The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0318 CC REG ITEM 05AMOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 OFFICE OF T RE CITY CLERK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Lillian E. Kellerman /� DATE: March 13, 1992 SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF INFORMATION FOR REOPENED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC HEARING, MARCH 18, 1992 Following is a listing of the information being provided to the Council for the Reopened General Plan Update Public Hearing: DESCRIPTION PAGE Memo dated March 6, 1992 from the City Manager, 1 "Reopened General Plan Hearing" with numbered paragraph 5 revised per Council direction at the meeting of March 11, 1992. Memo dated March 11, 1992 from Patrick Richards, "List 3 of Reports and Correspondence received Since Beginning of Public Review Period for General Plan Update ". Copies of written public comment - November 26, 1991 6 through January 22, 1992 (prior to the City Council Public Hearing opening on the General Plan at 7:00 p.m. on January 22, 1992 Copies of written public comment - January 22, 1992 38 through February 8, 1992 (the period the City Council Public Hearing on the General Plan was open). Copies of written public comment received after the 88 close of the Public Hearing on February 8, 1992. Memo dated March 4, 1992 from the City Clerk, "Planning 111 Commission Meeting Minutes - General Plan Update" which transmitted the Planning Commission Minutes of November 21, 1991 and January 6, 1992. City Council Special General Plan Update Meeting Minutes 122 (TO BE APPROVED AT THE 6:15 SPECIAL MEETING, 3/18/92): February 12, 1992 February 26, 1992 March 11, 1992 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tom Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Printed On Recycled Paper MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Lillian E. Kellerman -T DATE: March 18, 1992 SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF INFORMATION FOR REOPENED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC HEARING RECEIVED AFTER MARCH 13, 1992 BUT PRIOR TO THE HEARING. Following is a listing of the information being provided to the Council received after the transmittal of the agenda packet on March 13, 1992: 11nR90RTPTTnW Letter from the Environmental Coalition dated February 2, 1992 provided by Councilmember Wozniak. Memo dated February 11, 1992 from the County of Ventura Public Works Agency provided by the Department of Community Development. Memo from Sally Coons, dated March 18, 1992, regarding a telephone call from Toni Miller. Memo from Sally Coons, dated March 16, 1992, regarding a telephone call from Carol Snikeris. Copies of written public comment received after the close of the Public Hearing on February 8, 1992. Facsimile Transmittal from Cohen, England & Whitfield, dated March 17, 1992. Memo from Pat Richards transmitting letter from Gilbert S. Bahn, dated March 16, 1992. Letter to Councilmember Wozniak from Marcia Spears and David Cihon received 3/17/92 regarding the annexation of the Messenger property. Letter to Mayor Lawrason from Marcia Spears and David Cihon received 3/17/92 regarding the annexation of the Messenger property. PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember J DESCRIPTION Letter to Councilmember Montgomery from Marcia Spears and David Cihon received 3/17/92 regarding the annexation of the Messenger property. Letter to Councilmember Perez from Marcia Spears and David Cihon received 3/17/92 regarding the annexation of the Messenger property. Letter to Councilmember Talley from Marcia Spears and David Cihon received 3/17/92 regarding the annexation of the Messenger propertv. Petition regarding the Messenger property received from Susan Patton on 3/18/92. Hand delivered to City Hall. ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION* MOORPARK BRANCH February 2, 1992 Mr. John Wozniak City Council Member City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mr. Wozniak: On behalf of the Environmental Coalition -- Moorpark Branch Board of Directors, we would like to take the opportunity to comment on the proposed "General Plan Update." We are in support of the city council's desire to update the current general plan. However, we would like to express some reservations with respect to the current DEIR and General Plan Update. First, we are concerned with the process by which the update _w has occurred. We feel that the decision as to what is the best use of the various properties should lie with the City Council, not with the developers. It is apparent from the hearings that the developers have chosen how to use the land and are simply asking for the City Council's approval. We Believe that the City Council should follow the lead of the School District. The School District has come to the council asking for a zoning change based on a concept of how the old high school property could best be utilized. If the zoning change is approved, the School District will ask developers to try to provide proposals for actual usages which would be consistent with the present concept. Similarly, we believe that Specific Plan areas should be zoned based on the Council's decision as to how best to utilize the land. Only after the zoning has been changed, should developers be encouraged to make specific proposals which would be consistent with the zoning revisions. Second, we recommend that you exclude SP areas 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 from the current general plan update. The information provided in the DEIR for these areas is much too vague. It is unclear how you expect the enormous tracts of land in these areas to be utilized. We need to know where new streets are expected to connect with existing streets; how dwelling densities are expected to be apportioned; and if, where and how wildlife corridors are expected to be maintained. Until these questions have been answered, we feel that it is best to exclude the areas from discussion. POST OFFICE BOX 175 • MOORPARK, CA 93020 i� Mr. John Wozniak February 2, 1992 Page 2 Third, we have concerns about the maintenance of wildlife corridors for the tracts which fall within the current city boundaries. One of the benefits of living in Ventura County is that we have open spaces between our cities. These spaces not only help to maintain a small town atmosphere in each of the cities, they also provide a refuge for the abundant and divers wildlife. Ventura County boasts wildlife habitats which range from wetlands to desert. It is equally important to maintain corridors for wildlife habitats within the Moorpark city limits. We would like to see a policy under Goal 15 which reads: "Establish and maintain wildlife corridors both and t}e Moorpark city limits." We are particularly concertrecl with the proposed JBR development which does not provide contiguous for wildlife corridors with adjacent land tracts. Moreover, it is unclear how a reservoir on the proposed JBR development will benefit Happy Camp Regional Park. Further, we are concerned with the Messenger proposal for an extension of Broadway. How will this extension affect the State's decision to put Happy Camp Regional Park under the control of Ventura County? Could this extension result in the State taking control of the park? We hope you will consider these questions and comments carefully prior to deciding whether to approve the General Plan Update. Cordially, et Murphy !lam/ Chair Elizs 'eth HaynOis Treasurer FEB -25 -92 TUE 10:27 COUNTY OF VENTURA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY Transportation Department February 11, 1992 TO: Planning Department FROM: �rrtation Department SUBJECT: CITY OF MOORPARK - E.I.R. FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P. 03 The RMA Director's response should address inclusion of language similar to the language in the Oxnard General Plan Update which addresses the issue of City developmenton County Roads pursuant to the County General Plan. City development will pay its fair share for impacts on County Roads. A reciprocal funding agreement for transportationfmprove�ments similar to the one currently being processed for the City of r Agoura Hills should be pursued. The method of arkalysis descn-bed in response #30-8 makes sense. Moorpark Road is shown to be four lanes in Figure 2 of the Draft E.I.R. dated 10191. Santa Rosa Road is not shown. The rest of the County Roads will retain their existing width For further information, please contact Steve Manx at Extension 2045 or Al Knuth at Extension 2077. SM:ld cc Development and Inspection Services Fred Boroumand ,A -- _ O MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 -z05) 529 -6864 TO: The Honorable City Council i FROM: Sally Coons, Exec. Secy. �� DATE: March 18, 1992 SUBJECT: Telephone Call from Citizen At 11:30 a.m. on March 18, 1992, I received a call from Toni Miller (15335 Braun Court, Moorpark) . Ms. Miller wanted each Councilmember to be advised that she strongly opposes the proposed Messenger Development. She will be unable to attend tonight's meeting. Ms. Miller's phone number is 529 -2482. c: City Manager may' Clerk Deputy City Clerk PAUL Yi LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PE7EZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Counciirnember Coumilmembe• Councilmember MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Ave-ue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Sall s� y Coons, Exec. Secy.�� 0 DATE: March 16, 1992 SUBJECT: phone Call from Campus Hills Estates Resident At 3:43 p.m. Carol ► March 16, 1992 Snikeris (523-8389). , I received a know of her objection She wanted the phone call from homeowners association to the of entire Council to project of 4800 homes. pro osed Messenger Development p and P g Deve Ms. Snikeris 1oPment lives at 15469 Mallory Court, Moorpark. P rk. c: �Manager C Y Clerk PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. Mayor JOHN E. WO��S, Mayor Pro T7 MONT OMEF, - ouncaimelc,-r BERNARpp M. PEREZ Councdmpm�—. ROY E. TALLEY JR. T00'30W COHLN, ENGLAND & WHITFIELA ATTORNEYS AT LAW -- SIXTH FLOOR, UNION BANK TOWER 300 ESPLANADE DRIVE OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93030 (805) 485 -9627 (805) 647 -8237 DATE: 03/x,7192 se:OT z6, LT 6HW TIME SENT: NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 3 TO: Mr. Patrick T. Richards FROM: Jeffrey T. Moerer. Eact. RECEIVING PARTY'S FAX N0.: $04-5 -5,72 -8270 RECEIVING PARTYIS TELEPHONE NO.: 805-529-686 RE: City of Moorpark General Plan Update OUR FILE NAME AND NO.: BJUS.. 5tr, - Permit (4167 -149) ORIGINAL [ *3 WILL [ ] WILL NOT BE MAILED PLIAST NOTE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE TRANS- MISSION IS INTENDED TO BE SENT ONLY TO THE STATED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE INTENDED RECIPIENT'S AGENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT WE DO NOT INTEND TO WAIVE ANY PRIVILEGE THAT MIGHT ORDINARILY ATTACH TO THIS COMMUNICATION AND THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THE INFORMATION CON- TAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE I9 THEREFORE PROHIBITED. YOU ARE FURTHER ASKED TO NOTIFY US OF ANY SUCH ERROR IN TRANSMISSION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT THE TELEPHONE NUMBER SHOWN BELOW AND TO RETURN THE FACSIMILE DOCUMENTS TO US BY MAIL AT THE ADDRESS SHOWN ABOVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. FOR ASSISTANCE CALL: JAckie at (805) 485 -9627 OUR FAX NO.: (805) 983 -0297 im Operator Initials cc: Bookkeeping BOOKKEEPING USE ONLY Posted: Initials: ' Z00'39dd 9Z:OT Z6. LT 21HW y THEODORR J. ENGLANO AN SON M. WHITFIELD ROBERT W, SCHROLOER DAVIC W TREDWAY ROBERT A. MCOORLEY ROBERT B. CNOLAND STUART A, COMIS MITCHEL 0, KAHN MARK A. NC690N ERIC J. KANANEN MARY a. SCHROLDER RANDALL A. COHEN WILLIAM J. K95ATIE MARYANNE 0, CALTON 0SCokR C. GONZALEZ STEVEN K. PERRIN JEFFREY T. MOERER MELIBSA E. COHEN TERRY R. BAILEY MAOIaON M. CHRISTIAN ANDREW B. NUO"Es ANTHONY C. •IRDUL RONALD A. CHCR KURT E. KANANEN Cohen, England & Whitfiela ATTORNEYS AT LAW SIXTH FLOOR, UNION BANK TOWER 300 ESPLANADE DRIV[ OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93030 1909) 485 -91927 la(59) 847rez37 March 13, 1992 Mr. Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: City of Moorpark General Plan Update .-� Dear Mr. Richards: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TOLL FREE 10001 E55-31►88 FAX 14051 983.0297 THOUSAND OAKS OFFICE ROLLING OAKS OFFICE CENTER 351 ROLLING OAKS DRNs SUIT[ 101 THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91380 STANLEY Z. COHEN or COUNO£L B4167 -149 This law firm represents Blue Star Ready Mix, Inc., which is a sand and gravel quarry located north of the City of Moorpark. Blue star and other quarry properties located north of the City have been classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology as MRZ -2 (Mineral Resource Zone 2) properties which indicates the existence of significant and important mineral deposits. The purpose of this designation is to prevent incompatible uses from being developed near these designated quarry properties or along its access route which may impede the future development of the mineral resources contained therein. (See Public Resources Code section 2764.) in the past, Blue star and other quarries located north of the City have had conflicts with residences and other uses along its access route with respect to truck traffic. it is Blue Star's belief that the only way to prevent these types of conflicts from continuing to arise in the future is for the City of Moorpark to prevent uses incompatible with the truck traffic along the state highway from being developed. For instance, allowing 200 apartments to be developed along State Route 23 would be poor planning in light of the state's policy. Public Resources Code section 2764 contains provisions whereby the agency having jurisdiction over a specific sand and gravel mining operation is required to amend its General 2 'd ;A7A -S'Pf, -CPR Xb-A G-d1IHM '8 GNU-19M3 'N3HOO 0£ :0T Z61 LT'-JQW • 200 ' 30Ud Mr. Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development city of Moorpark March 13, 1992 Page 2 9Z:0T Z6. LT 8UW Plan or any Specific Plan in order to prevent incompatible uses from being developed along a quarry's access route. Since Blue Star is located outside the jurisdiction of the City of Moorpark, section 2764 does not specifically apply to the City. But, it makes obvious sense that the only means of carrying out the state's policy of protection for the quarry operations is to have the City of Moorpark cooperate with the County of Ventura in their planning efforts. That is, although Public Resources Code section 2764 does not specifically require the City of Moorpark to update its General Plan to provide for compatible uses along State Route 23, it is our belief that common sense requires the City to do so. Thus, Blue Star urges the City of Moorpark to update its General Plan in a fashion such that existing and future mining operations and truck traffic will not be impeded or interfered with along State Route 23. If you have any questions or comments concerning this, r please do not hesitate to contact me. very truly yours, Ernk7. my T. MOERER JTM /jm Enclosure MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: March 17, 1992 SUBJECT: COMMENT LETTER FROM GILBERT S. BAHN ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Attached is a copy of a letter received from Gilbert S. Bahn on March 16, 1992. Mr. Bahn attached photographs and a map to his letter which cannot be easily reproduced. The City Clerk has the original attachments to Mr. Bahn's letter, and those attachments are available for your review upon request. -- Attachment: Letter from Gilbert S. Bahn received 3 -17 -92 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Printed On Recycled Paper 4519 N. Ashtree St. Moorpark CA 93021 16 March 1992 Mr. Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development RECEIVE 0 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. MAR 1 6 1992 Moorpark CA 93021 Dear Mr. Richards: t"ay Ui Muufl' °' This presentation relates to the reopened public hearing for the General Plan update, extending the statement that I furnished earlier. Upon relocation in retirement, I came to Moorpark. I did not ask for Moorpark to grow to let me in. I bought an existing house that was being sold by a family that was moving out of state, just as I had come from out of state. I joined up with what Moorpark was, two years ago, and assumed the obligation of citizenship as regards the entire city. I assumed no obliga- tions to land speculators. The deeper that one might dig into details over proposed expansion of the city, the more one might be able to detail adverse effects upon his or her particular tract and street. I do not know enough about details so as to evaluate the specific consequences to me, on Peach Hill, if various specific plans were adopted. In this communication, I am going to address one facet of one specific plan which would not affect me, so far as I can perceive, but would affect another neighborhood enormously. I speak out of behalf of that neighborhood for two reasons. The first is a sense of community, in my adopted city of residence; what is adversity for some by city action ought to be of concern for all. The second reason is a desire to use a potentially very bad example in order to urge very, very careful consideration with reference to every specific plan as to possible consequences in all areas. What I specifically address is the level of street traffic, as a consequence of population density. All other service capacity is likewise related to population density, for water supply, sewage disposal, electricity, police and fire protection, etc. Surely, this does not need to be pointed out conceptually, but it must be assured detailed review at any critical point. There is an old saying that "the exception proves the rule." There may be someone here or there who is engaged in land development and who is also a pursuer of nature, but there cannot be many such. To look at land as homesites is opposite to looking at land as a piece of nature. Thus I presume, Mr. Patrick J. ._c` al's -2- 17 March 1992 reasonably, that the zerso:s behind Specific Plan #8 have not hiked up Bic Mou tair ana' 'looked down upon the tract of their interest from the nor-:h. = have done so numerous times. In order to procure the zho=ocraphs attached as illustrations, I walked about twelve miles; in order to be sure of orientation, I walked ten miles over again after I had the prints in hand. In conjunction with the topographic map of the area, the photographs tell quite a story. Actually, the map tells most of the story when properly interpreted, but the photographs tend to confirm and help interpret. R E C E I V E 0 While it is Specific Plan =8 that I am addressing directly ?Ak 1 ` is I wish to emphasize that the same concerns apply everywhere as to tacking new developments onto existing developments. "Y Ot M- 00rPdI. If a neighborhood or tract (call it what one will) has been conceived and built up with the idea that it backs upon the end of the earth - and if the county or the city has permitted that to happen - then, ipso facto, no allowance has been made for any add -on. Consequently, any add -on must have considerable impact, and in regions of abruptly diverse terrain, such as ours, any add -on can be expected to have very great impact. The topographic nap that encompasses the land involved in Specific Plan #8 is incorporated into this presentation as Attachment A. In the Moorpark News- Mirror it has been referred to variously as the Memmenger property and the Messenger property. Attachment B identifies it as Hidden Creek Ranch. Based on Attachment B and on page 6 of the News- Mirror of March 5, I have outlined the ranch on Attachment A. [I wish to note that my outline is sonewhat inexact as to the easternmost segment, which was difficult to determine; my outline may extend a little too far to the east.] On Attachment A I have also shown part of the city limits of Moorpark and of Sinai Talley. At the end of this presentation I shall deal with an ancillary concern about land development that is not presently under consideration, as far as I know. The photographs attached are necessarily identified according to the negative numbers, and I assign such numbers as Attachment Numbers. Attachment C is part of a 1985 map of Moorpark. On this I have placed an X at three locations, and numbered each X to correspond =o a photograph. I begin my detailed discussion with the eastern portion of the subject tract. The topographic map shows a dirt road which begins at Dracena Avenue, and runs first northeast, then north, up to the crest of Big Mountain. At first it runs to the east of the Moorpark College campus and south of the subject tract, in a little valley. Shortly after entering the tract, it climbs Mr. Patrick J. Richards -3- 17 March 1992 until there is another valley close to it 3n the east. There is a relatively small plateau that it traverses, found on the map between the S and the I of SIMI. To develop this plateau would require that the dirt road be made into a highway. There would be a significant traffic problem in the area of Dracena Avenue. Attachments 6 and 7 overlap a little, a portion of the 23 Freeway appearing on both. The loop in the dirt road near the tract boundary, as shown by the topographic map, is prominent in Attachment 6. The region where the road disappears from view on the right of the photograph corresponds to the small plateau noted above. The topographic map shows a plateau north of Griffith Lane. The plateau appears in Attachment 7 near the center, just below the rightward extent of the pink (houses). to its left is a valley. Attachment 2, taken at the end of Griffith Lane, looks up this valley. To develop this plateau (which I shall refer to below as the central plateau) would require a highway from somewhere in the neighborhood of Griffith Lane. The principal area in the subject tract suitable for development is the portion at the extreme westerly part of the tract. This is a plateau of substantial size, lying north of Marquette Street and Marymont Street, and bounded on the west by Happy RECEIVE Camp Canyon. This area appears in Attachnent 7 at about mid - height in the photograph and over the right -hand third. Attachment 3, taken at the end of Pecan Avenue, indicates a 'i•� 1 0 ;J'S possible route of access into this area, which lies generally to the left of what the photograph shows. A highway attaching Ey of Moorp', here would enormously disrupt the neighborhood of Pecan Avenue. Attachment 8 gives a better indication of diff, elevation respecting definition of the central plateaus. The bright green valley slightly to corresponds to Attachment 2. The gap at about about one third of the distance from the right corresponds to Attachment 3. arences of and western the left of center mid - height and hand side Attachment 11 looks down on the large western plateau to the lef t, and on Happy Camp Canyon to the right, from partway up Big Mountain. Attachment 5 looks across Happy Camp Canyon toward the large plateau, from the parking lot a= the end of Broadway. Attachment 4 looks across Happy Camp Canyon from the turn in Marymont Street. The end of Campus Park Drive appears on the left edge. If the plateaus of the subject tract had been involved in city planning from the outset, development there could have been Mr. Patrick J. Richards -4- 17 March 1992 accommodated. Specifically, adequately wide and direct access roads would have been constructed, preparing for the future. Because of the way that the city has built up, these plateaus are essentially landlocked. It would cost enormously, and disrupt existing neighborhoods greatly, to accommodate development from this point forward. As long as this tract remains outside the city boundaries and the city plan, the city owes its owner nothing. Once the city gives the slightest official support to development, the land value will increase. Then if the city does not accommodate development, the tract owner will at least presume a cause of action because it cannot reap the benefit of the nominal increase in land value. It may be that the county assessor already has this tract assessed too high in terms of actual value, but the assessor would be negligent not to react, always, to apparent market value, no matter how casually arrived at. It appears to me, from my analysis, that this tract, by being landlocked, is essentially worthless. The idea of its becoming a city by itself is ludicrous, simply ludicrous. Now, while what follows has nothing to do with present activi�,C ENV E 0 it is closely associated in point of geography. I wish to ca�,f attention to the region of unincorporated land to the east o1MAR f 6 l° °2 Moorpark and to the north of Simi Valley. As seen from the topographic map, there is a plateau east of the Moorpark Collegt# FAQOrpark campus that awaits development. There is another plateau northeast of that, where the topographic map shows a landing strip. Attachment 1, taken from the freeway, shows a dirt road leading toward the plateau which is opposite the campus. On the topographic map this dirt road is depicted in lavender, meeting up with another one, in black, that comes in from the west. Neither the AAA road map nor the 1989 Chamber of Commerce map shows this road coming eastward from the city limits. Attachment 0, taken from the freeway, shows Alamos Canyon Road, which is blocked off just where it goes out of sight in the photograph. This would provide access to the landing strip area, as well as to Alamos Canyon itself, of course. Whereas Hidden Creek Ranch appears to me to be an absurdity as regards development, this unincorporated area appears to involve prime candidate tracts. I suggest that the cities of Moorpark and Simi Valley conduct a joint study now anticipating its future development. Communities should not wait until developers are knocking impatiently at the door. Sincerel r Gilbert S. Bahn, Ph.D. _EJ_Exls-thV city ___—__ Pros Wsion_"�-r ,exp A of new 7z 7j %-. 