This initiative ensures that the Goals and
Policies relating to Agriculture (Goal 11 and Policies 11.1
through 11.3) and Preservation of Environmental Quality (Goal 14
and 15) and Policies 14.1 through 14.6 and Policies 15.1 through
15.3, 15.5, and 15.8 of the General Plan are inviolable against
transitory short -term political decisions and that agricultural,.
watershed and open -space lands are not prematurely or
unnecessarily converted to other non - agricultural or non -open-
space uses without public debate and a vote of the people.
Accordingly, the initiative requires that until December 31,
2020, the City of Moorpark shall, with minor exceptions,
restrict the provision of urban services, and creation of urban
uses, other than in certain circumstances and according to
specific procedures set forth in the initiative, to within the
City Urban Restriction Boundary created by the initiative.
3
0;_1 00'
6. Although established in the same location as the
Sphere of Influence line as it exists as of January 1, 1998, the
CURB is not intended to and shall in no way inhibit the Local
Agency Formation Commission from changing or altering the Sphere
of Influence line in accordance with state law. The two lines,
although coincidentally coterminous as of one point in time are
independent one from the other in legal significance and
purpose. While the Sphere of Influence line may be altered by
the Local Agency Formation Commission, and addresses the issue
of annexation, the City Urban Restriction Boundary is a local
planning policy addressing the issue of land uses and shall not
be changed except as herein provided.
Section 3. General Plan Amendment.
The Moorpark SOAR Initiative hereby inserts as "Section
8.0 ", et seq., to the Land Use Element of the City of Moorpark
General Plan, the following:
"8.0 MOORPARK CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY
Introduction
The electorate of the City of Moorpark have, through the
initiative process, adopted an urban growth boundary line
denominated the Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary
(Moorpark CURB). Its purpose, principals, implementation
procedures, and methodologies for amendment are set forth in
this Section.
8.1 PURPOSE
The City of Moorpark and surrounding area, with its unique
combination of soils, microclimate and hydrology, has become one
o the finest growing regions in the world. Vegetable and fruit
production from the County of Ventura and in particular
production from the soils and silt from the Arroyo Simi, the
entire Calleguas watershed, the Tierra Rejada Valley, and
alluvial plains adjacent to the City have achieved international
acclaim, enhancing the City's economy and reputation.
The purpose of the Moorpark CURB is:
A. To promote stability in long term planning for the
City by establishing a cornerstone policy within the General
Plan designating the geographic limits of long term urban
development and allowing sufficient flexibility within those
limits to respond to the City's changing needs over time;
4
0C '. 0217
Measure "'S"
B. To encourage efficient growth patterns and protect
the City of Moorpark's quality of life by concentrating future
development largely within existing developed areas consistent
with the availability of infrastructure and services;
C. To promote
ongoing natural resource
Government Code Section
natural resources, publi c
that foster public healt h
for farming enterprises;
on lands outside the Moorpark CURB line
and open -space uses as defined in
65560(b), such as preservation of
and private outdoor recreation, uses
and safety, and productive investment
D. To manage the City's growth in a manner that
fosters and protects the "small town" and semi -rural character
of Moorpark while encouraging appropriate economic development
in accordance with the City's unique local conditions;
E. To allow the City to continue to meet its
reasonable housing needs for all economic segments of the
population, especially low and moderate income households, by
directing the development of housing into areas where services
and infrastructure are more efficiently available; and
F. To ensure that the preservation and protection of
(1) open- space, (2) environmentally sensitive habitat, and (3)
agricultural production are inviolable against transitory short -
term political decisions and that watershed, viewshed, open -
space, and agricultural lands are not prematurely or
unnecessarily converted to other non - agricultural or non -open-
space uses without public debate and a vote of the people.
8.2 PRINCIPLES.
A. Continued urban encroachment into open- space,
viewshed, watershed and agricultural areas will impair
agriculture, negatively impact sensitive environmental areas,
and intrude on open -space irrevocably changing its beneficial
utility. By diminishing such beneficial uses, urban
encroachment also diminishes the quality of life and threatens
the public health, safety and welfare by causing increased
traffic congestion, associated air pollution, alteration of
sensitive lands in flood plains and causing potentially serious
water problems, such as pollution, depletion, and sedimentation
of available water resources not only for the City of Moorpark
but for its jurisdictional neighbors. Such urban sprawl would
eventually result in both the unnecessary, expensive extension
5
ot: 02S
r,cd5ure
of public services and facilities and inevitable conflicts
between urban and open- space /agricultural uses.
B. The unique character of the City of Moorpark and
quality of life of City residents depend on the protection of a
substantial amount of open- space, watershed and agricultural
lands. The protection of such lands through the implementation
of this General Plan Amendment by initiative not only ensures
the continued viability of agriculture, but also protects the
available water supply and contributes to flood control and the
protection of wildlife, environmentally sensitive areas, and
irreplaceable visual and natural resources. As importantly,
adopting a City Urban Restriction Boundary around the City of
Moorpark will promote the formation and continuation of a
cohesive community by defining the boundaries and by helping to
prevent urban sprawl. Such a City Urban Restriction Boundary
will promote efficient municipal services and facilities by
confining urban development to defined development areas.
8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF CURB
A. The City of Moorpark hereby establishes and
adopts a Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (Moorpark
CURB) line. The Moorpark CURB shall be established coterminous
with and in the same location as the Sphere of Influence line
established by the Local Agency Formation Commission as it
exists as of January 1, 1998, or as altered or modified pursuant
to the Amendment Procedures set forth below. Graphic
representation of that line is shown at Exhibit "A ".
B. Until December 31, 2020, the City of Moorpark
shall restrict urban services (except temporary mutual
assistance with other jurisdictions) and urbanized uses of land
to within the Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary, except
as provided herein, and except for the purpose of completing
roadways designated in the circulation element of the Moorpark
General Plan as of January 1, 1998, construction of public
potable water facilities, public schools, public parks or other.
government facilities. Other than for the exceptions provided
herein, upon the effective date of this General Plan Amendment
the City and its departments, boards, commissions, officers and
employees shall not grant, or by inaction allow to be approved
by operation of law, any general plan amendment, rezoning,
specific plan, subdivision map, conditional use permit, building
permit or any other ministerial or discretionary entitlement,
which is inconsistent with the purposes of this Section, unless
in accordance with the Amendment Procedures of Section 8.4.
6
o " 029
L•1 k--asure - b_.
C. "Urbanizes uses of land" shall mean any
development which would require the establishment of new
community sewer systems or the significant expansion of existing
community sewer systems; or, would result in the creation of
residential lots less than 20 acres in area; or, would result in
the establishment of commercial or industrial uses which are not
exclusively agriculturally - related.
D. The Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary may
not be amended, altered, revoked or otherwise changed prior to
December 31, 2020, except by vote of the people or by the City
Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 8.4.
E. Implementation of this initiative will in no way
preclude the Moorpark City Council from making land use
decisions regarding lands inside the Moorpark City Urban
Restriction Boundary.
8.4 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
Until December 31, 2020, the foregoing Purposes, Principles
and Implementation provisions of this Section of the Land Use
Element may be amended only by a vote of the people commenced
pursuant to the initiative process by the public, or pursuant to
the procedures set forth below:
A. The City Council may amend the City Urban
Restriction Boundary if it deems it to be in the public
interest, provided that the amended boundary is within or
coextensive with the limits of said City Urban Restriction
Boundary.
B. The City Council, following at least one public
hearing for presentations by an applicant and by the public, and
after compliance with the California Environment Quality Act,
may amend the City Urban Restriction Boundary in order to comply
with State regulations regarding the provision of housing for
all economic segments of the community, provided that no more
than 10 acres of land may be brought within the CURB for this
purpose in any calendar year. Such amendment may be adopted
only if the City Council makes each of the following findings:
1) The City is in violation of State regulations
regarding its fair share of housing stock.