0. W...P ........... ... ... . . . . .. ................ .......... ... 118 L= ve-ley V MU-3-- �.-Z;77 77. 7 The Irvine-based Messenger Investment Co. owns a OONor_, J= - parcel northeast of MoorparkXompany officials have oudizedpoo- - alternative development proposals for the hillside property-.. -:'-I) A developftient of 4,800 housinig' units tlhafviouU be`an:tmxd to m oorpark, increasing the city's Population by an estimate.d-d"t-M - people- Messenger would donate 1,800 acres to Happy Camp Canyon RegionaI ParL' 7- -=2)A new dty with 9,700hodi4iihits and apopulation develo= said he wW pursue diisalterriativecaly if IAcccvexk___ refuses'to annex the property- Sour= Amics T--vm C7 J0a2 p aak i i X3 Cm LIMIT \ s � , X�1 1 N S C 'M'BA1D ��OGS r YAROUE 7TF ; F OOD MWOPARK OF COLLEGE 4� 81VLUq �1��9yc Z AfFOLEY OR n0 ` w JA3 1`�9y 7 b S} W BAY&CT r1 t ..e6P S. `04 0✓'�'t � APE O� =1 = PARK VAV'R7SfI'1' 2 p0 ST STANFORD ST ES 6 �•a = 3 Y [1 W A ' 7 �0 L 2 v� p Od,� G�_A 8 HARTFORD S7 E p ¢ A U ��. 3Ti 5 s p*Q['A PJ1Cf� W t 118 �'gty ti V CAMPUS PAUL GRIFFIN. SA. PARK /. AYNERST 57 N -1 2. CORNELL CIR N I- •�- i Q' ¢ - tt0 C ]- CREIGHTON CIRN �• -� -� -� t. PEPPERDINE CIR N -� S. VASSAR CIR N 6�t 3-7 2 i HARVARD ST N. ' 2 777 t c rt j AVE pA0 i RA1La _•ARROYO SIMI WAPMAKERS 1. KERNVALE allE 2. ORACENA ME 1 OVERLY S- 4. LINVLLE C' S GRAMISL-L ? 6 MELRAY S 7. 8ERAGAN C i UTY _o s 2 �A q L VIA VEMUXA l gyp�0 2. VIA AZALEA e� S & VIA SOMOKA - •` q 7�\C - t. VIA FLem S. VIA HEY LLELA t PASEO DEL PLATWO 7. PASEO DEL SILVA • ! a CALL.E ARBOI 11. CALLE L 0. CALLS SLSANA 1. POLL C CORONER C C `- A MAR f LEGEND F i ii! COLLEGE IQ SHOPPING AREA wlt t�I/ 2r, HOOL 0 PUBLIC BUILDINGS j :DIATE SCHOOL A FIRE STATION fARV SCHOOL } PARK/PARK SITE IAL SCHOOL INDUSTRIAL AREA ♦ POST OPFICE 'MAKERS VUSING GA SUITE 100 a OAKc. U 013150 _ IB061 uzaw J 11 3 NECEJVED �: MAR 1 7 1992 Clty of Moorpark J 17 7 � V ��i2'^ 1�a .'� I'• f 7 \ F I ~ I I Il, '4L Z a� a ,�d�e' y a, �,� y a. t I i �I. "y �. 7 I r ,' � 4 � �� { �'� a i .,M � k +2 L r, i� f i� -4 �T4}`ll i k� 1 I' � r <M.,i� !. x ,�,. 5 -., jr i.' 1 ll 6� .i .�.�. s Rr��" 1.: 1 Y' /.Y� �1 RECEIVED MAR 17 1992 city of Moorpark t SUMMARY OF PETITION AGAINST INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 4,000 ACRES BELONGING TO MESSENGER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. ATTACHMENTS: 1) SIGNED PETITIONS. AREA WAS PETITIONED BY HOUSE. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES PER HOUSE, EACH HOUSE WAS ASSIGNED ONE "VOTE." 2) FACT SHEET. FACT SHEET WAS DELIVERED TO APPROXIMATELY 300 HOMES IN THE CAMPUS HILLS TRACT EITHER PRIOR TO OR DURING PETITIONER'S VISIT. 3) ARTICLES. INTERESTED RESIDENTS ALSO WERE SHOWN OR RECEIVED COPIES OF FEBRUARY 1 AND FEBRUARY 7 ARTICLES IN THE L.A. TIMES WHICH COVERED THE PROPOSED MESSENGER DEVELOPMENT. 4) LETTER. INTERESTED RESIDENTS WERE GIVEN A COPY OF THE MARCH 5, 1992 LETTER SENT BY THE COUNCIL RE: REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. RESULTS: 1) WE SPOKE TO RESIDENTS AT 197 OF THE HOMES IN THE AREA WE COVERED. 2) RESIDENTS AT 172 OF THESE HOMES WERE AGAINST INCLUDING THE AREA IN MOORPARK'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND SIGNED THE PETITION. 3) RESIDENTS AT 4 OF THESE HOMES WERE FOR INCLUDING THE AREA IN MOORPARK'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. 4) RESIDENTS AT 20 OF THESE HOMES WANTED MORE INFORMATION AND /OR WERE UNDECIDED. APPROXIMATELY 75% FELL INTO THE FIRST CATEGORY -- FEELING LIKE THEY NEEDED MORE INFO OR WANTED TO VERIFY OUR FACTS. OTHER: 1) THE PETITION HEADING WAS AUTHORED BY MONIKA SAVIC AT 15576 MALLORY CT., MOORPARK, (523 - 2680). 2) THE FACT SHEET WAS AUTHORED BY SUSAN AND KEN PATTON AT 15311 BRAUN CT., MOORPARK, (529- 9403). — RECEIVED — M AR 18 1992 City of Moorpark We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. G2V�� CxL `, SIGNATUI �LN11— cz-� tL 1, =S \ <'- l r �15<' 1. _ — 2. Y tl �f _G_. -� - - - -- - - - - -------- 3___ -- - - - - - -- 4. - - - - -- l� J �r'C�c c2 ------------ - - - - -- r---------- - - -- - -- - - -- - f- ---- k (C clay- f, fc}k ,C ------- i7 --------------------------- � -n - - - -� - -- - -- ------ - - - - -- %. --- - - - - -- - -�� 1��(v `�IGBf r ------------------ ---------- - - - - -- - 9 ------------ 3°a1 1Zgr-OAal l f - C -1r%Y-\ UoG d 8. d _^ rl� --- - - - - -� �O_ZJ-- - - - - -- 9. �4� U t?��rA ----------- tSmu c' --� -- -- - �AZ.- ------------------ . - Ct A FACT SHEET ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE CAMPUS HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED? Behind the Campus Hills homes as well as eastward starting at the first barbed wire fence behind us and ridgeline, is 4,000 acres which has belonged to the M, Corporation since 1989. Messenger is applying to the annex the area to the City and to build 4,800 housing single family housing and attached housing. and westward, extending to the assenger Development City of Moorpark to units - -a mix of Messenger proposes to build a golf course and to offer for sale to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy a strip of land along the ridgeline totaling 1,800 acres. They will construct roads off of the 118 and the 23 for access into the area. The development will include elementary, junior high and high schools as required by the City, as well as a small amount of-retail development. AT WHAT STAGE IS THIS PROPOSAL? It is up to the Moorpark City Council to accept or reject Messenger's request to have the area included in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Moorpark and eventually annexed into the City. The issue is being —decided as part of the General Plan Update for the City. The City Council is currently thought to be divided on the issue. While the decision was originally scheduled to be handed down on February 28, the Council voted instead to reopen the public hearing on the issue for one day only, March 18, 1992, at 7:00 PM, 799 Moorpark Avenue in the Council Chambers. After this hearing they will not accept any written or oral comments from the public unless it is decided at the meeting to extend the public hearing period. ANYTHING ELSE I SHOULD KNOW? Messenger Corporation has stated that if Moorpark will not annex the area in the City they will go to the County of Ventura and attempt to form a new city with 9,700 dwelling units, no offer for sale of land to the Conservancy and a greater amount of commercial development. We have spoken to LAFCO and Board of Supervisor representatives in Ventura County and a tivists in the area who say that the process for starting a new City is "extremely extensive," and that it is "highly unlikely" that Messenger would be successful in their efforts to form a separate city. For one thing, the Ventura County General Plan Guidelines for Orderly Development do not permit the addition of another city to the County. They also state that there must be "open space" between cities. These Guidelines are law, and cannot be violated at the whim of any --officials. Nevertheless, the risk of Messenger's successfully obtaining Dermission to add a new city to the County should be considered. WHAT CAN I DO NOW? A signature on the petition tells the City Council Members that you do not want to annex the 4,000 acres to the north of us into the city and allow them to be developed by the Messenger Corporation. It is thought that Messenger would be allowed to develop somewhere between 3,500 and 4,800 housing units if they were annexed into the City of Moorpark. You can also attend the meeting mentioned in the second section of this document. If you have not spoken previously you may fill out a speaker card and request to speak for 5 minutes. You can write a letter. However, all letters must be delivered to City Hall prior to (or at) the meeting or they will not be looked at. Letters should be mailed to City Council, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, 93021. Copies will be distributed to all 5 Council members. Letters can also be hand delivered to the same address or submitted at the March 18 meeting. If you would like to submit a letter to the meeting but cannot attend, please call Ken or Susan at 529 -9403 and we will deliver it for you. You can call a Councilmember. They can be reached be calling City Hall at 529 -6864 and leaving a message. Your representatives are: Paul W. Lawrason Jr., Mayor John E. Wozniak, Mayor Pro Tem Scott Montgomery, Councilmember Bernardo M. Perez, Councilmember Roy E. Talley, Jr., Councilmember If you have any questions or just wish to discuss this issue, please call us! Ken and Susan 529 -9403 or George and Monika 523 -2680. Developer May Seek Approval for New City Moorpark: Company warns that if land it wants to build on is not innexed, it will ask for the formation of a municipality. ly MAIA I)AVIS PECIAL TO 171E TIMES A development company that owns 4,000 Icres northeast of Moorpark has warned :ity officials that if Moorpark does not =ex the property, the company will seek approval to form a new city on the site. City officials say that although there are nany legal obstacles to formation of a new city, they a, a taking the warning seriously. The new city could have a population of pore than 37,000, higher than the current )opulation of Moorpark, said Gary Austin, a spokesman for the Irvine -based Messenger x ;A Investment Co., which owns the property. "I feel that for the last 21i6 years we've had a shotgun to our head and that we just found out about it tonight," Councilman Scott Montgomery said, referring to the length of time that Messenger has owned the mostly vacant hillside property. Montgomery and other council members said they have held private conversations with Austin and other representatives of Messenger about the company's plans for the property. But a public hearing Wednesday was the first time they saw detailed proposals. Austin unveiled two alternative devel- opment plans for the Hidden Creek proper- ty. Under the alternative preferred by Messenger, the company would build 4,800 housing units on part of the site that would become part of the city of Moorpark. Austin estimated that the project would house about 14,500 people, increasing Moorpark's population by more than half. This proposal would also include donat- ing the northernmost 1,800 acres of the site to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservan- cy. The land is adjacent to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Messenger's second alternative would be to seek approval from Ventura County officials to establish a new city on the site. To help make the city economically viable, the company would build 9,700 housing units that could support a population of about 27,200. Austin said. No land would be donated to the conservancy. ";; admitted after his presentation tha: io—., anew city "would be an ex-_--eane;' difficult program to go through." He -od,\i that there is a third alternative for :he ilidden Creek property, which he did not .il, cuss before the council. Messen- ger colll.i develop the site but leave it under c: tinty control, like the Santa Rosa Valley community north of Thousand Oaks, he :aid. Councilman Roy E. Talley Jr. said on Thursday that Austin's suggestion that Messenger could try to form a new city "looks like a threat." But tiesides being a threat they do want to develop their property," he said, adding that a property owner has the right to explore different avenues for development. "If this was a 1,000- acre -or -less propos- Ple"e see DEVELOP, B7 t' LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA DEVELOP: Firm May Seek OK for City Continued from Bi al, they wouldn't have a chance" of establishing another city, Talley said. "The size of it gives it a lot more clout." Talley and two other council members said they thought Aus- tin's presentation clarified the rea- sons for Moorpark to annex Hidden Creek. "The issue is control," Mont- gomery said. The very thing that he de- scribed there. potentially could happen, Mayor Paul W. Lawrason Jr. said on Thursday, referring to the possibility that a new city could be created. One of the first steps toward cityhood for the site would be for Ventura County officials to ap- prove some development on the property. "There might be some interest on the part of the county to do that," Lawrason said, adding that the revenues from such a develop - ment would help relieve the coun- ty's current budget crisis.. Lawrason said annexation of Hidden Creek should be consid- ered. "If that were annexed to the city, we'd have total control in terms of zoning and densities, „ he said, adding that he thinks city officials could persuade Messenger to re- duce the proposed number of C] Existing city D Proposed expansion or new city WALNUT Moorpark A. Thousand 1M i Thousand Oaks LOS / ANGELES AVE. Simi , X Valley 0 2 MILES The Irvine -based Messenger Investment Co. owns a 4,000-acre parcel northeast of Moorpark. Company officials have outlined two alternative development proposals for the hillside property: 1) A development of 4,800 housing units that would be annexed to Moorpark, increasing the city's population by an estimated 14,500 people. Messenger would donate 1,800 acres to Nappy Camp Canyon Regional Park. 2) A new city with 9,700 housing units and a population of 27,200. The developer said he will pursue this alternative only if Moorpark refuses to annex the property. Sourot Moorpark Piarining Department homes from 9,800 to about 3,500. If the county approved a devel- opment with a density high enough for it to be considered an urban area, officials from the county and the Local Agency Formation Com- mission could consider establishing a new city. Ventura County plan-' ning guidelines call for all urban development to be within city boundaries, said Robert L. Brait- man, LAFCO executive officer. Once the site was developed, LAFCO and county officials may not want to establish a new city ,immediately adjacent to an existing one, Braitman said. The county's General Plan calls for keeping rural areas between cities, ne saia. Moorpark officials. said they think that they have reason to fear that the county would approve an urban development at Hidden Creek, whether or not the property eventually became a city. . "One of the concerns is that the county would be more receptive to developing this” because of its present budget crisis, Talley said. "The revenue generated from that area would really help the county budget." The City Council is expected to decide by the end of February whether to annex Hidden Creek and several other, smaller proper- ties. The last scheduled public - hearing on the city's proposed ;amansion is today at 10 a.m. Threats to Create City Discounted a Development: County officials doubt they would approve the developer's housing project. The company wants Moorpark to annex 4,000 acres. By MAIA DAVIS SPECIAL TO THE TIMES A developer's threats to create an inde- pendent city of as many as 27,000 residents next to Moorpark if the city refuses to annex the firm's property are largely empty, county officials said Thursday. Three of the five members of the Moorpark City Council hav2 said that they took the threat by Irvine -based Messenger Investment Co, seriously, and that they support annexation. But county officials have since said that whether or not the Messenger property becomes a city, a development of the size sought by the company would probably not be approved. "That's big talk on the developer's part," said Keith Turner, Ventura County's plan- ning director. "If the city says no" to Messenger's proposal, "that doesn't mean the county's going to say yes." The company wants to build 4,800 hous- ing units on the mostly vacant 4,000 -acre hillside site, which Messenger spokesman Gary Austin told the City Council would add about 14,500 residents to Moorpark's population of 26,000. If, however, Moorpark refused to redraw its boundaries to include the site, he said, the company could incorporate the devel- opment as an independent city. Under that alternative, the company would eventually build about 9,600 housing units for 27,000 residents. Austin said last week that county offi- cials told Messenger to ask Moorpark to annex the property because the county requires that developments such as the one proposed be built within city boundaries. Robert Embry, chairman of the five= member Local Agency Formation Com-' mission, said this week that he doubted that 'Messenger would r 'lowed to incorporate, Please see CITY, 113 VENTURA COUNTY CITY: County Discounts Firm's Threats Continued from B1 if Moorpark objected. %AFCO would be loathe to interfere," Embry said. Besides getting LAFCO's sup - 1 port, Messenger would have to get the county to endorse development plans for the site. Moorpark City Council members had speculated last week that the county would probably approve Messenger's development plans because of the fees they would generate. But Supervisor Vicky Howard disputed that contention. She said such development fees would come too late to help with the county's current budget problems. Besides, Turner said, the county probably wouldn't approve any development of more than onel housing unit per 40 acres on the hillside property. "The county is not in the urban development business," Turner said, adding that the county's plan -. ning guidelines call for such subdi- visions to be within city bounda- ries. It would be too expensive for the county to build roads, a sewer and a water pipeline system and to provide police, fire and other public services to the area, he said. But Austin said it would not be economically feasible for the com- pany to build one house per 40 acres or even one house per 10 acres. Messenger will seek county ap- proval to build one house per acre, or 4,000 homes, if Moorpark doesn't annex the, property, ' he said. He said the earlier vow to build 9,600 houses represented the property's eventual build -out potential. Austin acknowledged that "it would be a real hard effort on our part" to get county approval. Moorpark Mayor Paul W. Law - rason Jr. said Turner's comments' regarding the unlikelihood of Mes- senger winning county approval for its development plans do not, reassure him. "It sounds like the county party line at the present time," Lawrason said. Both Lawrason and Austin said there are precedents for urban development in unincorporated ar- eas of the county, including proj- ects in the Santa Rosa Valley and at Lake Sherwood and the pro- posed Ahmanson - Jordan Ranch project. March 5, 1992 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 Dear Interested Party: SUBJECT: REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE The City Council has made a determination to reopen the public hearing for the General Plan Update. This public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 18, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the City Hall located at 799 Moorpark Avenue. The City Council directed that a letter be sent to persons who previously testified at the hearing or provided written comments to inform them of the reopened public hearing. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the opportunity to provide comments to the City Council on new issues or concerns related to the General Plan Update, which you may not have previously addressed. Comments that you previously submitted to the City on the General Plan Update, either verbally (at a prior public hearing) or in writing, are part of the public record and do not need to be repeated. If you would like to submit written comments, they must be received at or prior to the public hearing, in order for the City Council to give consideration to your comments in their deliberations on the proposed General Plan Update. If you have any questions regarding the General Plan Update or the reopened public hearing, please contact either myself or Deborah Traffenstedt at (805) 529 -6864. Sincerely, �D-� S. Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development cc: Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager PAUL W LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. '.'avor '.favor Pro Tem Counalmemoer ouncumemner Counalmember We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.