2) The land is immediately adjacent to existing
compatibly developed areas and the applicant for
the inclusion of land within the Urban
7
001: 030
Restriction Boundary has provided to the City
evidence that the Fire Department, Police
Department, Department of Public Works, the
Community Services Department, applicable water
and sewer districts, and the School District with
jurisdiction over such land have adequate
capacity to accommodate the proposed development
and provide it with adequate public services; and
3) That the proposed development will address the
highest priority need identified in the analysis
by which the City has determined it is not in
compliance with State regulations, i.e., low and
very low income housing; and
4) That there is no existing residentially
designated land available within the Urban
Restriction Boundary to accommodate the proposed
development; and
5) That it is not reasonably feasible to accommodate
the proposed development by redesignating lands
within the Urban Restriction Boundary.
C. The City Council following at least one public
hearing for presentations by an applicant and by the public, and
after compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
may amend the Urban Restriction Boundary described herein, if
the City Council makes each of the following findings:
1) The land proposed for receiving urban services,
urbanized land uses, or inclusion within the
Urban Restriction Boundary is immediately
adjacent to areas developed in a manner
comparable to the proposed use;
2) Adequate public services and facilities are
available and have the capacity and capability to
accommodate the proposed use;
3) The proposed use will not have direct, indirect,
or cumulative adverse significant impacts to the
area's agricultural viability, habitat, scenic
resources, or watershed value;
4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the
stability of land use patterns in the area (i.e.,
the parcel affected will not introduce or
C
0� . Q.f,.
L•i Cl- aJULt:! J
facilitate a use that is incompatible with
adjoining or nearby uses);
5) The land proposed for reception of public
services, urbanization or inclusion within the
Urban Restriction Boundary has not been used for
agricultural purposes in the immediately
preceding 2 years and is unusable for agriculture
due to its topography, drainage, flooding,
adverse soil conditions or other physical
reasons; and
6) The land proposed for reception of public
services, urbanization or inclusion within the
Urban Restriction Boundary does not exceed 40
acres for any one landowner in any calendar year,
and one landowner's property may not similarly be
removed from the protections contemplated by this
Initiative more often than every other year.
Landowners with any unity of interest are
considered one landowner for purposes of this
limitation.
D. The City Council following at least one public
hearing for presentation by an applicant and by the public, and
after compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
may amend the CURB if the City Council makes each of the
following findings:
1) Failure to amend the CURB would constitute an
unconstitutional taking of a landowners property
for which compensation would be required or would
deprive the landowner of a vested right; and
2) The amendment and associated land use
designations will allow additional land uses only
to the minimum extent necessary to avoid said
unconstitutional taking of the landowner's
property or to give effect to the vested right.
E. The City Council following at least one public
hearing for presentations by an applicant and by the public, and
after compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
may place any amendment to the Urban Restriction Boundary or the
provisions of this initiative on the ballot pursuant to the
mechanisms provided by State Law.
�i
0 C 032
Measure "6"
F. The City Council may amend the CURB line location
to encompass lands contemplated for construction of public
potable water facilites, public schools, public parks or other
government facilities, all uses exempted from the provisions of
this General Plan Amendment by the provisions of Section 8.3,
but only to the minimum amount reasonably necessary to
accommodated said uses.
G. The City Council may reorganize, renumber or
reorder the individual provisions of the General Plan, including
the provisions of this Section 8 sequence, in the course of
ongoing updates of the General Plan in accordance with the
requirements of state law.
Section 4. Conforming Amendments.
In light of the General Plan Land Use Element amendments
set forth above, the City of Moorpark General Plan is hereby
further amended as set forth below in order to promote internal
consistency among the various elements of the General Plan.
Text to be inserted into the General Plan is indicated in bold
italic type while text to be stricken is presented in
sr=E j(e# -hr-e , j1: type; text in standard type currently appears in
the General Plan and remains unchanged by this initiative.
Occasionally, ellipses [* *] are introduced to indicate
significant blocks of text remain unchanged within a section.
The language adopted in the following conforming amendments may
be further amended as appropriate without a vote of the people
in the course of future updates and revisions to the General
Plan provided the same are not amended in such a manner as to
create inconsistencies within the General Plan.
1. The Last paragraph of Section 2.2 of the Land Use
Element, at page 6 is amended as follows:
The future development of lands surrounding
the City boundary outside of the City Urban
Restriction Boundary is to be discouraged
and generally shall not be permitted in the
absence of a vote of the electorate. Other
exceptions to this policy are found at
Section 8. q.