� ,-- - -- ---- CZ -ur�J -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4. --------------- --- -----% ------- - - /--(- - -- - ---- -�-� -- - -- -- - - - - -- 6. Js 1 - - - -� � � -� - ��---- - -C� -1 f------ - - - - -- - = Q-� - -- ------------------ - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 9• (\ t,\ '�\ I C )i 1'xl L. — 1 ,I 3 (l % \ C, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- /1, We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESSLA �_______________ _______________________________ ---------- � ----- C-1- -------------------- - ✓------- - - - - -- ,.1 ---------------- ----- - - - - -- %/Z ---------------------------------------------------------------------- %nt � G - - - - -= ------------- - - - - -- --- � - ----- ---- ---- - - - - -- r_ ---------------- _�- - -�-.� - --- C - - - -- ------- a- - - - - -- ------------------- - - -! =� I 8. rev J, f S BUr es � M ----------------------- --- � ---------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- ct - -- - --- ------------------------------------------------ ?E� We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS ------------------------ - - - - -- -- 4. �� , :z,5 �1 e 5 -f� - .1 , I L/L fi� IJ ---------------------- - - - - -- 6. 4�)" 4, --------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------- ------------------------------ - - - - -- ------------- i_ - - - --- Lis` = - -- - -� 9. -- - - -- f `- V--- --- --�------ --- --------y - ------ ----- --- --- -------- 1 1 i ------- - - - - -= -- '-------- `- c - - -- - -- ------------------- (-------- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS -------- - - -�`� ------ -� - - -- Y ------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- 7 L -- -- ------ -a ---- ---- - - - - -------- - - - - -- -)s -- -- 4. � / - - �C C llr 7, ' - . /71 `� iT ka � Cpl G"- �Z< < C ,�V- z 7 z Y =1 L c lr v-, ----------------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------- r . 7, - -- -- -- ----- --------------------- -7 .7 - - -- - - - - - - - �; 1 U - 4-'� ��- MINIX�% ti We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Noorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 3. 4. -- PA7- i73 .t Gam: ------ - - -- -------------------- - - - - -- V, 6. 71 Y y --------------- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- 7. 46 9. A JU 10. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- z( We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills .— community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan 48 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS ------ �5 -' -� � --------------------- - C - - - - - -- -- ------------------- -- -- --------------------- - - - - -- - 3. �^ 4- --------------------------- - - - - - ✓ -7-//_ ' �-+�S_ _ / I 1 y� --- - - - --j - U_ J' 7- h< - - - - -- --- -i -� - - - -- i S_- -7 _ Sc�: ;_ - -__ j )� e /( /) 10 1" ')-' /' '' -t )/,. - ------- ,-- - - - - - - ; -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------- icy. Inc ��Y-! F- - - - - -- -- - - - - --------------------------------------------- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NANIE SIGNATURE ADDRESS 3. 4. 5. 6. i. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 8. 9. 10. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS l.ly(� ,� ' 1 �" L' J� ------------------ 1/1I I - 11),r- --------- 2. _____-------------------- --------------------------- ---- =---- 3. L _`_ -Z-� - - -� -- ��`-- ------------------ �� - - - - -- -- - - - - -- G. --------------------------------------- 1�\4! J\ l - G1 ----1 /------ ---------------� -- -_�- ----------------------------------- C, _ 9. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 10. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of tiloorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS hi jzz xf f _ - . -� - -- - !- ----- - - - - -- -`1_'> ___ ° - <� �,,.� _�ll �__ l� %T�7 ✓f. ✓` 4. _Ls�l �► y� {�_1! /urn -'. 5. 8. qa� L -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - -------------------------------------------- c) - -- ` -`- - - - - — ---- -�- - -- -- I -'- l - - -f_ �1'f - - - - -- - - - - -%' - t CA We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of ;Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NANIE SIGNATURE / ADDRESS �------------------------------------- - --- - --- --------------------------------- - � _------------------ �, 4. 1 ! °`-= --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ T_ c�.f ••��t ,l t tom/ 6. ` - - - -- - ------ -- - - -- -------------------------------- - - - - -- -- - -- r 8.0 -'�- - --- ---- L-'--------------------- ------ �. ,i We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Aoorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME _ SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1.� /, / / C S � I � �J-� � 1 %`j �, �J /✓ F, ?La�� r - - - -� M -------- - - - - -- -- -- -- ------------------ I S--Sh� ------------------- J, ----- - fI _ G__ -- -- -- - --- - ---- ;-- - - - - -- -- - '_=- _ ----------------------- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - ------- - - - - -- 9. C' I O :D q L'�- _ ____________________ ------------------ We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as 1Zomeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATUO ADDRESS 1. wt,. 2, P- 1SZ°lG Pytj-)J FIj.. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------- -- 4i2 V--Q ------- 4- 144 Z 0 IV ------------------------------------------=-- - - - - -- S. G. 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 61 9. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 10. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messinger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS - ----- - - --- ---- z. 3- - ---- ----- -- ea 6e{ ti A - &ecl. 6. 4. J/ 7. --------------- IV ------------- /-'�--117- f- 01- 4-- -'-d*'eMjV( --- 11of "p- 4 � 1 ,V/&*_ -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messinger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #S in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS -AmctJ6 0 - � -& a -Npkl r ---- Thxt - ----- PAJ I -- ---' ---- eM 3. t cj Vi �__1.53SSe;t'� Gam'•- ! - 153Gq --- 52i f2- C+ V 40LIPCI&Ll� NP �... �: 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 6. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7. �•J 9. MI) We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS � [US Ga ISS i D m opt C . 3.4 4. - -- - - -_ -- ------------- - - - - -- ----------------------------- n 6. . �� s 3 5-� ----------- - - - - -- -- -------------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- n. 9. 10. l �53 �-3 ct, C1, --- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS .3. 4. r,, C ----------------------------- - - - - -- - - --------------- - - - - -- OsAb- L-- - - - ----------------- q '7 1 ----------------------- � l . -- --------------- - - - - -- �` -1 B 6. - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- g- J Izole; c.-F 7. � ` C - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - -- /Z z�s_7 8. - -r -- -- ____ -- - --------- ------ - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- ' J - . - - - - - - - -- ----------------------------------- - - - - -� ----- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of (Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. - - - - -- -------------------- ODlp.crK -J- =-- r- 3d�� -- (,c)e e- --- 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- S. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- G. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 8. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 9. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- to. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNA'rURE ADDRESS el jF Oep4i11r C/4 -�- -- - -- Ma Il'of CT 011(? YO/-) We .- e".1 e F e e_ O' - -- -- - - - -- ------------- - - - - -- - 7 -- - - - - -� �.__ -------------------------------------- 0. ------------------------------------------- �-- - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- ------ -------------------- �-�� y- - - - - -- '' / S y 3 0 .� w3-rc ur e v �' � ? 3 / -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- --------- - - - - -- -- I0. K�ePn, c 93d�1 - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -------------------------------------- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNA'rURE ADDRESS 1. rbe.�i L i tdAsle ��K) PV,,--f .(,�e 153; 7 L3"A4, c� 3o L1 - �----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- . .wAL 13t(19vAJGj. -------------------------- ---- E --------------------------------------- -- - -n31_ -6-p'- >7 Crtl�l�t 4. w. ----------- 6. - -- 7. - - -- , - -- -- _ -- �' - - --Ogg --------- - - - - -- 1S 37 vA c-T 3�ZI Di We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Noorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 21 VUL f � 0. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 8. 9. 10. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 15x6 (� ��.ha -✓�G-f ------------------------- - - - - -- M- & -, �-;- - -! �: 1 - r-e -& --------- - - - - -- F ? -- 1 _ - - - - -- -- - - - - - -- 8- - - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- �' 9 =- - - - - -- � - - - -- J --'- ------ - --- --------- --- --- 10. �ZGI 1� __ lS�v � ��LLGY1 ---------- - - - - G' -- - -� --- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1.S'N S o - - --- -- - - - - -- ref-- �I? =- - '?�-- - -15.2 7-- --- - - - -- -- - 3 I Ann -- 15S6S /n� m`- } "�� 3. C4. y -- ----- - - - -1- -- f ------------------------------L------------- --- ----------- - - - -- ---/ c --------- - - - - -- C—/ C 7& A, (e.GCe ------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - -- 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 8. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 9. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 10. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- We the undersigned, who are residents of the Campus Hills community located behind Moorpark College in the city of Moorpark, oppose the efforts of the Messenger development group to build several thousand dwelling units in the foothills and valleys behind our homes in the area referred to as Hidden Creek, an area currently outside of the Moorpark city limits (an area also referred to as Specific Plan #8 in the Update to the General Plan for the city of Moorpark). We believe that such a development, or the annexation of the above mentioned area to the city of Moorpark, would not be in our best interest both as homeowners and as Moorpark residents. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS - - -- --------------------- - - - - -- -= fit _` '_ f` --`'l-`z--------------------- �� VA -- -------- ---- `--- -- -- -'`'�` --- --------- -- - - -- . 4. ----- - - - - -- 9i:,�' x'01 1 G. %. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- rd 9. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 10. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Ecological Planning Principles For Sustainable Living In Ventura County PHASE I VISION AND PRINCIPLES A Work in Progress ` RECEIVED (Draft, December 1991) MAR 1 8 1992 City of Moorpark THE CITIZEN PLANNERS PROJECT OF VENTURA COUNTY 509 MAIcN STR= • SunE 131 • THousA -Nm Q,ws, CA • 91360 • (805) 495 -1025 • FAX (805) 373 -3809 "There is still only a small shelf of books that deals with man's relation to his environment as a whole: not only with the so- called physical universe of the planets and stars, the rocks and the soil and the seas, but with the creatures that inhabit the earth - all the forces and animate beings that have helped to make man himself what he is. This part of man's knowledge of himself was slow to develop; for the early Greek thinkers tended either to examine man in isolation, or to examine nature without noting the presence of man. Design With Nature is a notable addition to the handful of important texts that begin, at least in Western tradition, with Hippocrates' famous medical work on Airs, Waters and Places: the first public recognition that man's life, in sickness and in health, is bound up with the forces of nature, and that nature, so far from being opposed and conquered, must rather be treated as an ally and friend, whose ways must be understood, and whose counsel must be respected." -Lewis Mumford Excerpts from the introduction to Design With Nature a book written by Ian C. McHarg Ecological Planning Principals For Sustainable Living In Ventura County PHASE I VISION AND PRINCIPLES A Work in Progress (Draft, December 1991) EDITORS JOSEPH SMYTH JOHN BROBERG TONY DOMINSKI, PH.D COLLABORATIVE PROCESS DESIGN DOCUMENT DESIGN DELIA HORWITZ DOUGLAS GILLIES J. W. "IOHN" BALLARD J. W. "IOHN" BALLARD JOSEPH SMYTH The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County gives full permission to any party to freely use and reproduce for any purpose in any form, all or part of this publication. For additional copies, please send $13.00 per copy, address below. Volume prices available upon request. T'-.e C: men Planners Proem of Ventura County • 509 \brin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 913(-,0 • K)5) 495 -102.5 • FAX (805)373-&9 9 CHIEF SEATTLE'S WORDS Excerpts from the reply to President Franklin Pierce (1885) How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing, and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth for it is the mother of the red man. We are a part of the earth and it is a part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man, all belong to the same family. This shining water that moves in the streams and the rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father. The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes, and feed our children. You must remember and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers and yours, and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give any brother. We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his fathers' graves and his children's birthright is forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert. There is no quiet place in the white mans' cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring, or the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond. The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495-1025 • FAX (805) 373 -3809 -2- DEDICATION Richard Angulo Chief of the California Indian Council /Chumash, the first Americans to occupy this land called Ventura County, they lived in harmony with the land taking only what the land could bear and replace. Each day Richard Angulo takes a stand to protect the sacred sites of his people and offers to teach us their harmonious and gentle ways. Ian L. McHarg Who, in his life and in his book Design With Nature, has called on us to see the earth as beautiful, abundant and giving, and to be treated as ally and friend. Richard Register For his single - minded dedication to building a healthy society and his dream of vital, just, sustainable garden cities, for writing a book called Ecocity Berkeley, and for leading the First International Ecocities Conference. Paolo Soleri Who, for a lifetime, has been calling on us to create cities that are in and of themselves elegant expressions of nature, encouraging the highest aspirations of the human spirit. Garrett Hardin Who, wrote the essay The Tragedy of the Commons, calling on us to see the need for human cooperation concerning human population and the Earth's carrying capacity. Also for quoting (Hagel) who said "freedom is the recognition of necessity." Amory Lovins Who, has shifted the consciousness of the entire utilities industry, world wide, (from selling more power to conserving more power). Who also encourages the development of local renewable energy, water and material resources. Paul Herzog Who represents a new generation of community minded leaders. Paul Herzog leads by his actions and his words, he walks the talk! Paul Glover Who, eight years ago, created a group in Los Angeles called Citizen Planners and wrote a book called L.A. History of the Future. Paul Glover's vision is to build a healthy and secure society by working with citizens through a communitybased participatory planning process. Chris Canfield For envisioning and developing Cerro Gordo, one of the first eco communities -located near EugeneOregon, and for creatingGlobal Ecocity Network (503) 942-7720, Econet: Cerrogordo. The G:izen Carmen prof ct of Ventura County • 509 %brin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (R)5)493-1025 • FAX M5)373-3&)9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Citizen Planners Project wishes to thank the many people and organizations who have contributed their time and efforts toward completing Phase 1 and bringing this document to its current stage. The work of developing and articulating the eco- planning principles is demanding, and we thank everyone for their perseverance. Thanks also to all the pioneers of these principles over the centuries, upon whose shoulders we stand. We would especially like to thank the Tri- Valley Environmental Committee, a non -profit educational organization in Thousand Oaks, for agreeing to serve as the Ventura County host for the project. Secondly, we thank the following team of environmental consultants who conceptualized the planning principles, edited drafts and took part in the Phase 1 workshop. For many years they have worked to develop a more harmonious and sustainable way of life for all of us. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS William Roley, PHD, Director Permaculture Institute of Southern California Lvnn Bayless, Director EDS. Ecosystems Mgt. of the Built Environment Jim Bell, Director Ecological Life Systems Institute Lyn Snow, Director of Research Ecological Life Systems Institute Arthur Jokela, Director Southern California Institute of Natural Resources Carol Houst, Director Ecological Entrepreneurs Network Harlan Christianson, Program Director Ecological Entrepreneurs Network John Lyle, Director Institute for Regenerative Studies, Cal Poly Pomona Bill Shireman, Director California Futures Julia Russell, Founder and Director Eco -Home Network Robert Walter, President Eco -Home Network Richard Crenshaw, Principal Managed Environments Lois Arkin, Director Cooperative Resources & Services Project (CRSP) Dr. V. Seshan, Assoc. Professor of Business Adm. Seaver College, Pepperdine University Jeannette Scovill, President Tri- Valley Environmental Committee Allen Green, Principal Allen Green Landscape and Urban Design Dick Schoen, FAIA, Prof. Arch. & Urban Design University of California, Los Angeles Chris Lazarus, West Coast Director A. J. Lazarus Associates, Public Relations Catriona Gay, Senior Planner University of California - Santa Barbara Theodore Wendland III, AIA, Partner Wendland Nahmias AIA and Associates Jon Clark, Director Gildea Resource Center Anthony Dominski, PH.D., Education Director Community Environmental Council Paul Herzog, Community Systems Research Joseph Smyth Company Joseph Smyth, Director Joseph Smyth Company Also, we would like to thank the Leadership Santa Barbara County staff for serving as facilitators for the Phase 1 workshop and for their insight into the participatory design process, the Gildea Resource Center and the Community Environmental Council for their warm encouragement, initial research and continual editing and structuring support throughout the Phase 1 process and to the Joseph Smyth Company, for seeing the need for such a project in Ventura County, coordinating Phase 1, the Citizen Planners Project from its inception and producing this document. The Citizen Planners project extends special thanks to the McCrea Company for funding the early stages of the project and to the Ahmanson Land Company for the grant that funded Phase I, summarized in this report. The editors welcome any suggestions for refining the document and its presentation. It is designed to be open -ended and in continual revision as part of a process by which more and more citizens contribute their ideas towards a sustainable future for Ventura County. The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495 -1025 • FAX (807 373 -3509 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE CITIZEN PLANNERS PROJECT • THE NATURAL CONTEXT AND A VISION FOR THE FUTURE • THE SEVEN PHASES OF THE PROJECT • KEY WORD DEFINITIONS ECOLOGICAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES FOR VENTURA COUNTY • PRINCIPLE 1 • PRINCIPLE 2 • PRINCIPLE 3 • PRINCIPLE 4 • PRINCIPLE 5 • PRINCIPLE 6 • PRINCIPLE 7 • PRINCIPLE S APPENDICES ECOSYSTEMS AND BEAUTY ECONOMICS AND TRUE COST LOCAL AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS CLUSTERED COMMUNITIES AND OPEN SPACE TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATION AND PRODUCTION CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES RECYCLING AND INDUSTRY EDUCATION AND GOVERNANCE • APPENDIX 1 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES 1 - 8 • APPENDIX 2 PHASE I (VISION AND PRINCIPLES) COLLABORATORS • LAFCO MAP COUNTY OF VENTURA (PROJECT STUDY AREA) n C� THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER The Citizen Planncrs Project of Ventura County • 509 NIarin St_ • Suite 131 • Thou_and Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805)495-1('P-5 • FAX (805) 373 -3809 THE NATURAL CONTEXT AND A VISION FOR THE FUTURE t Before people were on the earth in great numbers, and especially before the agricultural and industrial revolutions, the natural systems of the Earth's biosphere were whole and functioning well. The air, water and soil were clean. Life forms were abundant and diverse and all were living in harmony and dynamic balance — a seamless web of life moving to natural rhythms of day and night and the yearly cycles and seasons. We can only imagine the wonder of this original beauty. In 1991, things on earth have changed. The air, sea and land are thick with pollution and trash. Life systems involving every aspect of the biosphere are being altered, damaged and destroyed at an accelerating pace. Large numbers of plant and animal life forms are becoming extinct daily world wide. The increase in population of people and the consumption of non - renewable resources are expanding exponentially, and the destruction of the Earth's life - sustaining systems is the dominant pattern. At the same time, more is known about the earth and its systems than ever before, and people know more about themselves and each other than ever before. The race is on. Will the automatic, unconscious, destructive actions of people destroy the Earth's life- support systems before people can turn their conscious creative energies towards solving the problems behind the destruction? If humankind is to survive we must make the conscious creative choice to protect, preserve and restore the Earth's life support systems. If the conscious creative choice is made, what will that look like in Ventura County? How do we get there from here? How do we pay for it? Clearly we must re- vision our life on the planet and in our Ventura county home. The Citizen Planner participants have set forth the following vision to be expanded and refined: VISION Todevelopa sustainable lifestyle in Ventura County that accommodates ecological urban and rural communities. To preserve local viable agricultural and forestry lands, native