' ' ' that adeq ate r-=__-
se. iGTs - and" nf EZ sr etur -e be
em tended ed t e
-#-e
2. Policy 2.1 of the Land Use Element at page 11 is
amended as follows:
10
0(1� 033
The City shall strive to obtain and maintain
sphere of influence boundaries consistent
with the City Urban Restriction Boundary.
Use Plan
3. Goal 11 of the Land Use Element at page 16 is
amended as follows:
Identify and encourage the preservation of
viable agricultural resources in the City
and its Area of Interest. Unless property
has not been used for agricultural purposes
in the immediately preceding 2 years and is
unusable for agriculture due to its
topography, drainage, flooding, adverse soil
conditions, or other physical reasons, it
shall deemed viable.
4. Policy 11.1 of the Land Use Element at page 16 is
amended as follows:
An agricultural land use designation should
be retained for farmlands within the City's
Area of Interest, which have been identified
as Prime and/or Statewide Importance unless
the property has not been used for
agricultural purposes in the immediately
preceding 2 years and is unusable for
agriculture due to its topography, drainage,
flooding, adverse soil conditions or other
physical reasons. as leng as eeenemieally
viable.
5. Section 5.2 SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION - SP, of the
Land Use Element, at page 28, is amended as follows:
Exhibits 3 and 4 of this document identify
the location and the proposed land use mix
of specific plan areas 1, 2, 9, and 10,
which are within the existing City limits,
%W ►...iV.. iV .,i V..i..
Specific
plan area 3 (proposed within the City
limits) and specific plan areas 4, 5, 6, 7
(proposed within the unincorporated planning
area) were studied but were found not to be
11
Measure " S"
.appropriate for urban development for the
foreseeable future aQLci the time per ^d
eever-ed by this band Use Element (year- 20-1-G
bu , a, at ) and were not approved.
Specific plan areas 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10 have
been delineated based on ownership, landform
and circulation considerations.
6. Planning Area Land Use Plan Map, City of Moorpark
General Plan, Land Use Element Exhibit 4 is amended to
demonstrate the Moorpark CURB line, as well as to delete the
references to SP #8, Specific Plan No. 8 Boundary. "Exhibit 4"
to the Land Use Element is amended to reflect that consideration
of development of Specific Plan 8 is abandoned. See Exhibit "B"
to this initiative.
7. Section 5.2 SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION - SP, of the
Land Use Element, at page 35, at the subtitle "Planning Area
Outside City Limits ", through page 37, comprising approximately
20 paragraphs, addressing primarily "Specific Plan 8" is amended
as follows:
Planning Area Outside Limits
Specific plan areas 4, 5, 6, a+id 7 and 8
(proposed within the unincorporated planning
area) were analyzed in conjunction with the
updating of the Land Use Element, but were
found to be outside the sphere of influence
and outside of the CURB (See Section 8.0,
et. seq. ) and accordingly not } e 1-.e
appropriate for urban development Pri:%-1L- -te
and
were, therefore, not approved.
12
0C 035
MeeY
�i Tre
limits
em i s + ng of
�/`pe
T
A fle
fe this
_ipeei plan
-
a' ,
P.
shed,
25
/ and
e!Lcetilatlen.
be
mum ef
peEeent epen-spaee
must
Specific plan areas 4, 5, 6, a+id 7 and 8
(proposed within the unincorporated planning
area) were analyzed in conjunction with the
updating of the Land Use Element, but were
found to be outside the sphere of influence
and outside of the CURB (See Section 8.0,
et. seq. ) and accordingly not } e 1-.e
appropriate for urban development Pri:%-1L- -te
and
were, therefore, not approved.