habitats, mountains, rivers, coastal areas, and other valuable resources. To live within our means and not mortgage away the future, or reduce choices for future generations. To recognize that human beings and human habitat are a part of the ecosystem and its beauty. To accept that cities are as natural to human beings as the biosphere is to this beautiful planet and that they arean integral part of ourown creative evolution as a species. To use democratic, collaborative processes as a community to shape the future of our cities and our county in exciting, harmonious and meaningful new ways. The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County - 509 Marin St. - Suite 131 -Thousand Oaks, CA *91360- (807 495 -1025 -FAX (805) 373 -3509 -6- THE SEVEN PHASES OF THE PROJECT The Citizen Planner's Project of Ventura County is designed to enable citizens to discover and actualize their common vision of the quality of life in Ventura County. The development of the vision and principles is the task of the first three phases. The last four are: inventory, planning, policy and general plan update, and on -going monitoring and refinement. PHASE 1 VISION AND PRINCIPLES The purpose of Phase 1 is to initiate and delineate a set of ecological planning principles for sustainable living in Ventura County. This is to be done through a team of interested citizens and environmental consultants. A slide show will be assembled to further assist in communicating the principles. PHASE 2 VISION AND PRINCIPLES The purpose of Phase 2 is to involve 3 or 4 community leaders from each of the 14 geographical areas of interest within the county (see LAFCO Map, Appendix) in the refinement and expansion of the Phase 1 (visions and principles) document and slide show. PHASE 3 VISION AND PRINCIPLES The purpose of Phase 3 is to involve citizens -at -large within each area of interest throughout the county in the refinement and expansion of the Phase 2 (visions and principles) document and slide show. Through broad based consensus among citizens, a basis for new policy and planning will be established within each area of interest and within the county as a whole. PHASE 4 INVENTORY The purpose of Phase 4 is to establish a clear, comprehensive picture of the current configuration and condition of natural and human -made aspects of the county. This inventory, when used in conjunction with Phase 3 (vision and principles) will serve as the basis for a concept plan to be created in Phase 5 for each area of interest within the county, and for the county as a whole. PHASE 5 PLANNING The purpose of Phase 5 is to create, through citizen involvement, a concept plan for each area of interest and for the county as a whole. These plans will be based on the results of Phase 3 and Phase 4. Citizens from each area of interest will create a concept plan for their respective areas. Representatives from each area of interest will comprise a planning board designed to coordinate countywide issues causing the individual area -of- interest plans to come together and work as a whole. PHASE 6 NEW POLICY AND A NEW GENERAL PLAN The purpose of Phase 6 is for citizens of Ventura County to present plans and ideas developed in the above phases in the form of vision and principles and inventories and concept plans to each of the local community governments and then to the county government as a whole. This will serve as the basis for new policy and a new general plan update. PHASE 7 ON -GOING MONITORING AND REFINEMENT The purpose of Phase 7 is to see that new policy and new plans are realized and continually refined. Feedback and adjustment mechanisms will be established based on performance standards and a comprehensive quality of life index. In this way the policy and plans will reflect current thinking as it evolves. `C: The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (803) 495-1025 • FAX (803) 373 -3509 KEY WORD DEFINITIONS NATURE - The inherent constitution and composition of the physical world and its life forms, in its entirety. BIOSPHERE - The part of the physical world in which life, as we know it, can exist. ECOLOGY - The totality or pattern of relation between organisms and their environment. ORGANISM - A living being, a complex structure of interdependent and complementary elements, separate in function and, as a whole, designed to carry on the activities of life. ENVIRONMENT - The circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded that effect one's form and function. This includes such factors as climate, soil, water, air and living things, including cultures and societies. CULTURE - The integrated pattern of knowledge, belief and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations; the act of developing intellectual, experimental and moral facilities by interaction and education. SOCIETY - A voluntary association of individuals for common ends; a cooperating group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another. ECONOMY - Thrifty, efficient, frugal, prudent management of material and monetary assets and resources. CYCLICAL - A course or series of events or operations that recur regularly. LIFE -CYCLE COST - The total cost from start to finish of producing, using, maintaining and dispensing of an item or structure. TRUE COST PRICING - The total direct and indirect cost including life -cycle cost and economic, ecological and social impacts over the short and long term. CARRYING CAPACITY - Concerning humans in nature: the maximum ecologically sustainable level of human numbers and activity in a given bio- region or area. DYNAMIC BALANCE - Powerful, productive, changing forces in harmonious relationship. WHOLE SYSTEMS APPROACH — An integrated multi - disciplinary approach to problem solving and living. MITIGATION - (Current method of allowing what we don't want). To make or become milder, less severe, less rigorous, or less painful. INCENTIVE - (Proposed method of encouraging what we do want). To stimulate one to take action - to encourage. To give courage, hope, confidence, embolden, hearten, to give support. DIS- INCENTIVE - (Proposed method of discouraging what we don't want). Keeps one from doing something. To deter, to instill discomfort, to give pause. OWNERSHIP - Legal control, possession, holding of title. TRUSTEESHIP - Formalizing the choice of stewardship -becoming legally responsible for actions. STEWARDSHIP - In the broadest sense, being in care of the whole, the good and faithful steward. SUSTAINABILITY - The ability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. HARMONY - Agreement in motion; moving in cordial arrangement and free association. Thr C'iti7rn Plannrm Pinirct of Ventura Countv • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495 -1025 • FAX (805) 373 -3809 0 County T1 c CiEmn Planners Pro)oct of Ventura County • 509 hlarin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805)49-7,-1025 • FAX (801373 -3509 9- PRINCIPLE fi Protect, Preserve and Restore the Natural Environment Landscape was the original dwelling; the human species evolved among plants and animals, under the sky upon the earth, near water. Each of us carries that legacy in body and mind. (Anne Whiston Spirn, "Architecture in the Landscape. ") On Earth Day 1991, Ian Mc Harg, author of "Design with Nature," said, "The fine art of the 21st century will be that of restoration of the natural environment. We need, not only a better view of man and nature, but a working method by which the least of us can ensure that the product of his works is not more despoliation." Redirecting our energy and intelligence toward this task will become increasingly important to our quality of life and our survival. We must act on our growing awareness that the fundamental requirement of a healthy ecosystem (natural environment) be the foundation for all that we do. The natural environment, our life support system, is the basis for a healthy world, healthy economy, healthy society and a higher quality of life. DESIGN & POLICY CRITERIA 1. Create an inventory of natural and human-made aspects of the county. 2. Define study areas in the context of local and regional watersheds maintaining integrity of streambelts. 3. Maintain a continuous system of greenbelts and wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions, and maintain large contiguous pieces of natural habitat as wildlife sanctuaries. 4. Protect and restore cyclical processes, biological diversity, and natural beauty. 5. Develop equitable land preservation and restoration agreements though fair market acquisition and the transfer of development rights. Example: A privately owned property is marked for preservation, in whole or in part, as open space. The property owner will be paid for the land at fair market rate by selling his development rights, which are then transferred to another site more suitable for development. 6. Initiate formal agreements with surounding counties to share inventory information and call for regional action to protect area ecosystems. 7. Additional Criteria? QUESTIONS 1. How can collection of local and county-wide inventories of current natural and human made conditions be funded? 2. How can region -wide inventories of current natural and human made features and conditions be funded? 3. How much undisturbed land is required, and in what configuration must it be, to sustain the native plant and animal life of the county? 4. Can new coastal wetlands be created to sustain the diversity of life that once flourished in such natural areas of Ventura County? 5. Can equitable land transfer agreements be worked out to protect both land owners and the public interests? ' 6. Concerning environmental issues, how do we work with surrounding counties and local communities which share common watersheds, wildlife habitats and corridors? 7. How can functional migratory routes be reestablished and paid for region -wide in light of current man -made barriers such as freeway's and fencing? 8. Additional Questions? The Citizen Planners Projoct of Ventura County • 509 Marin St • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 9136() • (805) 493 -1025 • FAX (805) 373 -3809 -10- PRINCIPLE 1 COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS IDEAS nd !eni (Z 1_%x Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project will be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to call or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. ^? The Citizen Planners project of Ventura County • 509 Marin St • Suite 131 • 11iousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (803) 49r10ti •FAX (SOS) 373 3809 PRINCIPLE 2 Establish True -Cost Pricing As The Basis of Economic Viability Industry and commerce must expand their accounting to include all costs and benefits. The economic value system must be expanded into a relative system encompassing all biophysical processes and human aspirations. (Ian L. McHarg) By utilizing true -cost pricing to evaluate a course of action, we move toward long -term economic viability and sustainability without compromising our quality of life. In true -cost pricing, long -term economic gains and preservation of the-quality of life are valued above short-term profits. In order to evaluate true short-term financial profit and long- term economic gains, the eco -nomic (ecological + economic) sustainability of the natural environment and society as a whole must be included in the balance sheet. The objective is sustainable economic prosperity to meet human needs and wants, building efficient infrastructure and at the same time to protect the life- giving abundance and beauty of nature for ourselves and all future generations. The true cost of automobile centered infrastructure has taken a devastating toll on our pocketbooks and is threatening our entire economic system. The Ventura County Transportation Commission has calculated that the County will need to spend $1.35 billion over the next 8years to widen roads and build interchanges just to maintain the level of service at current rates. That equals $168 million per year starting this year for the next 8 years - and what happens after that? The question is, where is the money going to come from? Truck delays alone add $7.6 billion a year to the cost of goods that Americans buy, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Service trucks prevented from an on -time delivery, every trucker who must detour around a restricted bridge, every employee who clocks in late because of an unexpected backup represents lost productivity. DESIGN & POLICY CRITERIA 1. Economic analysis must be based on cyclic patterns and whole systems thinking. 2. Long -term impacts on environmental and social issues must be considered as part of an economic analysis. 3. Give developers project preference points and tax breaks for planning clustered, mixed -use, public transit/ pedestrian- oriented projects which reduce infrastructure and maintenance costs. 4. Charge industries for the pollution they emit to provide an incentive to clean up, and tax non - reusable and non - recyclable products to discourage their production and sales. 5. Redefine the rules of the marketplace so that the most beneficial environmental and economic opportunities make sense at the individual level. 6. Additional Criteria? QUESTIONS 1. How can we keep ecological and economic wealth circulating within our local communities? 2. How can we work with neighboring jurisdictions to coordinate positive economic incentives for sustainable practices in business and development in our region, creating a level playing field? 3. How do we measure long -term impacts of proposed actions on our economic, environmental and social well- being? 4. Additional Questions? The Citizen Planners Projoct of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495-1025 • FAX (805) 3733509 IN&M cl :cc ►sc Ci' PRINCIPLE 2 COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS IDEAS Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project will be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to tali or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. Tl`e Citizen Planners Prof d of Ventura County • 509 Marin St • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (807 495 -1025 • FAX (805) 373 -38809 PRINCIPLE 3 Support Local Agriculture and Local Business, Products and Services Local production of food, goods and services creates jobs in local businesses and is a key aspect of a healthy community. For example, locally grown food supports local farmers, is fresher and can be brought to market with less travel time and expense. Local production of necessities also reduces dependency on imports, allows economic wealth to be recycled, provides security in case of an emergency, and turns our communities into self sufficient garden cities. "45 yearsago an anthropologist named Walter Goldschmidt studied two agricultural towns in California's Central Valley, named Arvin and Dinuba. The two towns were similar but the nature and size of the farms were markedly different. Dinuba was surrounded by many small, independent farms worked mainly by families, while Arvin lay in the midst of fewer, larger farms, where labor was supplied mainly by seasonal workers. Though the total dollar volume of agricultural production in the two towns was nearly the same, Goldschmidt found striking differences in the social fabric of the two communities. • The small -farm community had more institutions for democratic decision- making and broader participation in such activities by its citizenry. • The small farms supported about 20 percent more people and at a higher standard of living. • Most residents of the small -farm community were independent entrepreneurs. In the large -farm community, nearly two-thirds were agricultural wage laborers. • The small -farm community had better community facilities; more schools, more parks, more newspapers, more civic organizations and more churches. • The small -farm community had twice as many business establishments as the large -farm town and did 61 percent more retail business, especially in household goods and building equipment. • Physical facilities for community living - paved streets, sidewalks, garbage disposal, sewage disposal and other public services - were far greater in the small -farm community; indeed, in the industrial -farm community some of these facilities were entirely wanting." Harrowsmith Magazine. Rocky Mountain Institute Case Study 1: Support Existing Businesses — While some communities throw their front door open to recruit new business, Lane County, Oregon, recognized that its most important and stable economic opportunity stood with its existing local businesses. Lane County created Oregon Marketplace, which helps local firms thrive by linking business buyers and sellers. CaseStudy2: Encourage New Local Enterprise —Residents of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, are encouraging new local enterprise by helping entrepreneurs gain access to capital. Through a Community Loan Fund account at the local bank, they can collateralize loans that the bank might not otherwise grant to local businesses. DESIGN & POLICY CRITERIA 1. Encourage small local farming operations and encourage ecologically sound food production practices, such as organic farming, to make food production more compatible with adjoining uses. Organic farming eliminates the need for toxic pesticides and can minimize dust by reducing the extent of plowing required to grow crops. 2. Include food production in community open spaces and community gardens (the edible city concept). 3. Develop business strategies for recycling wealth within the community. 4. Additional Criteria? QUESTIONS 1. How can the community protect its agricultural lands against development and at the same time provide equitable arrangements with land owners? 2. What kind of incentive would be required to ensure adequate food production within the local jurisdiction of a community? 3. What kind of business products and services would provide a basis for community self- sufficiency? 4. Given the specialized nature of our current economy, is it possible to accomplish these objectives ? 5. Additional Questions? The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495 -1025 • FAX (805) 37-1-3809 ,,) Ne 4tc Sid y' ,va PRINCIPLE 3 COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS IDEAS Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project xvill be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to call or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. The Citizen PLinners Proiect of Ventura County • 509 hiarin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 49r10?5 • FAX (803) 373 -3509 PRINCIPLE 4 Develop Clustered, Mixed -Use, Pedestrian - Oriented Ecological Communities The re- ignition of cultural evolution will begin as we turn the corner on automobile dependency and reintroduce clustered, pedestrian - oriented living. (Paolo Soled) Clustering communities preserves open space in rural areas and can restore open space within existing communities. Clustering also encourages living within a safe, pleasant walk of work, schools, shopping, services, parks, recreation, and public transit. We are also learning that density can be positive, creating community and a sense of place. "While the social and environmental benefits of clustering communities are becoming clearer, the economic benefits still remain hidden. The truth is the economic benefits of clustered communities are so massive and so comprehensive they seem too good to be true. The tip -off clue in this treasure hunt is that 40% of the cost of development is automobile related. In other words, when a town or city is built, 40% of the'initial cost' goes to pay for freeways, streets, stoplights, parking lots, driveways, garages, parking structures, and the land they cover. And that's the cheap part. Wait until we get to the'operational cost' and 'maintenance cost'— now we're facing the ultimate bottomless pit'. The automobile centered infrastructure is destroying everything dear. It's destroying the natural environment through pollution and urban sprawl, draining our bank accounts, and eating the heart out of our communities turning them into faceless, high speed traffic patterns and parking lots forcing us into isolation. If the truth be known, automobile dependency, and all of its side effects, is the root cause of local, state and national insolvency. It's time the true cost of living in automobile dependent communities is known. Most importantly, it's time for the economic power of sustainable development (ecocity design) to be discovered'." (Joseph Smyth "L.A. Eco- Cities Conference 1991 ") "The Garden is the paradise of nature, and the City is the paradise of culture. Or at least they could be.... Today, both are out of balance. If we build the ecocity we will regain the Garden and finally aspire to the full ideal of the City— the City built with, not against, nature. Then, when we hold in reverence that which we cannot build, which is given to us by the Earth herself, we will create not just a home for ourselves but a future for all who follow." (Richard Register "Ecocity Berkeley ") DESIGN & POLICY CRITERIA 1. Establish integrated ecological (whole- systems) thinking as the norm in planning and developing communities. 2. Create town centers composed of public buildings and spaces for governance and the arts that will create civic pride and a sense of place. • Create architectural forms and spaces that encourage cultural diversity and positive social interaction. • Create neighborhoods that encourage walking and biking. • Create a variety of housing types and sizes, suited to different income levels, life - styles, cultures, and age groups. • Define clusters by creating permanent greenbelts • Create green spaces within the community to support visual and sound privacy. 3. Additional Criteria? QUESTIONS 1. How large can a community be (in acres and in height) and still maintain a human scale and sense of place? 2. When does a community get too large for a person to feel that his or her participation makes a difference? 3. What is the maximum size of a neighborhood that is large enough to provide a basic range of goods and services, and still be personal enough for the individual to feel at home? What is an Ecocity? 4. Additional Questions? The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (80 5) 495-1025 • FAX (805) 373 -3809 -13- PRINCIPLE 4 COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS IDEAS Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project will be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to tail or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. 