12
0C 035
Measure " 5*,
Specific Plan 8 (Deleted)
T i{ egEap t^i- -- gm i-s t i
n^ steep
hillsides within,
steep I. 1 A
1 A A h
unstable ,
A 1 1 t
ef- the
.a
P -I -9.19a area
dtkElfig the
A
and d ee l e pm� d
i
• A 1 M A i�
F. E e•{ 1 !r• ti
r `
1
plan
hillside
terfain
euEfently designated as
T i{ egEap t^i- -- gm i-s t i
n^ steep
hillsides within,
steep I. 1 A
1 A A h
unstable ,
A 1 1 t
ef- the
.a
P -I -9.19a area
dtkElfig the
and d ee l e pm� d
i
• A 1 M A i�
F. E e•{ 1 !r• ti
r `
__
•-+ a•Lri
d.r-.: ... itilc'f, e FF
.n i
13
Ot3('036
Measure " S"
addEess the v
viability a
The
F
and maintenanee e
ef the
signifie.-Ree
.,
i ..
ea it t
X t
1,
e ensit-e
endanfieEe
d
e s
'+nom ;
1
i i
1 7
plants
et e.) SL
addEess the v
viability a
limited "Pi-ime" a
and maintenanee e
ef the
and "
fe S
S i gn . iT^ " E
and B e e t- i^ .- the speeif-le � plan
va � ivy. L
within n this —p1 an ar a nE �. }
s- uffeundi n7 1rem Fyew ; is net
euErently available and weuld need te be
fliAi% Eled fnr a 1 1 Yb, aa uses. •s^ nn e t L
this speeifie plan � .+au
regarding .... .7 1
use set asides and fref: seheels and
61iii1'iml 1 Tf 7 t : e r► ^ Y � �. .. ^ L. -. n f ; Y n 4- a t �+ �%t:S
l vvv s\,a
Y1
14
00t"0437
I'.. , 1 1 t , A }, n A t f_ f A Yk shall f, T A f it de
y e .1 s, d A Y a t, 41 T A Y its fi Y yr iensh•
theme -118 and SR 23 f reew l as well as the
ensure that Eeadway fight ef ways afe
the Gity's eireulatleR plan.
8. Section 6.0 of the Land Use Element, LAND USE PLAN
STATISTICAL SUMMARY, at page 38, is amended as follows:
As identified on Table 3, a combined total
of up to 14,-911 12,511 dwelling units could
be constructed in the overall planning area,
based on maximum density estimates. The
resulting buildout population for the
Moorpark planning area would be
approximately 49,866 34,280 persons, based
on the County's 2.74 population dwelling
unit factor for the year 2010. Note however
that the resulting buildout for the Moorpark
planning area would be approximately (a)
41,799 persons, based on the California
Department of Finance Demographic Research
Unit's "Ventura County Population and
Housing Estimates" for Moorpark which
average 3.341 persons per household for the
15
038
2, 400,
the
f l
e,xeeed
unle
-sue- -- -- tepee
-i e— p -l-a -n area
determines
Geuneil
substantial
in whieh
the
dwelling
r
eyent,
uwnice.er
of
units shall
net emeeed
land te
be
i
designated
Gpen
as
i ,
Seheel,
land
designatien,
be
appFepEiate
use
will
8. Section 6.0 of the Land Use Element, LAND USE PLAN
STATISTICAL SUMMARY, at page 38, is amended as follows:
As identified on Table 3, a combined total
of up to 14,-911 12,511 dwelling units could
be constructed in the overall planning area,
based on maximum density estimates. The
resulting buildout population for the
Moorpark planning area would be
approximately 49,866 34,280 persons, based
on the County's 2.74 population dwelling
unit factor for the year 2010. Note however
that the resulting buildout for the Moorpark
planning area would be approximately (a)
41,799 persons, based on the California
Department of Finance Demographic Research
Unit's "Ventura County Population and
Housing Estimates" for Moorpark which
average 3.341 persons per household for the
15
038
Measure "S"
years 1994 -1997 inclusive; or, (b) 40, 785
persons, based on the WCOG 2020 Population
Per Dwelling Unit Ratio Forecast y for the
City of Moorpark (3.26 persons per dwelling
unit) . The Table 3 buildout figures were
calculated using the smaller county -wide
ratios and are considered a conservative
population estimate for the City.