7: -o C :Hzen Mannm Proiuct of Ventura County • 509 Rtarin St_ • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91,160 • (F05)49-3-1025 • FAX (303) 373 -3309 PRINCIPLE 5 Utilize Advanced Transportation, Communication and Production Systems You go out and the moment you are out of the door, with no transition, you are confronting death: the cars are racing past. (Le Corbusier) Communities that are gearing up to move information in preference to people and materials and are encouraging the use of advance production systems, are on their way to long -term sustainability. Transportation, communication, food and product production, water and material reclamation and the delivery of human services all apply. "A Japanese panel convened in early 1990 to advise the United States on strengthening its economy counselled us to "build high -speed rail systems and get Americans out of their cars." Francesca Lyman in E Magazine (Sept. /Oct., 1990) "Americans lose more than 2 billion hours a year to traffic delays." According to the Federal Highway Administration, by the year 2005 that number will increase to 7 billion hours! This does not count commuting time, just the delays. Nation's Business (Sept. 1991) Clean and quiet transit will be commonplace in the years to come and the sooner the communities and the county make the change, the faster things will improve. Advantages will include: major reductions in air and noise pollution; less lost time due to long commutes and traffic jams; less travel expense; and fewer accidents. Homes in clustered communities can be typically located within a few minutes' walk, bike or trolley ride of the train station. Advanced communication systems (e.g., fiber optic cable, satellite, computer data bases, FAX, CD -ROM) are already commonplace, and when built into the community as standard components and coupled with advanced, efficient, non - polluting production technologies, they will support ecologically sensitive large and small business and provide a direct link to the home workplace with access to global information and transactions. The ecologically balanced carrying capacity of the Earth in relationship to human population levels and their needs can be increased substantially through the clustering of human settlements and the use of advance infrastructure systems and technologies. By advanced systems we mean systems that are efficient and non - polluting. The key phrase is "ecologically balanced." The key question is, "Can world wide development of advanced ecologically balanced, human settlements serve to facilitate (by supporting a high quality of life) a conscious, individual, free choice of self- regulating human population ?" DESIGN & POLICY CRITERIA 1. Develop a quality of life index to support an ecologically balanced carrying capacity. 2. Locate walkways and bikeways through park and greenbelt settings separate from automobile streets. 3. Wire newand existing communities with fiber optic cable to serve the needsof largeand smallbusiness, thehome- based workplace, educational and entertainment facilities. 4. Require all public and private transportation to convert to clean power sources such as natural gas, hydrogen or electricity from renewable sources and locate transit stops within a short walk or bike ride of destinations. 5. Additional Criteria? QUESTIONS 1. Can the savings in infrastructure cost made by clustering development pay the total installation cost of advanced transportation systems? And can adequate convenient private transportation systems be accommodated? 2. Can clustered communities that utilize advanced architectural, transportation, communication and production technologies run on local renewable sources of energy? 3. Additional Questions? Tl;e Citizen Planners Pm,xrt of Ventura County • 509 %larin SL • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805)49-r,-1025 • FAX (805)373-38D9 PRINCIPLE 5 COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS IDEAS Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project will be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to call or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. The C:,4zen Planners Project of Ventura County • 509 %larin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495 -102 • F.. X (St15) 3i3 -11,)9 PRINCIPLE 6 Maximize Conservation and Develop Local Renewable Resources The use of conservation technology and practices to reduce consumption of energy, water and materials can be seen as creating renewable resources. The physical resources saved are available for use and the funds saved equal more local wealth staying within the community. Conservation also reduces pollution and minimizes the cost of waste management (e.g., water reclamation, materials recovery and recycling, toxic waste disposal and landfills). "Me United States wastes some $300 billion a year due to lack of insulation, inefficient refrigerators, drafty doors, and other energy leaks in buildings, industry and transportation," say researchers at the Rocky Mountain Institute. "That's more than the entire U.S. military budget." Conservation Examples: (From Rocky Mountain Institute economic renewal program). Osage, Iowa (population 3,800), created the equivalent of 60 new jobs by implementing a variety of energy efficiency programs. $1.2 million dollars that leaked out of the community to pay energy bills each year now stays in people's pockets and generates more local wealth. The World Bank in Washington D.C. upgraded its lighting systems at a one -time cost of $100,000 and now saves approximately $500,000 a year. Whole systems life -cycle cost, an energy conserving, longer - lasting refrigerator has a higher purchase price than a conventional refrigerator. However, the savings in electricity over the life of the refrigerator will more than justify the increased purchase price (including interest on the difference). Historically, utilities have been reluctant to promote Negawatts (conservation) because to do so lowered their profits. Today, however, growing numbers of states have changed their regulations to allow utilities to keep part of the money their efficiency programs save. According to John Rowe, New England Electric System's (NEES) chief executive, "Under the old rates, there was no way we could make money on conservation, but now it's the most profitable investment we make." Converting from dependence on non - renewable resources from distant sources to local renewable resources moves the community closer to self- sufficiency. The conversion should include measures such as using local ground water and developing water catchments to reduce dependence on imported water, and utilizing solar technologies to reduce fossil fuel use. DESIGN & POLICY CRITERIA 1. Provide economic incentives for water, energy and materials conservation (e.g., install meters for individual users) for installing wa ter -savi ng and catchment devices, for solar panels which produce electricity and hot water, for driving small cars and using alternative fuels, for working within the home and /or living within walking distance of work. 2. Set strict water quality standards and take steps to eliminate pollution of ground water basins and purify wastewater to safe levels for use in community landscaping, industry and recharging ground water supplies. 3. Additional Criteria? QUESTIONS 1. What fiscal incentives are needed to support community self-sufficiency and sustainability? Will these incentives be supported by the citizens? 2. How much extra wealth can be retained in a community due to conservation measures such as water and energy conservation and materials recycling? Are the community economic benefits sufficient to motivate citizens to support vigorous conservation programs? 3. Will citizens support the investment in infrastructure required to develop local renewable energy, water and material resources? 4. Additional Questions? The Citizen Planners Projm of Ventura Countv • 509 tilarin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805)495,1025 • FAX (807 373 -3809 w � PRINCIPLE 6 COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS IDEAS Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project will be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to call or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. T•.e C; t.zen PLinners Project of Ventura County • -091`tarin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91,160 • (R)5) 49 }1025 • FAX (S05) 37 3-3'3_'9 PRINCIPLE 7 Establish Recycling Programs and Recycled Materials Industries Matter is not consumed but merely cycled. When not employed in the cycle, it assumes the role of a reserve. (Ian L. McHarg) Community programs for recycling and composting along with changed packaging and purchasing patterns and community composting of yard waste can lower levels of landfill solid waste by 50 to 90 percent. However, recycling is only complete if the end product is reused by industries such as paper mills, steel mills, bottling plants, etc. The earth was once clean, healthy and nurturing and can be again if we will make the choice to clean up our mess. First: we must stop dumping and start recycling. Second: we must support development of industries using recycled materials, change our farming, manufacturing, packaging, waste disposal, transportation and energy systems to non polluting technologies reducing air and noise pollution, and long life toxic substance such as nuclear waste and chemical pesticides. Third: we must start the clean up now. Locally as a county we can eliminate sources of ground water contamination by reducing (slow to neutralize) chemicals, pesticide farming practices, and by cleaning our waste water to healthy and reusable levels. We can also reduce and eventually eliminate the need for landfills by reducing, reusing and recycling (including composting) all solid wastes. As a county we can also call on the state, the nation and the world to re-direct the focus of the military to defuse the multiple, world -wide time bombs that are currently going off! Armed with state of the art equipment and technology we must go into the oceans and retrieve the leaking nuclear waste canisters, no matter what the short term economic cost. As a world community we must also invest in research to develop products to neutralize the long life toxic chemicals which have been poured into the soil, making large areas unfit to walk or sit on much less use for food production. In summary, we are in a "world wide state of emergency" and as a county we must call for state, national and world wide cooperation and action. The first step is to take responsibility for cleaning up our own back yards. We have the power to clean up the mess, and we must start now if we want our children and our children's children to have a world and a county to live in. DESIGN & POLICY CRITERIA 1. Establish community recycling facilities and programs such as curbside pickup of recyclables, backyard composting bins, community drop -off centers, toxic substance collection stations and buyback centers. 2. Create economic and policy incentives that encourage the use of nontoxic biodegradable materials. 3. Set landfill tipping fees at levels that encourage reduction in the amounts of wastes generated. 4. Establish policy and economic incentives for strong markets for recycled materials and facilitate siting of local recycling industries. Support the establishment of regional facilities to recycle bulk materials such as construction debris and divert them from the landfill. These facilities could be supported by fees from the waste generators and the sale of the recyclable materials generated (e.g., wood chips, metal, concrete and asphalt). 5. Additional Criteria? QUESTIONS 1. In what volume and proportion are recyclable materials found in the average community wastestream? 2. How effective are the local community recycling programs? 3. Can relatively small local industries utilize recyclables generated in the local community? 4. Additional Questions? The Citizen Planners Projoct of Ventura County • 509 btarin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (803) 493 -1025 • FAX (803) 373 -3309 _16- PRINCIPLE 7 COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS IDEAS Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project will be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to call or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. T�.e Ct.7.cn nanners Proj vt of Ventura County • -509 %farin St. • Suite 131 • "Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (£05) 495 -1025 • FX< (h05) 373 K)9 PRINCIPLE S Support Broad -Based Education For Participatory Governance It is in education that the greatest benefits lie. Here separatism rules, yet integration is the quest. This ecology offers: the science of the relations of organism and the environment, integrative of the sciences, humanities and the arts - a context for studies of man and the environment, enhancing the creative fit of man- environment, realizing man's design with nature. (Ian L. McHarg) The implementation of ecological planning principles is strengthened by public education and the building of consensus through citizen participation in the planning and policy making process. By participating in public forums, citizens can better understand the issues, discover common ground, develop a common vision and support positive action for the future of Ventura County. Consensus is based on the belief that each person has a part of the truth. It has been said that the greatest number of individual perspectives reveals the larger truth. If this idea is applied to discover common ground among the citizens of the county, the democratic ideal of a government `of the people, by the people, and for the people" takes on a new meaning. Through effective citizen participation, the present governmental model of conflict and deadlock can be replaced with agreement and action from a posture of cooperation and stewardship. "Stewardship is an attitude which when held by a large number of people makes participatory governance happen efficiently. Stewardship is at the other end of the spectrum from narrow self - interest. The posture of stewardship comes from seeing that as an individual wewill always necessarilyonlyseea piece of thepuzzleand that to be the best stewards we can be, we must learn from others, particularly those who see differently from us. The people we have the most disagreement with are probably the people from whom we can learn the most and with whom we can be the most productive stewards, when we can find that common ground. The common ground is always there, it already exists, the challenge is to uncover it together." ( J. W. "Iohn" Ballard.) A great tragedy of our low density, automobile dependent, single use life style is the resulting isolation, separation and alienation. As a society we are losing the skills of cordial neighborly association and cooperation. DESIGN & POLICY CRITERIA 1. Establish a meeting place within each community and utilize advanced communication technologies to form a network within and between county communities, including home -view electronic participation. 2. Establish consensus as the decision- making process, with a clear commitment to discover common ground and reach understanding that with veto power comes responsibility. 3. Encourage elected officials and government staff, alongwith the business community, to take part fullyascitizens in the participatory planning process. 4. Additional Criteria? QUESTIONS 1. If participation is the key to education and agreement, what incentives can be established to encourage participation in community meetings and home -view voting? 2. Can special- interest groups from all sides fund the participatory process and still keep the process objective? 3. Can The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County be replicated in surrounding counties through citizen -based networking? What is the potential for regional education, coordination and cooperation in the planning, policy and decision - making process? 4. Additional Questions? The Citizen Planner Projoct of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (835) 4931025 • FAX (803) 373 -3509 17 PRINCIPLE 8 COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS IDEAS Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project will be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to call or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. The Ci:i7en Planners Proiect of Ventura County • 509 Atarin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (8)5) 49:x1025 • FAX (S05) 373 -3809 Paul Glover, Community Planner and originator of the Citizen Planner Group in Los Angeles which served as the inspiration for naming the Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County, left his Ithaca, New York home in 1978 to come west. He decided to walk from Boston to San Diego and by sticking to back roads thought he would get a broader elemental sense of America. What he found he wasn't counting on. "Everywhere I went people were afraid of their neighbors. Walking up the road, someone would tell me to be careful because people further on were horrible. Then I'd get there and a group of nice people would tell me to be careful of the next group up the road, and on it went." It is time we get to know our good neighbors! The Citizen Planners Proja t of Ventura County • 509 Marin St • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495-1025 • FAX (805) 373 -3509 -?S- 7' c Cidzcn Pbnncrs pmj ct of Ventura County • 509 Mann St • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (803) 495 -1025 • FAX (` 05) 373 -3.x'9 -19- SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES FOR VENTURA COUNTY The Citizen Planner's Project of Ventura County is designed to enable citizens to discover and actualize their desired common vision of the quality of life in Ventura County. The following principles summary is a result of the Phase I efforts - to be refined and expanded upon in Phase II of the project. Principle 1 PROTECT, PRESERVE AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Acknowledge that undisturbed natural beauty enriches our lives and that the natural environment, functioning in a healthy manner is basic for a healthy world, a healthy economy and healthy society, and that in fact it is our life support system. Principle 2 ESTABLISH TRUE -COST PRICING ECONOMICS Establish true -cost pricing as the basis for economic viability. Utilize whole- system thinking to recognize the true long -term costs and benefits of actions from an economic, environmental and social standpoint. Principle 3 SUPPORT LOCAL AGRICULTURE & LOCAL BUSINESS PRODUCTS & SERVICES Use community products and services for the cycling of economic wealth within the community. Integrate basic food production within and near the local community to support local self - sufficiency. Principle 4 DEVELOP CLUSTERED, MIXED -USE, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED ECO- COMMUNITIES Clustering reduces infrastructure costs and pays for the reclamation of open space within existing communities, and protects and pays for open space within rural areas. Clustering also encourages walking, bicycling and public transit (including rail) and enhances the sense of community and place. Principle 5 UTILIZE ADVANCED TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATION & PRODUCTION SYSTEMS Reduce automobile dependence, traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, and operating and maintenance cost by establishing rail- centered transportation which uses clean, locally renewable fuels. Utilize advanced communication systems to move information in preference to people and materials. Employ advanced production technologies to reduce cost, increase quality and production, and reduce pollution and energy use. Principle 6 MAXIMIZE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOP LOCAL RENEWABLE RESOURCES Maximize the use of conservation technology and practices, reduce the use of non - renewable resources, and develop local renewable energy, water and material resources. Principle 7 ESTABLISH RECYCLING PROGRAMS AND RECYCLED MATERIALS INDUSTRIES Expand recycling technology and establish extensive recycling and composting programs to supply local industries with raw materials. Encourage the use of non - toxic, reusable and recyclable products. Redesign products for longer life and to reduce consumption of energy and materials. Principle 8 SUPPORT EDUCATION FOR PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE Build educational awareness and public consensus for ecological planning and policy issues both locally and countywide, through broad -based citizen participation. For copies of the full 22 page report including expanded definitions, design and policy criteria, and key questions and issues — send check payable to Citizen Planners, address below ($13 per copy, volume prices available upon request). The Citizen Planners Projm of Ventura County • 509 Mann St • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495-1025 • FAX(805)373-3809 -In - SUMMARY COMMENTS SUGGESTIONS l' IDEAS Your comments, suggestions and ideas about each principle and all other aspects of the project will be most appreciated. If you know of others who would be willing to comment ask them to call or copy this page for their use. Please send a copy of the comments to Citizen Planners Project (address below). Thank you for your interest. The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Wks, CA • 91360 • (805-)495-1025 • FAX (805) 373 -3,109 Phase I (Vision and Principles) Collaborators Jon Clark, Director Arthur Jokela, Director Frank Schillo, Mayor Gildea Resource Center So. California Inst. of Natural Resources City of Thousand Oaks Community Environmental Council (818) 568 -3850 FAX (818) 568-0308 (818) 991 -3770 (818) 991 -1437 (805) 963 -0583 FAX (805) 962 -9080 Tony Dominski PhD, Education Director Gildea Resource Center Community Environmental Council (805) 963 -0583 FAX (805) 962 -9080 Jim Bell, Director Ecological Life Systems Institute (619) 281 -1447 Lyn Snow, Director of Research Ecological Life Systems Institute (619) 633 -1163 FAX (619) 481 -1258 Bill Roley, Ph.D. Director Permaculture Institute of So. California (714) 494 -5843 FAX (714) 497 -9322 John Lyle, Director Institute for Regenerative Studies Cal Poly Pomona (818) 355 -6786 FAX (818) 869 -4353 Bill Shireman, Director California Futures (619) 929 -9207 FAX (619) 929 -9207 Lynn Bayless, Director EOS: Ecosystems Mgt. of the Built Environment (714) 366 -0505 Jeannette Scovill, President Tri- Valley Environmental Committee (805) 492 -0811 FAX (805) 373 -3809 Bob Braitman, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (805) 654 -2575 FAX (805) 654 -5106 Julia Russell, Founder and Director Eco-Home Network (213) 662 -5207 FAX (213) 388 -5338 Robert Walter, President Eco -Home Network (213) 662 -5207 FAX (213) 388 -5338 Lois Arkin, Director Co- operative Resource Center (213) 738 -1254 FAX (213) 383 -4644 Carol Houst Director Ecological Entrepreneurs Network (818) 568 -3533 FAX (818) 568-0308 Harlan Christianson, Director Ecological Entrepreneurs Network (818) 568 -3850 FAX (818) 568-0308 Chris Lazarus, West Coast Director A.J. Lazarus Assoc., Public Relations (714) 857 -6714 FAX (714) 552 -7273 Dick Schoen, FAIA, Professor UCLA Graduate School of Architecture RSA Architects, Inc. (818) 702 -9654 FAX (213) 999 -9618 Allen Green, Principal Allen Green Landscape and Urban Design (510) -524 -7245 Theodore Wendland III, AIA, Partner Wendland Nahmias AIA and Associates (818) 879 -7600 FAX (818) 879 -8401 Delia Horwitz, Director Leadership Santa Barbara County (805) 963 -9513 FAX (805) 966 -5954 Douglas Gillies, Facilitator Leadership Santa Barbara County (805) 965 -1226 FAX (805) 966 -5954 J. W. "lohn" Ballard, Program Designer Leadership Santa Barbara County (805) 969 -9313 FAX (805) 966 -5954 Richard Crenshaw, Principal Managed Environments (301) 268 -3592 FAX (301) 267 -7061 Joseph Smyth, Director Joseph Smyth Company (805) 373 -3712 FAX (805) 373 -3809 Paul Herzog, Community Systems Joseph Smyth Company (805) 373 -3712 FAX (805) 373 -3809 Terry Collins Computer Services Joseph Smyth Company (805) 373 -3712 FAX (805) 373 -3809 Cat Gay, Senior Planner University of California, Santa Barbara (805) 962 -7031 FAX (805) 962 -7031 Russ Baggerly, Assistant Supervisor Maria VanderKolk (805) 654 -2711 FAX (805) 654 -2226 Rorie Skei, Progam Manager Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (310) 456 -5046 FAX (310) 456 -1042 Mindy Lorenz, County Representative Green Party Organizing Committee of California (805) 648 -4305 FAX (805) 653 -5976 Bradley Smith Green Party Organizing Committee of CA (805) 983 -6748 Peter McCrea, President McCrea Company (805) 497 -0477 FAX (805) 373 -3809 Donald Brackenbush, President Ahmanson Land Company (818) 8864325 FAX (818) 880 -0825 Michael Vignieri, Project Coordinator Rancho Malibu, Adamson Companies (213) 477 -3300 FAX (213) 477 -5806 Jeff Rhoads, AIA, Company Architect The Newhall Land and Farming Company (805) 255 -4053 FAX (805) 254 -0761 Adolfo Aguirre, Research Associate CEQA Management Office, Culver City (310) 505 -3990 Robert Oplinger I Love A Clean San Diego (619) 270 -8393 Alisse Fisher Open School Advocate 492-2108 Leonard Cohen, Developer Laguna Beach (714) 499 -5293 Robert Haaland Haaland and Associates (805) 497 -4554 FAX (805) 496 -3727 Dr. V. Seshan, Assoc. Prof. of Bus. Adm. Pepperdine University (213)456-4240 T. William Hale, President Hale & Associates (805) 379-4405 FAX (805) 643 -9180 The Citizen Planners Project of Ventura County • 509 Marin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495 -1025 • FAX (805) 373 -3809 -21- is O a N N0 COUNTY OF VENTURA a " PROJECT STUDY AREA KERN COUNTY NORTH HALF OF THE COUNTY (PRIMARILY NATIONAL FOREST) ' ~ 0 N U 7 Q � m pc N m G a y� z W OJAI FILLMORE ,VENTURA –' PIRU RIVER _ SANTA PAULA I — VALLEY. NORTH ++ - COAST VENTURA -` ` " t I .-•MOORPARK .:• SIMI VALLEY LAS POSAS OXNARD THOUSAND OAKS k CAMARILLO O AK PARK" L AREAS OF INTEREST / SPHERES OF INFLUENCE PORT I �AIWA a�01DR, 1 — Ww a HUENEME SOUTH r' COAST J I Jr Ti!E C�nZEN PLANNERS PROJECT OF VFN7URA CO;:.\,Y - 5 N MAR:N S-Rn-r - Sum 131 - TIIOLswD Ox , G1 - 93160 - 605) 49 >10' 5 - FAX (4O5) 373 3-" -22- "All new knowledge starts as heresy." Amory Lovins Amory Lovins, co- founder with Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) located near Aspen, Colorado, where research teams work on five areas of study: energy, water, agriculture and global security. The institute wants to show how energy efficiency can eliminate U.S. oil imports, reduce urban smog, acid rain and global warming, and save Americans trillions of dollars over the next 10 to 20 years. Amory Lovins greatest heresy was his contention that economic growth and increased energy usage did not have to go hand in hand. History has proved him right. Since 1973, the U.S. economy has grown by 46 percent while energy usage has risen only S percent — an historic accomplishment. Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes Don't resist them -that only creates sorrow Let things flow naturally forward, LAO -TSE The Citizen Planners Projoct of Ventura County • 509 Rtarin St. • Suite 131 • Thousand Oaks, CA • 91360 • (805) 495 -1025 • FAX (803) 373 -3509 1 After a time of decay comes the turning point. The powerful light that has banished returns. There is movement, but it is not brought about by force ... The movement is natural, arising spontaneously. For this reason the transformation of the old becomes easy. The old is discarded and the new is introduced. Both measures accord with the time; therefore no harm results. -1 Ching Fritjof Capra chose the above ancient symbols and saying for the opening of his book, The Turning Point. He states that we have reached a time of dramatic and potentially dangerous change, a turning point for the planet, one that allows the forces transforming our world to flow together as a positive event for social change. ' %believe that the world -view implied by modern physics is inconsistent with our present society, which does not reflect the harmonious interrelatedness we observe in nature. To achieve such a state of dynamic balance, a radically different social and economic structure will be needed: a cultural revolution in the true sense of the word. The survival of our whole civilization may depend on whether we may bring about such a change." Fritjof Capra The 1 Ching (literally translated means - The Book of Change) dates back to the third millennium B.C., and may be the oldest book on the planet. The Book of Change was a cooperative effort spanning many centuries. The oldest, deepest stratum of ideas in the book was probably handed down from the elders of the nomadic Siberian tribes, the same tribes that sired both the Oriental and American cultures. These early authors of the 1 Ching observed the stars and tides, the plants and animals, and the cycles of all natural events. At the same time, they observed the patterns of relationships in families and societies, the practice of business, the craft of government, the grim an of warfare, the eternal human dramas of love, ambition, conflict and honor. They made no attempt to create a fixed chart of the cosmos. Instead, they organically grew a guide to the way things change: a marvelous, fluid, interconnected systemsof relations. CITIZEN PLANNERS PROJECT OF VENTURA COUNTY An ongoing educational and consensus building forum established for the following purpose: "To create a comprehensive plan for Ventura County to improve the quality of life by creating sustainable communities a ndp reserving and enhancing the integrity of the natural environment." TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 The Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager March 6, 1992 Reopened General Plan Hearing 00001 (805) 529 -6864 Mayor Lawrason, City Attorney Cheryl Kane and I met on March 4, 1992 to review the procedures for the reopened hearing. These procedures are as follows: 1. Any written comments received before the Hearing closed on February 12, 1992 and not previously made a part of the record, and any written comments received by the City Clerk between February 13 and March 12, 1992 shall be made a part of the record and included in the agenda packet prepared for the March 18, 1992 reopened hearing. Written comments received from March 13, 1992 to March 18, 1992 shall be entered into the record at the March 18 hearing. 2. Minutes of the City Council meetings since February 12, 1992, at which public comment about the General Plan was received, shall be included in the agenda packet for the March 18, 1992 hearing and made a part of the record. 3. Before closing of the reopened March 18, 1992 hearing, the Mayor and each Councilmember who has had personal contacts regarding the General Plan Update is requested to make a determination if relevant new information was received outside of the hearing process. If the answer is "no ", then that Councilmember should make a statement that the information he received is already on the record. If the answer is "yes ", then that Councilmember should state the new relevant information on the record. 4. If new relevant information is received by a .- Councilmember after the close of the reopened public hearing, such information should not be used by the Councilmember in reaching his decision PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Pr,nt —i nn P: .vcled P—r 1111. -- The Honorable City Council March 6, 1992 Page 2 on the General Plan Update. 5. At the reopened hearing, those persons who have previously addressed the Council during the General Plan Update hearing will be allowed to provide only new information. The length of an individual's testimony at the hearing will not be limited. 6. After the close of the reopened hearing, the Mayor will not allow people to address the General Plan Update during the public comment portion of City Council meetings. 7. The City will retain the audio and video tapes of all City Council meetings at which the General Plan Update was addressed until written direction to the contrary is provided to the City Clerk from the City Attorney. SK:sc 361.tem Revised 3 -12 -92 MOORPARK ooeoa 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: March 13, 1992 (CC Meeting of 3- 18 -92) SUBJECT: LIST OF REPORTS AND CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE BEGINNING OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Discussion The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with a reference list of all reports and correspondence received by the Council since the beginning of the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on October 11, 1991 through March 12, 1992. In addition, consistent with City Attorney direction, any correspondence and public testimony received between March 12 and the final closure of the public hearing should also be identified and made part of the record. A. Final and Draft EIR: Final EIR dated December 1991 (includes all correspondence received during public review period from October 11 through November 26, 1991) Draft EIR dated October 1991 B. Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements dated October 1991 C. Staff Reports and Memorandums: - Staff Report dated 3 -3 -92 re revised Draft Circulation Element and attachment - Staff Report dated 2 -19 -92 re Land Use Element Goals and Policies and attachments - Memo to Council dated 2 -12 -92 re missing pages from the 2 -7 -92 Draft Land Use Element and attachments - Memo to Council dated 2 -11 -92 re Agricultural Lands Presentation - Memo to Council dated 2 -11 -92 re revised Draft Circulation Element and attachment - Memo to Council dated 2 -7 -92 re revised Draft Land Use Element and attachment PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Printed On Recycled Paper 00004 The Honorable City Council March 13, 1992 Page -2- - Staff Report dated 1 -30 -92 and attachments - Memo to Council from City Manager dated 1 -29 -92 re information from Messenger Investment Company - Staff Report dated 1 -24 -92 and attachments - Copy of Memo to General Plan Participants re presentation for 1 -22 -92 public hearing - Staff report dated 1 -17 -92 and attachments (includes Planning Commission Resolution) - Memo to Council dated 1 -10 -92 re suggested agenda outline for 1 -22 -92 meeting - Memo to Council dated 1 -7 -92 re missing pages in Final EIR - Copy of memo to Planning Commission dated 12 -31 -91 re draft Planning Commission resolution for General Plan Update - Copy of Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 10 -31 -91 re General Plan Update, Sphere of Influence Study Environmental Impact Report D. Comment Letters on Final EIR: Memorandum from County Resource Management Agency dated 2 -3 -92 - Letter from Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency to County dated 2 -2 -92 -- - Certificate of Appropriateness from County Cultural Heritage Board dated 11- 25 -91, received 2 -11 -92 E. Correspondence Received from Close of Public Review Period for Draft EIR until First City Council Public Hearing (11 -26 -91 through 1 -22 -92 but prior to 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing): - Mr. & Mrs. M. Gutierez letter received 1 -22 -92 - Edith Frazier received 1 -22 -92 - Barbara Withers letter received 1 -22 -92 - The Levy Company project description booklet dated 1 -22 -92 - Karol, Geoff & Cohn Smith letter dated 1 -17 -92 - James & Lynnette Scaroni letter dated 1 -20 -92 - Development Planning Services letter dated 1 -15 -92 - Gilbert S. Bahn letter received 1 -15 -92 - Monica Flaunders postcard received 1 -14 -92 - Tom Schleve (West View Development) prospective received 1 -7- 92 - County Resource Management Agency letter dated 12 -20 -91 - M. Behbahany letter dated 12 -2 -91 F. Correspondence Received During City Council Public Hearing Period from 1 -22 -92 through 2 -8 -92: - Lowell & Willa Withington letter received 2 -8 -92 - Moorpark Unified School District letter dated 2 -7 -92 - David H. Anderson letter dated 2 -7 -92 - Messenger Investment Co. Hidden Creek Ranch description 00005 The Honorable City Council March 13, 1992 Page -3- booklet and transmittal letter dated 2 -6 -92 - Rene Mayfield letter dated 2 -6 -92 - Buena Hubbard letter received 2 -3 -92 - Cynthia Hubbard letter dated 2 -1 -92 - Project Moorpark Organization notice ( "Battle is Not Over ") received 2 -1 -92 - Monica Savic letter dated 2 -1 -92 - Jim Sawar letter received 2 -1 -92 - Roseann Mikos letter dated 1 -31 -92 - Dawn Mortara letter dated 1 -31 -92 - W. J. La Perch letter dated 1 -31 -92 - Moorpark Unified School District letter dated 1 -31 -92 - SCAG letter on Draft EIR dated 1 -30 -92 - Development Planning Services letter dated 1 -29 -92 - Circle T. Corporation letter dated 1 -28 -92 - Leavens Ranches letter dated 1 -27 -92 - Urban Strategies letter received 1 -27 -92 - Mr. & Mrs. Merritt Riggs letter received 1 -23 -92 - Patton N. Leaver letter dated 1 -23 -92 - Unocal letter dated 1 -22 -92 - JEMCO letter dated 1 -22 -92 G. Correspondence Received Subsequent to Public Hearing Closure from 2 -8 -92 through 3- 12 -92: - Circle T letter dated 3 -10 -92 - Chamber of Commerce letter dated 3 -10 -92 - Messenger Investment Co. letter dated 3 -3 -92 - Petition from concerned residents on Elderberry and Penrose Avenues received 2 -26 -92 - Meeting Notes from February 18 meeting held at Mary Kairouz's home received 2 -26 -92 - H. E. Baher letter dated 2 -26 -92 - Development Planning Services letter dated 2 -20 -92 - Gary Louis letter dated 2 -19 -92 - Dennis Miller letter received 2 -19 -92 - Chamber of Commerce letter dated 2 -18 -92 with draft economic development and employment goals and policies Recommendation That the City Council adopt the above listing of reports and correspondence as information which has been considered as part of the update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements, Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, and related EIR. PJR /DST 1111 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT NOVEMBER 26, 1991 - JANUARY 22, 1992 Mooroark Citv Council Moornark~ Ca. Dear Council members. ��°r �xwu�� 11801 Alderbrook St Moorpark~ 93021. I have not been able to attend any meetings, but I am just as concerned about the new exoansion olans for Mooroark. � that we WILL EVENTUALLY face if you folks have your way. NO SIR, NO MORE DEVELOPMENT, NO MORE MINI MALLS AND ENOUGH OF NONSENSICAL EIRs FROM DEVELOPERS. Thankyou for listeninq. _ ` M. Behbahany � . � � . � 0~~f ��- , J- ��x° /�`4�- x+~�~ ~OT _~ ^^E°°E^~E~- DEC M5 1991 City of Moorpark What is wronq with being a city of 25000 people? What is wronq with having no mail? What is wronq with having ooen . Epace? What is wrong with _ having natural and undeveloped areas? What is wronq with being the way we are? SMALL AND COUNTRY LIKE! We like Moorpark the way it is. So please leave it alone. Enough of this nonsense about necessary development. Learn from those cities that are choking with all the problems � that we WILL EVENTUALLY face if you folks have your way. NO SIR, NO MORE DEVELOPMENT, NO MORE MINI MALLS AND ENOUGH OF NONSENSICAL EIRs FROM DEVELOPERS. Thankyou for listeninq. _ ` M. Behbahany � . � � . � 0~~f ��- , J- ��x° /�`4�- x+~�~ ~OT _~ ^^E°°E^~E~- DEC M5 1991 City of Moorpark DEC -20 -91 FRI 17:51 _ RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY county of ventura December 20, 1991 Mr. Patrick Richards Planning Director City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 SUBJECT: Proposed General Plan Update Dear Patrick: FIL Ep. SOP 1111: THOMAS BE Agency Dire The County has reviewed the . above-ref erenced document and ent comments regarding the EIR s to your, office on November 21, 1991. As of this date we have not received a response to those comments. It has come to our attention that the Planning Commission is hearing this item tonight for final packaging of a resolution to the City Council. The County has concerns With this proposed project that need to be addressed. . The impacts of adding 11, 800 acres to -the City, including 2o,000 dwelling. units, -on land now Planned- f-or :open space and agricultural use are. significant. As proposed, the expansion of the city will have major impacts on the Regional Road Network and on the conversion of prime farmland and farmland of Statewide importance. These issues, including consideration of alternatives have not been sufficiently addressed in the EIR. While the County acknowledges the city's need to identify areas for future growth, the current proposal which includes development of 8,777 acres in eight specific plan areas, would urbanize far more land than needed to meet the plan's apparent Similar population growth /ur an developme t growth could objects. accommodated within a far smaller area. By such concentration, considerable amounts of agricultural and open space land would be saved. Unfortunately, no assessment of alternative urban development patterns has been made. Discussion of such development alternatives could and should be added to the "Alternatives to the Proposed Action" section of the EIR, if the city wishes to seriously consider expanding the city ,s boundaries. This would ro give the City Council reasonable alternatives to the proposed concentrated p p project. If future growth were more .., thin s potential benefits of development could be such g as a source of reclaimed water for agricultural use, Possible improved jobs /housing balance and public transit opportunities. Government Center, Hall of Administration Building, L #1700 �� 2CO c ^.'_ "h Vi(,tn /In A11P11i1P Vonli— rA G'i000 !±?/"G1 Crw - - r "DECj20 -91 F'.R17:52 P. 03 r „ •:� �.. fkr v:. • r 00009 Patrick Richards December 20, 1991 Page 2 I am confident that you will pass these concerns on to the Planning Commission before further action is taken. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the County's concerns in general, please feel free to contact me at at 654 -2497. �-z661 or Bruce Smith Sincerely • Thomas Berg, D• ctor Resource Manag merit Agency CC., Supervisor Vicky Howard Bob Braitman,- LAFCO Art Goulet, PWA Earl McPhail, Ag. Comm. Office Bruce smith, Planning 12 213 462 3721 SOLAR ELECTRONIC 01/07/92 14:53 001 Ins(runients and ACCCSSOric, for 1_lectromagnctic: Compatibility 00010 RFI /EMC Consultants SOLAR ELECTRONICS COMPANY A DIVISION OF A. T. f ARKEK, INC. �r 901 NORTH HIGHLAND AVCNUE 1 IOI.LYW000, CALIFORNIA 90038 TELEPHONE (213) 462 -0800 TCLF.X No. 9109971421(SOIAR EMU FAX.: (113) 462 -3721 DATE: JANUARY 7, 1991 TO: FAX. NO.: NAME:. -CITY OF MOORPARK ATTENTION: STEVE KUENY FROM: ROY TALLEY REF.: COMMENTS: STEVE, HERE IS A COPY OF THE PROSPECTIVF FROM TOM SCHLEVF.. PLEASE'RLLAY COPY-TO. PAT AND OTHER COUNCILMLMBERS, THANKS ROY a 213 462 3721 SOLAR ELECTRONIC 01/07/92 14:54 002 00011 cr `vI o a vt�vptnti� Lq ?om Sch fcv " GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION 71 Acre project consisting of 13 Acres to be zoned for Condos or Apartments, 31- 1 Acre Custom Home View Lots, Private Park, and Public Park. Property is being Optioned by Tom Schleve.DBA West•View Development a Limited Partnership. Option began in 1988. Property is currently in the General plan Update with the City of Moorpark for rezoning. City Manager Steve Kuehney expects the General Plan Update to be complete, hopefully, in September 1991. At that time, with the zone change the project should be worth: 13. Acres High Density 180 -200 Units. $25,000 per unit. 31- 1 Acre Lots 9 $200,000 each Our Terms of Purchase are: Purchase Price: $3,500,000 Deposit 100,000 Down Payment 1,000,000 OWC 1st T.D. 2,500,000 ,$.5,000,000 5,200,000 $11,200,000 All option Payments are applied towards down payment, to date approximately $180,000 has been spent. There are 3 more Option payments due at $25,000 each. Each partner pays his portion based upon his percentage of investment. 'Ilrest 'I pie u� 2)evelo f,�r�rt t • T.O. Bvx 610 "'foor-par, Ca6iforrria 93020 • (805) 529 -4992 ab 0 213 462 3721 SOLAR ELECTRONIC 01/07/92 14:54 003 U v e s t VI-e-,o eve lo p 14�fi 7ornSchftUc PERCENT F P ION 1.D09b 1.6091 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.OD% 4.50% 5.00% $1,500,000 15,000 2250 ,0 30,000 37,500 45,000 57500 60,000 67,500 75,000 $1,600,000 16,000 24,000 32,000 40,000 48,000 56.000 64,000 72,000 80,000 $1,700,000 17,000 25,500 94,000 42,500 51,000 59,500 68,000 76.500 85,000 51,800,000 18,000 27,000 36,000 45.000 54,000 63,000 72,000 81,000 90,000 $1,500,000 19.000 28,500 38,000 47,500 57,000 66,500 76,000 85,500 95,000 S2,000,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 $2,100,000 21,000 31,500" 42,000 52.500 63,000 73,500 84,000 '94,500 105,000 $2,200,000 22,000 33,000 44,000 55,000 66,000 77,000 88,000 99,000 110,000 $2,300,000 23,000 34,500 46,000 57,500 69,000 80,500 92,000 103,500 115.000 $2,400,000 24,000 36.000 48,000 60,000 72,000 84,000 96,000 108,000 120,000 $2,500,000 25,000 37,500 50,000 62,500 75,000 87,500 100,000 112.500 125.000 $2,600,000 26,000 39,000 52,000 65,000 78,000 91,000 104,000 117.000 130,000 $2,700,000 27,000 40,500 54,000 67,500 81,000 94,500 108,000 121,500 135,000 52,800,000 28,000 42,000 56,000 70,000 84,000 98,000 112,000 126,000 140,000 $2,900,000 29,000 43,500 58,000 72,500 87,000 101,500 116,000 130,500 145,000 $3,000,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 105,000 120,000 135.000 150,000 Z $3,100,000.. •31,000. 46,500 62;000 . - 77,500 93,000_ 108;500 124,000 139,500. 155,000 $3,200,000 32,000 48,000 64,000 -80.000- 96,000 112,000 128,000 144,000 1601000 $3,300,000 33,000 49,500 66,000 82,500 99,000 115,500 132.000 148,500 165,000 P $3,400,000 34,000 51,000 68,000 85.000 102,000 119,000 136,000 153,000 170,000 R $3,500,000 35,000 52,500 70,000 87,500 105,000 122,500 140,000 157,500 175,000 0 $3,600,000 36,000 54,000 72,000 90,000 108.000 126.000 144,000 162,000 180,000 -C $3,700,000 37,000 55,500 74,000 92,500 111,000 129,500 148,000 166.500 185,000 E $3,800,000 38,000 67,000 76.000 95,000 114,000 133,000 152,000 171,000 190,000 $3,900,000 39,000 58,500 78,000 97,500 117,000 136,500 156,000 175.500 195,000 T 1 $4,000,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 S4, 100, 000 41,000 61,500 82,000 102.500 123,000 143,500 164,000 184,500 205,000 $4,200,000 42,000 63,000 84,000 105,000 126,000 147,000 168,000 189.000 210,000 $4,300,000 43,000 64,500 86,000 107,500 129,000 150,500 172,000 193,500 215,000 $4,400.000 44.D00 66,000 88,000 110,000 132.000 154,000 176,000 198,000 220,000 14,500,000 45.000 67,500 90,000 112.500 135,000 157,500 180,000 202,500 225,000 $4,600,000 46,000 69,000 92,000 115,000 138,000 161,000 184,000 207,000 230,000 $4,700,000 47,000 70,500 94,000 117,500 141,000 164.500 188,000 211,500 235,000 $4,800,000 48,000 7200 96,000 120.000 144,000 168,000 192,000 216,000 240,000 $4,900,000 49,000 73,500 98,000 122,500 147,000 171,500 196,000 220.500 245.000 $5,000.000 50.000 75,000 100.000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 250,00o 55,100,000 51,000 76,500 102,000 127,500 153,000 178,500 204,000 229,500 255,000 $5,200,000 52,000 78.000 104,000 130.000 156.000 182,000 208,000 2:14,000 260,000 $5,300,000 53,000 79,500 106,000 132,500 159,000 185,500 212,000 238,500 265,000 $5,400,000 54,000 81,000 108,000 135,000 162,000 189,000 216,000 243,000 270.000 $5,500,000 55,000 82,500 110,000 137,500 165,000 192,500 220.000 247,500 275,000 $5,600,000 56,000 84,000 112,000 140,000 168.000 19G,000 224,000 252.000 280.000 U5,7gosoo I 57,000 �,OQ _ _ 114,000 142 $00 171 000 199.500 2 ?8 000 255 son ?A, nnn `!best ViewDeve(oprrtcttt - P.n.'Box.610 • Moogmrk C.a(ifornitiJ3020 • (805)529 -49A• do 213 462 3721 SOLPP ELECTRONIC 01/07/92 14:55 0e400013 n p� p� co LLJ IL A6. -43 X f Ito. a 213 462 3721 SOLAR ELECTRONIC 01/07/92 14:56 CITY OF MOORpARK GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS .. 