9. Table 3 of the Land Use Element at pages 39 -40 is
amended below to delete SP 8 "Messenger ", its associated du, and
total population figures. It is the purpose of this amendment
to conform the table to the changes in the General Plan made by
this amendment only. It is recognized that the City of Moorpark
has passed certain resolutions amending the General Plan that
would additionally affect the population figures set forth in
Table 3, by virtue of the Carlsberg project (Permit #SP 92 -1,
Resolution #94 -1061 adding 147 dwelling units); the Bollinger
Project (Permit #94 -1, Resolution #96 -1197 adding 85 dwelling
units); the SDI project (Permit #95 -1, Resolution # 96 -1222
deleting 1 dwelling unit); and the Jones project (Permit # 96 -21
Resolution #97 -1310 deleting 21 dwelling units).
Notwithstanding those General Plan Amendments Table 3 has not
been updated by the City. It is not the purpose of this
conforming amendment to update Table 3 other than to reflect the
amendments in this initiative. To the extent that the official
City Table 3 should be modified as a result of Resolution
Numbers 94 -1061, 96 -1197, 96 -1222, and 97 -1310, Table 3
continues to need modification.
16
0 039
Measure "S"
Table 3
LAND USE PLAN - STATISTICAL SUMMARY
City Unincorporated Total Planning
Land Use Designation Area Area Area Combined
* * *
SP SPECIFIC PLAN*
* *
SP 8 MESSENGER
* * *
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS **
(At Buildout -Year 2010)
TOTAL POPULATION * **
(At Buildout -Year 2010)
12,511 du 2,499
34,280 b--5�-6
12,511 14r911
34,280 49,856
TOTAL CITY AREA ACRES (Approximate) 7,916 ac
TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA ACRES (Approximate) -0- 4,2$$ ac
TOTAL PLANNING AREA COMBINED (Approximate) 7,916 12,116 ac
[NOTE: fn * and fn * ** remain unchanged. fn ** is modified:]
** Residential Density calculations for specific plan areas
are based on the maximum density. Section 5.2 of the Land
Use Element allows the City Council to approve a density
exceeding the maximum density, up to an identified density
limit, if public improvements, public services, and /or
financial contributions are provided that the City Council
determines to be of substantial public benefit to the
community. If the density limit is approved for SP's 1, 2,
9, and 10, and 8_, the total dwelling units would increase
from 14,911 12,511 to 16,29z 131070 and the total
population would increase from 41,856- 34,280 to 44 -63::�
35,812 (these density limit estimates were used as the
basis for determining the significance of impacts in the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the Findings required
by Section 15091 of CEQA) .
10. Section 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION, of the Land Use
Element, at Implementation Measure 16, at page 44, is amended as
follows:
17
0(: F. 040
Measure "S"
16. Ensure that all applications
submit an applieatien to the
Ventura County Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) to
amend the City's sphere of
influence boundary, are consistent
with the approved Land Use Plan,
and in particular the Moorpark
City Urban Restriction Boundary,
to allow for proper planning
within e-f the probable, ultimate
physical boundaries and service
area of the City.
11. The last paragraph of Section 5.0 of the Circulation
Element (Roadway Circulation Plan), at page 20 is amended as
follows:
Provision of an eastern extension of
Broadway Road potentially connecting with
Alamos Canyon Road and the SR -118 Freeway to
serve circulation needs of potential future
deve en agricultural, open- space, or
recreational uses in the portion of the
planning area northeast of the City limits.
Section 5. Insertion Date.
A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, it shall
be deemed inserted as Section 8.0, et seq. of the Land Use
Element of the City of Moorpark's General Plan as an amendment
thereof; and the Conforming Amendments of Section 4 shall be
appropriately inserted in the General Plan replacing the amended
provisions, except, if the four amendments of the mandatory
elements of the general plan permitted by state law for any
given calendar year have already been utilized prior to the
effective date of this initiative, this General Plan amendment
shall be deemed inserted in the City's General Plan on January 1
of the calendar year immediately following the date this
initiative is adopted.
B. The City of Moorpark General Plan in effect at the
time the Notice of Intention to circulate this initiative
measure was submitted to the City Clerk of Moorpark, and that
General Plan as amended by this initiative measure, comprise an
integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of
policies for the City. In order to ensure that the City of
W.