00014 As part of the general plan update, land use designation amendment requests that have been selected by the City Council for consideration will be evaluated and recommen . tions will be made for a land use change or to maintain the existing lamed da designations. Ten requests for General Plan Amendments are, currently on file covering Use a total of 1001 acres. These requests are listed below and tdcnciled on the, attached exhibit A list of the General Plan o land -use designations is attached for information nmation General Plan t# 89 -1A 89 -1B 89 -IC 89 -1D 89- IE 89 -IF 89 -G 89 -1 H 89 -1I 89 -1J Moorpark Ruch & 35.4 Milling, Inc. Moorpark Unified School 26.1 District Scaroni 1.75 Schleve 70.59 Current P VH AG1 OS1 OS 1, RL RIB AG I El I M ML RL Proposed C2 H RL L I -1 C -2, H, M, I., R77', RL H, VH, C2 H, VH CO RH, OS -1, VH, Park Anderson 3.86 Estes 3453 Guny 64.75 TBR Development Co. 445.0 Kavl} 29.93 Levy Co. 289.46 Moorpark Ruch & 35.4 Milling, Inc. Moorpark Unified School 26.1 District Scaroni 1.75 Schleve 70.59 Current P VH AG1 OS1 OS 1, RL RIB AG I El I M ML RL Proposed C2 H RL L I -1 C -2, H, M, I., R77', RL H, VH, C2 H, VH CO RH, OS -1, VH, Park a 213 462 3721 SOLAR ELECTRONIC 01/07/92 14:57 006 00015 CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS As part of the general plan update, land use designation amendment requests that have been selected by the City Council for consideration will be evaluated and rccommenda- tions will be made for a land use change or to maintain the existing land use designations. Ten requests for General Plan Ameadments are currently on file, covering a total of 1001 acres. These requests are listed below and identified on the attached exhibit. A list of the General Plati land use. designations is attached for information purposes. General Plan Current Proposed Amendment # , lame P rip_ 89 -1A Anderson 3.86 VH C2 89- IB Estes 34.53 AG 1 H 89 -1C Guny 64.75 OSi RL 89 -1D JBR Development Co. 445.0 OS1 RL I, 89 -1E Kavli 29.93.. 89 -1F Levy Co. 289.46 AG1 C -2, H, M, L, RH, R?_ 89 -G Moorpark Ranch & 35.4 ML H, VH, Milling, Inc, C� 89 -1H Moorpark Unified School 26.1 S Ilo VH District 89 -11 Scaroni 1.75 ML CO 89-11 SchIeve 70.59 RL RH, OS -1, VH, Park i -.i < LAJ 0 qc CIC S 54 ------ - - - --- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - JiL -- - - - - - - - - - -- PA 9 0 F1 4 . . . . . . 3 I XTS '4 to 35 4r -71 r% m n MOORPARK5,' "Or ; � �, I , �, � . � I 1 1! 6LU. . --q 0 :4 Z fli FPVVV p.VALLFV mm fD G pal E ts L e Ln -13 .0 j, - - A v =9•ZL.. rl -t•1 6 fD lfl I 7L� O fD lfl I 7L� U 3 a 213 462 3721 SOLAR ELECTRONIC 01/07/92 14:58 009 00018 (A REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICE) June 22, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Schleve P.O. Rox 610 Moorpark, CA 93020 Re: Description, sales comparisons, etc., for the subject property list- ed by the following parcel numbers, 512 -0 -010 -010, 512 -0 -010 -025, 512 -0- 010 -055, 512 -0- 020 -010, 512- 0-020- 020, 512 -0- 030 -010, 512 -0- 030 -025, 512 -0 -040 -035, 512 -0 -040 -040, 512 -0- 040 -070, 512 -0- 040 -130, 512 -0- 040 -145, 512 -0-040 -1.50, 512 -0 -050 -010, 512 -0 -050 -140, 512 -0 -050 -150 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schleve, The subject property is located in a close proximity to downtown Moorpark. Good location. Subject property can be accessed by (3) different roads. Subject property offers good views of the hills and the city of Moorpark. Subject property consists of 71 acres of raw land. Raw land for high and very high density use is difficult to obtain in the Moorpark area because there are only a few parcels zoned for that type use. • After thoroughly researching CMDC, Dainar, K_% and Public Records, it was necessary to go back to 1989 to obtain cxnparables on raw land for multi- family use. Listed below are some statistics related to the subject pro - ;rty: 1. 5 acre parcels of raw land, zoned for one dwelling, are selling for approximately $300,000. 2. Tn the Moorpark area l acre randcxn parcels are selling between $175,000 to $225,000. Current listing prices average $185,000. 3. Orchid Downs, a new subdivision in the Moorpark area, are selling their one acre parcels anywhere betlroun $250,000 to 1450,000, price is deter- mined by usable lot size, and views. 4. Custom one acre parcels of raw land, within a 10 mile radium, are selling between 1300,000 to $400,000 per acre. 1:xdmple would be the Bella Vista tract in Camarillo. 23042 COVELLO STREET • WEST HILLS. CALIFORNIA 91307 • (818) 715 -0051 S r- a 213 462 3721 SOLAR ELECTRONIC 01/07/92 14:59 010 �'l So,��,79' (A REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICE) 00019 Regarding condominium sales in the Moorpark area- l. 2 Bedroom - Average Sales Price - $115,000 2. 3 Wdrom -- Average Sales Price - $160,000 Apartment Rentals in the Moorpark area: 1. Ire Club - 2 Bedroom - $750.00 3 Bedrow - $930.00 2. Woodcreek - 1 Bedroom - $725.00 to $790.00 2 Bc -drom - $875.00 to $950.00 After thoroix3hly evaluating all the data, I feel that the value of the 71 acres "As Is" is, approximately $60,000 per acre, or Four Million, Two Hundred 'thousand Dollars, ($4,200,000). Cordially, A. HorowiEz, CRFA, Class I1 Appraiser AH /ch ' 23012 COVELLO Sl REC I • WES7 HILLS. CALIFORNIA 91307 • (818) 715 -0051 00020 00021 4519 14. Ashtree St. Moorpark CA 93021 14 January 1992 City of Moorpark 799 P-Ioorpark Ave. - Moorpark CA 93021 -1756 In reaction to the Notice of Public Hearing on the General Plan Update and the Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, I wish to be on record as follolis: I agree with the Planning Commission's rejection of the plan to include land outside the city limits in the city's Sphere of Influence. I hope that the General Plan Update will not provide for any increase of the city popula- tion above whatever limit is already in existence (taking into account developments already provided for but not yet made, and making no allowance for future requests for waivers); in other words, I hope that Moorpark will not increase in size above what has already become inevitable. Gilbert S. Bahn -- RECEIVED - JAN 1 519 City of Worm DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES January 15, 1992 651 Via Alondra, Suite 714 Camarillo, CA 93012 (805) 484 -8303 - Fax: 484 -8993 The Honorable Paul Lawrason, Jr., Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Sirs: I am writing on behalf of my client, The Levy Company, owners of the 285 acre parcel referred to as Specific Plan Area #1 or GPA 89-117 in the current General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Update. This letter will address our items of concern for Specific Plan Area #1 relative to .the Environmental Impact Report. This information is a summation of our concerns as raised in the Planning Commission hearings and in previous letters to the Planning Department staff. The items are as follows, with existing EIR text underlined, and our recommended changes or corrections typed in boldface: Page 5 -Land Use (lines 4 to 7): Under land use mitigation measures we recommend that the statement be amended to read "... to require that specific plans provide a minimum of 25% open space acreage which may be dedicated to the city, the park district or a to-be- created local open space agency," This would provide a mechanism within the General Plan to insure maintenance and preservation of these open spaces. Page 5 -Land Use (line 7): Beginning at this point and continuing throughout the document the phrase "to restrict -grading on slopes of 20 percent or greater" is used. Under any existing grading ordinances In surrounding Ventura County communities there is specific exemption from the grading limitations related to construction of roadways shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. It has also been the intent of recent draft grading ordinances under consideration by the City of Moorpark to allow flexibility in Specific Plan areas to grade in areas over 20% when the benefits outweigh the impacts. Further, redevelopment areas are routinely granted waivers from these ordinances in areas of benefit to the district. As a result, we would request that the phrase be amended throughout the General Plan and EIR to read "to minimize grading on slopes of 20 percent n� t or greater ". This would provide the Planning staff and Commission the potential to make case -by -case decisions on slope preservation, consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, Specific Plan criteria, and Redevelopment District goals and policies. Page 6- Transportation /Circulation (line 9 to 15): Under transportation /circulation mitigation measures we would request amending the phrase (by addition of the boldface text) to read "All roadway additions. upgrades downgrades and deletions within development project boundaries recommended in Section 3.2 shall be Implemented as development occurs to accommodate the proposed General Plan Land Use Plan." This would clarify the responsibility of future development to build all on -site improvements proposed in the circulation plan. Public AgencN, Entitlement • Planning Design • Project Management 00023 Honorable Paul Lawrason, Jr. and City Council CITY OF MOORPARK General Plan Update EIR January 15, 1992 Page Two Page 12- Aesthetics (line 4 to 10): Under aesthetics mitigation measures delete the words "hillside development ordinance or ". The text would read "The city shall employ a mechanism such as a viewshed preservation criteria in order to protect visually significant horizon lines ... in the community." This criteria would be far more flexible in achieving the desired mitigation than an ordinance. Page 29 -Table 2, Land Use Plan - Statistical Summary: In addition to the existing Table 2 it would be appropriate to provide either a land use map or table of all existing approved, unbuilt units and additional units being created by this General Plan Update. By including this information in the same manner that the General Plan and EIR give unit totals for the specific plan areas future Planning Commissions and City Councils would be able to keep accurate track of how individual project densities and unit totals are being approved and built out in relation to the overall General Plan maximum unit totals. The significance of this table would be that the city staff could clearly identify the infra - structure needs within the city and could project future developments to spread infra - structure costs through in preparation of five -year capital improvement budgets. Page 32- Incorporated Areas : The first paragraph of this text implies that portions of Specific Plan #1 are classified as either Prime or Statewide significant agricultural lands. A comparison of Exhibit 6 of the EIR (Important Farmlands Inventory) and Exhibit 3 of the EIR (Existing General Plan) shows that neither Prime or Statewide significant agricultural land is located within Specific Plan #1 or the existing AG -1 397 acres shown in Exhibit 3 of the EIR. The nearest area of Statewide significance on Exhibit 6 is located within the RH and RL land use categories immediately north of the 397 acre AG -1 area. There is no loss of agricultural land in this plan area, therefore there is not an adverse environmental impact. The following two sentences should be deleted from this paragraph in their entirety: (line 5 and 6) "Of this 397 acres ap roximately 177 acres of this land is classified as "Prime" and "Statewide" farmland." (line 11 and 12) "Additionally, the loss of agricultural lands classified as Prime and Statewide Significance may also be considered a significant adverse impact." The inclusion of this text by the EIR consultant in the Final General Plan EIR will leave an error in the document which will have to be addressed and corrected in the subsequent EIR for Specific Plan Number 1. Page 49 W 51- Traffic /Impacts (last line of page 49 through line 7 of page 51): This section includes a discussion of the east -west SR 118 bypass arterial. The concern is related to the statements regarding the westerly terminus of this bypass road at Butter Creek Road. The EIR does not address the noise or air quality impacts caused by stopping, idling, and starting motions by heavy truck traffic on existing residences adjacent to this proposed arterial /arterial intersection. Our office's field evaluation of the area north of Los Angeles Avenue and beyond the storm drain facilities, railroad tracks, and Southern California Edison power lines indicates that there are no site constraints created by moving the westerly terminus of the bypass roadway approximately 850 feet west of the location shown on the Austin - Foust /PBR Circulation Plan exhibits. This intersection location would allow for proper land planning of any new structures or land uses as it is now vacant land. This would also eliminate the land use and environmental conflicts which will exist at the currently proposed Butter Creek /118 bypass arterial connection. 0004 Honorable Paul Lawrason, Jr. and City Council CITY OF MOORPARK General Plan Update EIR January 15, 1992 Page Three Under our proposed relocation to the west the new 118 bypass arterial would bisect the vacant industrial properties represented Bugle Boy and JEMCO, eliminating the need for construction of "B" Street in the Circulation Element. The land to the south of Los Angeles Avenue at the connection is Specific Plan #5, also currently undeveloped. Under this plan there would be a signalized intersection 850 feet west of Butter Creek Road to carry through traffic around the city on the 118 bypass arterial and the existing signalized intersection 1800 feet east of Butter Creek Road at Tierra Rejada Road. Primary signalized access for Butter Creek residents would remain at Tierra Rejada Road. Revision should be as follows: (page 51, line 3 to 6) "The alignment of the SR -118 bypass either 850 west of or with Butter Creek Road provides ade uate spacing for a railroad grade separation. SR -118 bypass access south of the railroad and signalized SR 118 bypass and Los Angeles Avenue access for development south of Los Angeles Avenue." We have attached an exhibit and text page originally presented to the Planning Commission entitled "Circulation Exhibit /Project Highlights" and "Short Term Construction Analysis (1992- 2001)" related to the 118 Bypass Arterial Roadway concept and implementation. Page 52- Traffic Mitigation Measures (paragraph #4): This statement should be amended to reflect the inability of the City of Moorpark to construct certain mitigation measures on roadways which are under the control of Cal- Trans. r Page 89 and 90: The Land Use Element and the EIR should reflect the redevelopment district as a mitigation tool to encourage and fund development of affordable housing units. Through the incentives available to the city and developers within the district it is likely that more affordable housing units can be provided in a variety of densities. Page 93- Aesthetics /Mitigations: The third paragraph addresses aesthetics; our position is that the term "minimize" is appropriate relative to the grading issue. The conceptual plan for Specific Plan #1 recognizes and retains in a natural state the one significant landform on the site: the steep slope and bluff just north of Poindexter, the railroad tracks, and power lines, visible from the adjacent industrial area. Page 115 -Parks and Recreation: The parkland requirements for the population of Specific Plan #1 would be 11.4 acres at full residential build -out. The conceptual plan calls for 13 acres of usable downtown city park as well as over 70 acres of permanent open space, including a proposed public equestrian center. As this would help to mitigate the existing sub - standard parkland ratio in the downtown area this park and the ultimate downtown overall park plan should be addressed in the EIR. Page 125- Alternatives: Finally, under alternatives it should be recognized that the EIR addresses land use at the mid -range allowable density for each parcel. However, the build -out will likely be lower, based on Land Use Element guidelines. Further reductions in density, as in Alternative 2, would result in less than 450 units in Specific Plan #1. With this limited amount of development the project could not pay its' share of circulation and park improvements and would not be built. 00025 Honorable Paul Lawrason, Jr. and City Council CITY OF MOORPARK General Plan Update EIR January 15, 1992 Page Four As a result, an additional negative impact of Alternative 2 would be the lack of funding for major portions of the 118 bypass arterial roadway, elimination of potential affordable housing units, and loss of incremental redevelopment tax revenues to upgrade existing sub - standard housing units within the redevelopment district. These impacts should be addressed in any discussion of reduced density alternatives within the existing incorporated city area, and particularly with respect to Specific Plan #1. This concludes our comments and concerns over the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report relative to Specific Plan Number 1. Our firm will address some of these issues verbally at the January 22, 1992 public hearing on the EIR certification. Additionally, we will be providing you with conceptual land use plans and data for Specific Plan Number 1 prior to your next hearing in order that we may clarify the proposed implementation of the Levy Company's density and land use requests. Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments to you. Please do not hesitate to call on me if I can provide clarification to you on these or any other items. Sincerely, Dennis Hardgrave for The Levy Company Attachments: 118 Bypass Exhibit and text page (two pages total) cc: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development The Levy Company 00026 1 • S J 888 Oi C1 SSSS i+ a E- Lfo) v r r �' � �' \ - %J '. • ••-a' �' •' ^. _ ._ _ ( ;'�y�h. ( f ��_ � � !'t[�I � ijki.' u I Tl:i,\ I � • `1 �t -- ljJ - /�'j� _ � •I�r.ltl 1''!.I�I.1 SEA •:})- 0 R-la .` I _ I II�111}I•. 1:I "ii �`\'�i.1� V� tiJ'�II 7 1 — _. —,,.' • _ - ... _ -�L. uun� nun 1JI. ( I /� i� r 71 IIS; �• ,. _ .. � f lu'•_ IfT 'Q . -. -�' w I l I • •� ,,.,�c �,n rl�tv,�� :� • .... - — -- — � I �' � . I f _.. •�11 il'rirlfl ilil il'ri'lli'• )+ Iii I , A!: ,. / �. � 11 [ 10 1 / Ill � �.•.�� l� � �i -I - x � � . � ;�>. 1111,1•;;'; t•' , �'�( w L co CL O CL m 0 �' 1.. 00027 118 BYPASS ARTERIAL ROADWAY SHORT TERM CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS (1992 -2001) BASED ON CITY OF MOORPARK DRAFT GENERAL PLAN EIR & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Assumption: Completion of the 118 Bypass Arterial Roadway as shown in the PBR /Austin -Foust Traffic Analysis can be accomplished through a combination of city -wide traffic mitigation fees on all new development or construction of the actual roadway improvements within the boundaries of future developments along the route of the new roadway. The traffic mitigation fee would be based on a Capital Improvement Budget to fund the 118 Bypass Arterial Roadway, and calculated on a "per vehicle trip" basis for all residential, commercial, and industrial development within the City of Moorpark. Actual costs of 118 Bypass Arterial Roadway improvements constructed within a project would be credited against the fee otherwise due from that project. The roadway would initially be built as a four lane roadway from the western terminus of the bypass (850 feet west of Buttercreek Road at Los Angeles Avenue) to the eastern boundary of the JBR project. A two lane connection would be constructed at the Princeton Avenue interchange with the 118 Freeway ( "D" • Street in the earlier versions of the Draft Circulation Plan). Elements of the Project (see Circulation ExhibitL 1. Signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and west boundary of Bugle Boy industrial parcel (850 feet west of Buttercreek Road). 2. At -grade railroad crossing (overpass or Bypass extension to be built with future outside funding). 3. Signalized intersection at 118 Bypass and Gabbert Road. -- 4. 118 Bypass overpass /bridge over Walnut Canyon Road north of existing residential area. 5. Signalized intersection at 118 Bypass and Spring Road extension. 6. Construct "D" Street to Princeton Avenue. Proiect Feasibility under each EIR Alternative see pg.125 of Draft EIR : Project: Austin -Foust traffic analysis recommends 6 lane Bypass Roadway if Specific Plans 4 through 8 are developed. Specific Plans 4 through 8 add 148,013 Average Daily Trips to city. Alternative 1: Bypass Roadway would not be financially feasible under this alternative as Specific Plan 1 would be zoned agriculture and not be allowed to develop, and Specific Plan 2 would be developed at a Rural Low density. Land. acquisition by the city without development of these areas would increase the cost of the roadway and decrease the funding base. Alternative 2: Development of Specific Plans 1 and 2 at this density would not be financially feasible, resulting in the same effect as Alternative 1. Alternative 3: At minimum, a six lane roadway would be required. Cost of the roadway and the traffic mitigation fee base would increase. Alternative 4: DPS analysis suggests that a four lane roadway would be adequate to handle traffic generated, as long as the development of Specific Plans outside of the current incorporated area (with an additional 148,013 average daily trips and 5,015 homes) did not occur. No Project: This alternative would not provide for a Bypass roadway. All existing local traffic as well as the increasing future regional "pass through" traffic on Highway 118 would continue to travel across the city on Los Angeles Avenue for an indefinite number of years. James H. Scaroni Lynnette Scaroni 5740 W. Greentree Drive Souris, CA 93066 (805) 388 -0888 January 20, 1992 Mr. Steve Kueny City Manager CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 SUBJECT: General Plan Update Dear Mr. Kueny: This letter is in reference to our property at the corner of Walnut Canyon and Everett Streets in Moorpark (APN #512- 0 -061- 040, #512 -0- 061 -050, #512 -0- 061 -060 and #512 -0 -061 -210), which is included in the GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. As a part of the GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, we have requested that our property be included for a zone change to Residential, Very High Density for a condominium project. We feel that the land use needs for the City of Moorpark have changed substantially through recent years and would like to explain some background informa- tion on our property. The first zone change request we made was November 1985 to Resi- dential, Very High Density, with additional requests January 19861 September 1986, August 1987, and September 1987. In Janu- ary 1988 we changed our request to Commercial Office based on a survey of residential and commercial needs for the City of Moor- park. Since that time several commercial projects have been built and other projects approved. A recent survey shows that commercial development is over built in the country, including the County of Ventura. Some economists predict it will take till the year 2000 to absorb the commercial space available. We have re- evaluated the potential development of our property in accord- ance with the needs of the City of Moorpark. I.