U(; 041
Measure "S"
Moorpark General Plan remains an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City as
required by state law and to ensure that the actions of the
+voters in enacting this initiative are given effect, any
provision of the General Plan that is adopted between the
submittal date and the date that this initiative measure is
deemed inserted into the General Plan, shall, to the extent that
such interim - enacted provision is inconsistent with the General
Plan provisions adopted by section 3 of this initiative measure,
be amended as soon as possible and in the manner and time
required by state law to ensure consistency between the
provisions adopted by this initiative and other elements of the
City's General Plan. In the alternative, such interim - enacted
inconsistent provision shall be disregarded.
Section 6. Severability.
This measure shall be interpreted so as to be consistent
with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. If any
section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion
of this measure is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a
final judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this measure. The voters hereby declare that this measure,
and each section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase, part,
or portion thereof would have been adopted or passed even if one
or more sections, sub - sections, sentences, clauses, phrases,
parts, or portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional. if
any provision of this initiative is declared invalid as applied
to any person or circumstance, such invalidity shall not affect
any application of this measure that can be given effect without
the invalid application. This initiative shall be broadly
construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this
initiative. It is the intent of the voters that the provisions
of this measure shall be interpreted by the City and others in a
manner that facilitates the confinement of urban uses thereby
protecting agricultural, open -space and rural lands, and -
preventing urban sprawl.
Section 7. Amendment or Repeal.
Except as otherwise provided herein, this initiative may be
amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Moorpark
at an election held in accordance with state law.
19
of
�. 0 4'
t-icdzo utt-- J
Section S. Competing Measures.
In the event there are competing measures on the same
ballot. with this measure that purport to address the same
subject matter of this measure, the following rules shall apply;
If more than one such measure passes, the both measures shall go
into effect except to the extent that particular provisions of
one initiative are in direct, irreconcilable conflict with
particular provisions of another initiative. In that event, as
to those conflicting provisions only, the provisions of the
initiative which received the most votes shall prevail.
20
i IV
4 6a 7
i�-• � ,r� .�. .r :ice { /�,� j ;•,_ . y �;
V,
I'w
IA: 4 "1 .
ON, A
ekj
TA
Zv
•
I
i/
• —,4
EXHIBIT B
•%
AREA OF INTEREST ••
L r,.
• f r ■ �' ~
CLMSWr MY LIMITS AND SPHIM OF RIPLLENCE � 17,
f1
CITY OF MOORPARK
to ExNOp 3 for CNy Area Land Use PhN
TI A
•
jJ •
•
•
..a. �. M►...a. e.� a. awn► t
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
o + CURRENT CITY LIMITS ANO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ANO CURB LINE
•eeee•ee• AREA OFINTEREST
ww mft . �
VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR
EXHIBITB AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS.
EXISTING COMMUNITY
®
IPER AREA PLAN OR COMMUMTy MAP)
® RURAL
It ACRE •1
®AGRICULTURAL
(40 ACRE • )
OPEN SPACE
(10 ACRE .)
ul
•1. S ACRES MINIMUM
EXHIBIT 4
NOTE!
Planning Area Land Use Plan
CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN
NO SPECIFIC SCALE
22
0C '- 04r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
(;OUNTY .OF VENTURA ) ss .
CITY OF MOORPARK )
I, Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk of the City of
Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing Measure "S" Ordinance was adopted by a
majority of the voters, voting on the proposed ordinance at a
Special Municipal Election on January 12, 1999, and pursuant to
Resolution No. 99 -1572, reciting the fact of the Special
Municipal Election and declaring the election results and such
other matters as required by law, and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 3=d day
of February, 1999, the City Council declared and determined that
the Measure "S" Ordinance was to go into effect ten (10) days
after adoption of Resolution No. 99 -1572.
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 3rd
day of December, 1999.
Deborah S. Traffenste t, City Clerk
(seal)
23
oG: o4o
to
0
lot
H
z
H
N
Or
G\�� p P 40
��
00°9
UNOCAL
RONALD REAGAN FW RONALD REAGAN FW
�O
Q�
0
CLegend
C 0 City Boundary ' Sphere Boundary
�► 1
J
N Ventura LAFCO
W r City of Simi Valley Sphere
S Prepared by PWA - Mapping Division
000 0 $ 000 16 000 Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer -Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
8,000 4
which is designed and operated solely for the convenience of the county and related
Feet public agencies. The county does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
1 inch equals 8,000 feet