- 6 lL^; 1W.92-3 - 00029 Therefore, we request a zone change to Residential, Very High Density, for a condominium project, which would furnish special housing needs for the DOWNTOWN AREA of the CITY OF MOORPARK targeting the following households: 1. First Time Home Buyers 2. Affordable Housing 3. Redevelopment Housing 4. Single Parent Households 5. Handicapped Housing 6. Elderly Housing We would also request that you consider changing the zoning for the properties to the corner of Walnut Canyon and Wicks Road, and along Everett Street, in the same block as our property, as outlined on the attached map. Some other suggestions for your consideration of Land Use Goals and Policies in implementation of the General Plan might be: - 1. Expediting Zone Change Applications for projects in Specific Plans of the General Plan under a certain acreage. Example -under 40 acres. 2. Exemption or priority given to the projects, as listed in item #1, for annual housing allocations. 3. Exemption or priority given to projects for targeted areas, such as Downtown Area and /or Redevelopment Area of the City of Moorpark. 4. Exemption or priority given to projects furn- ishing special housing needs of the City of Moorpark. Attached for your review, please find a sample condominium project for our property. We look forward to working with you to furnish redeveloped housing in the DOWNTOWN AREA of the CITY OF MOORPARK, which requires your approval of the zoning to Very High Density as a part of the General Plan. Please feel free to contact us for any additional information or documentation regarding this request. Sincerely, mes H. Scaroni Lynnette Scaroni cc: City Council Members Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development Steve Kueny, City Manager a ' } a POR TRACT L RO. Simi Tax Rate Area 67002 67012 r ► �5 0� 67078 1 �I _ �� 16 17 5.0v s.� .� ar' (do, so' 000' hoft. 5 iJ vu / r too 50 1JJ 1 IJO b t I +a too 100 100 — — all 14 all 1 s "-� ! 4R 3 >o ' s~ 061 Mal D K � t �J o IJ� a 130 _ tto too 100 2 `�. �� EVERETT ; u �� STREET •I 1 - `\N v I Bk.Sll e S ITEM "I0 3221/405 I -1EM I1 Z347/575 4 rtE M ° IZ 3499 35'1 Y so E- W w 0 h S CHARLES z STREET t !0 Q ..1 I with �{e..tce to ttr"tt ot^'"w no tiabil-ry by r.a1wt 4 I� I ;18,1 I §I 20. ; -` ° 11 I 12 13 1 14 IS 16 17 ,f• :(D 063 so The company of nliorve thereon. I �0 2V I s� TICOR TM INSURANCE COMPANY _10 99 8 7 E 5 4 3 2 1 1, o0 McinktwiCom"Irtm Lwr tar► trm. oouar •AMtaaf onto on W RY..o oritt M is bpri S CHARLES z STREET Thi, "P w far Yw' old In locating land and otlwr par-"- Q ..1 with �{e..tce to ttr"tt ot^'"w no tiabil-ry by r.a1wt O so The company of nliorve thereon. i TICOR TM INSURANCE COMPANY �utmtawautiwnannKrcu 09 O OF CAU FORNU o0 McinktwiCom"Irtm Lwr tar► trm. oouar •AMtaaf onto on W RY..o oritt M is bpri Assessor's Mop Bk512 ePg M.L.WIcks Sub. Blks A9B R.M. Sk. 5 Pg.37 M.LWIcks TR.2 R.M Bk S P�.37_ NorE- ASIf,f°.s eatc NUN"* Shd%" w EN0806 County of wturo, Coil. -� �' . _ Ra' 5fin' F 1� _ . _.. _ ... :Ssonso►y k} �Ai�A bw SAo" M Cit I ,., t.ote1.97 ?? ? !I!��s'�?�!1< 'sa • . _ _ -*'r- , r . 00031 THE LEVY COMPANY PROJECT DESCRIPTION BOOKLET WAS NOT COPIED FOR INSERTION INTO THIS PACKET RECEIVED 00032 JAN 22 1�a,2 ly Cf= coc I of JqTF� Cr Ur IN C-cADrS HOP 9 L 14a P I .7"Ho 5; -Uw� t�oJ7 Lop cn S("f Cea/-V-yo, 1 T � � - 5 � _� CF- 00033 -/2>vg. 140 -Ve -4'L_Cr ,LLE,6-r --L V�t LoPM tt-r_ _C Cj 2 Pc-c- 5- UCH I O-A f Ylo-opver-aet�- cen .W Council Members; You are going to make some changes to the city plan.We are worried that you will do something that will make our part of the city more crowded than it is now. We certainly don't need any more apartment buildings right around Los Angeles Avenue.Already it looks as though there will be more than we need right here at Gisler Field. Don't you think that you could Find a place somewhere else for those apartments you always want us to live with? L� /?��L 7 Obi l I i 00034 Now RECEIVED Sao j AN 2 2 1992 ,,.— -s ►l ^nrn%rit 00035 To the Honorable Members of the City Council: 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark,Ca93421 To the Council: I have been reading and hearing about a new General Plan for the City of Moorpark.It seems to me that the last time this happened there were some changes that we only found out about much much later and we really had no chance for input. I 'have found out that there is a Proposal to put all of the high density in the area between Los Angeles Avenue and the arroyo.If I understand correctly the Planning Commission also approved the same thing for the lower fields and some on the land just west of the fields. It is very hard to understand what you could be thinking of if you should agree.You ought to know that you will be turning the center of our city into a rental area and probably a future slum. We don't need any more projects like Le Club near our neighborhood. We have a great deal of pride in our homes just like the people up on Peach Hill and if you load up the center of the city with multi - family buildings and apartments you are reducing the value of our homes not to mention that it will be less safe for us and our families in a very crowded downtown. You have all told us that you wanted to re- develop the downtown part-Now don't change the downtown and our neighborhood. sec dL - i 1/7 � C' A 1,3 o21 RECEIVED on JAM 2 2 t"2 City of Moorpark Ilj Moorpark City Council Memebers; You are about to make some changes in the General Plan for the city.I understand that a lot of density has been suggested for the land in the center of the city. We live in the tract called Moorpark Estates and already have Gisler Field near us- Please don't change things so that the Moorpark we like becomes rows and rows of apartments -Put apartments fur ker away from us. Sincerely, v RECEIVED JAN 2 2 1992 City of Moorpark January 19. 1992 Patton N. Leaver 12617 Crystal Ranch Road Moorpark, CA 9021 Honorable Paul W. Lawrason, Jr. Mayor City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark. CA 93021 Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, 00037 .As you embark on the determining for the citizens of Moorpark the single biggest issue today - growth, I would like to have my opinions considered for the record. The proposed revisions to the General Plan Land Use & Circulation Elements and your consideration of the Sphere of Influence Expansion Study are critical to Moorpark's future. The health. welfare, safety, and quality of life are in jeopardy. Let the record show that I am a proponent of slow, controlled growth. This is a primary reason our family resides in this fine city. Please accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission with regards to expansion of the city's boundaries into unincorporated areas. We do not need the additional 11.793 acres. Within our city limit's, please severely limit the residential and commercial expansions planned. I urge you to require the developers to increase the allotment of acres for open space, parks, and agriculture. Please don't trap us in city that's not what, where, and how we want to live. Sincerely, I - - � �,-, - RECEIVED = JAN 231992 City of Moorpark 00038 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT JANUARY 22, 1991 - FEBRUARY 8, 1992 '• �, �� / "�G�'ii�i� ii� /`�f "a.. �7LL "f �� ✓ � —�/j(� L'l� /�hiE t.- 4�a-�� 00339 YRFECEIVED - FEB 0 8 1992 City of Moorpark ��Z �i �c"/'�� jCi.� �%ic- �i -Q�-C- �-k'� . •L.c --� 7`�c -t. // 9a 5' ,�� . �� ,� -�, �� •21.x- ,, .rte -�- Xe-7 ' Ilk �;t7, ��•c•��' -fir' -ire( wants ) r acres a five- public Y RMONAL �. " -�N SPs PARK lul lty 2i , ',ion•or SP m8 ` SPECVIC PUN 7 � f open .. '. � ,;' V :�• saEGFiCPUr+ s • ' - _ LAND 1St �S Lou ;ITN .t+6 Ln K 1I0,•l .OlA • y K / 1 a rc el s ; �• .d.. O W rOr•� V. w.� ~ • �M.d W .ti �.b i ..��' } 1 I deli- .�.,..... route _ .�.,,,_�._�_�� .�..�. r Op TT� . BROADWAY °'°""° '..K I- , ��••� _. C 2s Los t � LAS, PVY'V .I oeAJ �.. .:c • ..t � .o�q•. wd Road AREA OF • ,e ^Kc - REGIONAL ...� Werth. f • . r ^,..y ..'�,..... pAHKi1: +o r rs.o MEREST :ted to SrPEC¢1C ,+ 6': -� ?. Z _� :Z eloper f� ,, ��:� {•a _ -� - ..y` '�:: r. - Would • .�1,' :..C, :.. No n....o.oiuw.�... ..t •- 1`� • ••• �; ! 1 �i .: • ^ 7r1."�`.�;�:,;�j•iti.. `• '�'.y, > /r-t .. f they G ; (• - �:.v.m. m.aeq . F V = .H. ' "i ` ; 1, lan d cl.'f 'I�ELES ' ` (•r ' )perty ;r ,,., ti„o„ ..� 3 _. . _ _.... n Ate• ,X "t-t t �s 1 e .; � PuftLr ....I.,,.m.N.. w. r1w.a D --.� • �` ,1, t�' Yom-►: _ , � • .,` , to the SPE=l�i". ` lc ^D`• / '� .j • �•r•oPJk'i�"Jj' y _ 4 } ��+ - i s ►:1tA �t ` I down - y',/ ��.# ,,d '`„••y '•�.- �- .ua.ce•. _• -� � '�'.i; • /J�'. :` ti Y windy ...... i �: -Y ..,�_._ ':�: sK �Q� - o+••o N r ra rrr / • ) t� .s..aA.o.ou.w...rw ' '•- •.0"m "mAwrAV 1dw w d con' +•�A r"Yo n ring, _«�° '� t, ..rew..wnrwa.r... w r r.�r t � � ,�,.t� ' . � • � 1• l: ..a'' � C ::.: - �` � i ' - - - - - - - - - �� t s }+ _�w../e...w...i..� wr • (Lill R9 steep cos A?:' :: T P#4 y„ _ - .. = � '•�� '•:. _ ' , - -_ ..-n ' iVal- • • _ � ,,,r.•�.. -.-,., ��• -J r"! C" A A�A�r ''"�� .��'•' r ..�'+ -• Tom_ �.. '��. ��'• � . qoor�,� .i„ • " r ., !'( 1 Off' ty ]$ '> u _ •.. `..r' .. pPEN'SPAE�', • -. ?, *;e ` ^I'��,J ...... O 'd by ��.!_ .. , ~" os2, open EXMBIT 2 GENERAL PLAN PAR I PANTS OUTSIDE OF CITY UMfTS ndis -- 23 - 19 MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 February 7, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: 00041 (805) 378 -6300 — RECEIVED — FEB 0 7 1992 City of Moorpark HAND DELIVERED The purpose of this communication is to clarify the capital outlay needs of the Moorpark Unified School District in relation to the General Plan Amendment proposals before the City Council. The District has responded to the City's request for information and comment both as an applicant and as a public entity which will be impacted by future development as proposed. In this communication the District is providing comment as an affected public agency. The District is currently levying developer fees at the highest level permitted by statute. The Board of Education will consider the Superintendent's recommendation on February 11, 1992, to increase the fee to the recently state approved maximum level of $1.65 per square foot of interior residential space and $0.27 per square foot of commercial /industrial space. These fee levels are not sufficient to meet the District's capital needs. The District established a formula for determining adequate fee level in January 1987, at that time indicating that the maximum fee allowable under statute was deficient. This situation has not improved. The maximum statutory fee is generally sufficient to meet the interim housing needs of students for a period of five (5) years or the cost of roughly fifty (50) percent of a permanent facility built to state standards. The District has been an active participant in the State Lease Purchase Program since 1986, receiving more than fifty (50) million dollars in state aid. The District's participation in this highly competitive program and its' capital financings through the leveraging of developer fees have allowed for the housing of students in adequate educational facilities in spite of the high levels of growth experienced in the District. The District will continue to seek capital outlay assistance from the state and it will continue efforts to produce income from surplus property assets. The District however, requests that the Council consider conditioning future projects in such a manner as to mitigate the deficiency of the statutory fees by imposing additional fees as allowed by the Courts in the three decisions now commonly referred to as MIRA, Hart and Murrieta Valley. The intent of this request is assure that sufficient funds are available in the future to provide adequate educational facilities in order to avoid the impacts of future development on existing .-_ schools. IWARD OF F.DUCNIION: TOM BALDWIN, President: SAM K. NAINOA. Vi" Pres:dcnt-, PANI CAS IRO. Clerk: GItI:G BARKIR. Memher. CI.INT D. HARPER, Ph.D., Member: TIIONI -VS G. Dt +FY. Ui ar.:t Supunntendcnt An Equal Opportunity Employer F 00042 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members February 7, 1992 Page Two The District's concerns may be addressed through the inclusion of language in the conditions attached to each project which requires that adequate facilities, according to the District's formula or a similar measure of need founded upon state standards, be guaranteed by the developer. It is important to note that state standards are considered a base or minimum standard in California_ Thank you for considering the District's request. If additional information is required at this time the Superintendent's Office will provide it immediately upon request. Sincerely, Thomas . Du fy District Superintendent cc: MUSD, Board of Education Steve Kueny Patrick Richards 00043 David H. Anderson 12453 Beechgrove Court Moorpark, California February 7, 1992 Moorpark City Council 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California Dear Councilmembers: Thank you for the opportunity to address the General Plan Update and the proposed boundary expansion for the City. I am in general disagreement with the proposed annexations at this time. I feel that there are a substantial number of both approved or pending residential and commercial projects within the City now to accommodate the economic viability of the community for the foreseeable future. The proposed boundary expansion will result in urban sprawl and loss of valuable open space by focusing potential growth and speculation outside the existing community. The City's efforts should be to focus on what we have available within the City before encouraging growth beyond our boundaries. In addition, the proposed specific plans for these areas are premature and inappropriate for consideration as part of a General Plan. Their merits should be reviewed individually with separate hearings on each to determine appropriate land use intensity. Whether you decide to approve the annexation or not, I urge you to adopt a meaningful growth management element to the General Plan and a workable enabling ordinance which will help ensure an economically viable and environmentally balanced community. As you know, there are new and very strong efforts under way to form a Regional Council of Governments within the Ventura County area. This is an opportunity to strengthen the County's commitment to their guidelines for orderly development, and to plan on a regional basis as to how and where additional development should occur. Once implemented, I believe comments like those from Mr. Austin with Messenger Investment Company will have no bite, and we as a community will be able to control our destiny. 't , 00044 Moorpark City Council February 7, 1992 Page 2 I urge you to not approve the proposed boundary expansion, and to work with Ventura County and the other cities through the Council of Governments Concept to coordinate growth in a regional planned manner that will preserve open space and the quality of life for Moorpark and the entire region. Thank you again for this opportunity to address this very important matter. Sincerely, David H. Anderson fAhMESSENGER I N V E S T M E N T C O M P A N Y February 6, 1992 Mayor Paul Lawrason CITY OF MOORPARK Moorpark City Hall 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 The maps attached to this letter were not copied for inclusion in the packet. 00045 RE: Proposed Inclusion of Messenger Investment Company's Hidden Creek Ranch Land Use Plan in Moorpark's Updated General Plan Dear Mr. Mayor: Messenger Investment Company (MIC) has previously advised you and the other members of the Council of its desire to annex, entitle and develop its 4,000 +/- acres as part of the City of Moorpark. At the January 29 public hearing on the General Plan Update, MIC presented its proposed plan for the development of Hidden Creek Ranch. Subsequently, Council member Montgomery asked MIC to submit our proposed plan to the City for further evaluation. Enclosed herewith is the requested information. In addition, we have enclosed an exhibit that portrays MIC's proposal in a format consistent with the terminology used on the draft General Plan. This exhibit could replace the SP #8 designations that are currently shown on the "Planning Area Land Use Plan (Unincorporated Area)" exhibits included in the draft land use and circulation elements and the EIR. Also included is a draft narrative (one page) of MIC's Hidden Creek Ranch proposal that could replace the current text describing SP #8 in the draft land use element. This narrative is consistent with the comments MIC submitted to the City concerning the Draft EIR, which are a part of the Final EIR. Finally, MIC would be happy to prepare and submit for your review and consideration draft "findings" regarding the Hidden Creek Ranch proposal that the Council may wish to use in its certification of the EIR for the General Plan Update. If this would be helpful, please let us know and we will prepare that text immediately. 17512 VON KARMAN AVENUE IRVINE, C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 7 1 4 (714)474 -1300 i FA \474 -5411 Mayor Paul Lawrason CITY OF MOORPARK February 6, 1992 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this letter and the information enclosed within, please contact us at your convenience. We appreciate the opportunity to present this material for your consideration. Sincerely, MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY X11 l�3 S =►--� William S. Messenger Jr. President WSM /GA /noh Enclosures cc: Mr. Scott Montgomery Mr. Bernardo Perez Mr. Roy Talley Mr. John Wozniak Mr. Steve Kueny Mr. Pat Richards t (2'n 6: Gary Austin Vice President 00047 SPECIFIC PLAN #8 (The following text is intended to replace the first paragraph concerning Specific Plan #8 in the City of Moorpark draft land use element of the General Plan.) "Specific Plan #8 includes approximately 4,500 acres located northerly of the eastern portion of the city limits, east of Happy Camp Regional Park. One landowner owns over 4,000 acres of the total acres included in this planning area. "The terrain varies from level areas to gently rolling as well as steep hillside areas separated by north -south trending arroyos and natural drainage features. Oaks and other mature vegetation are mainly found in the arroyos and drainage areas on the east side of the planning area. Citrus and avocado farming is limited to less than 250 acres in the southwestern area near Happy Camp Park. There are two existing homes located on the west side of the planning area. The remainder of the land is used for cattle grazing, oil extraction, and as a site for filming movies and commercials. Unocal is operating over 25 oil wells in this area and in Specific Plan #3. "A land use plan for 4,000 acre Hidden Creek Ranch has been submitted to the City, along with a request to annex the property into the City of Moorpark. The plan proposes a residential density of approximately one dwelling unit per gross acre, clustered on approximately 40% of the property. The plan proposes a wide range of residential products, including affordable housing, one or more golf courses, country club(s), tennis club, inn, equestrian center, convenience retail commercial facilities, schools and other quasi - public facilities, over 290 acres of parks, and approximately 1,800 acres of undeveloped open space." Land Use Mix (The following tabulation is intended to replace the tabulation listed in SP #8 of the draft land use element.) Total acres Total dwelling units Commercial Agriculture Schools, Parks and public /institutional Open Space Approximately 4,500 acres Approximately 1 DU /gross acre (0 -2 DU /acre at 1 DU /acre mid- range; 1DU /40 acre minimum for viable agricultural land; and allowance . of a residential density bonus for providing exceptional public benefits) To be determined during Specific Plan process Approximately 136 acres are designated as statewide prime agricultural land To be determined during Specific Plan process A minimum of 25% of total area 6 February 1992 Members of the City Council My name is Rene' Mayfield and I lire on Darlene Lane within the City of Moorpark. I am here today to express serious concerns regarding the proposed development by The Levy Company on the General Plan Update known as Specific Plan #1. My husband and I alb lied for 13 years in the Walnut Acres tract which is bordered by the 118 also known as LA. Avenue. From the time of the city's incorporation the city grew at on alarming rate and with it the traffic. The noise and air quality deteriorated and overcrowding in the area seriously diminished the enjoyment of our home. When our youngest son developed asthma we felt we had to leave that environment for his health and well -being as well as our own and also to make progress for our ultimate goal of living out in a more country like setting. Investing all our financial resources we were able to purchase the home my husband was raised in and have the opportunity to raise our children with the same ideals and opportunities we had. Having moved away from the 118 several years ago, it causes us great distress that a few years from now that some road could be near our new home and in on area so unable to deal with the problems it brings with it. I have a lot of questions regarding this project that I would like to have answers to before our City Council makes any kind of decisions. What will happen when there is an accident on the 118 at the signalized intersection at GabW. We would have no exit out of our neighborhood. What about our air quality from cars idleing during traffic jams? What about the noise the cars and trucks will generate in our otherwise quiet neighborhood. What about the train and the possiblity of it holding up traffic wishing to enter or exit this bypass? When the Metrorail starts more train traffic will begin with 8 more runs each day. There are plans I believe for putting in on apt. complex on Poindexter Avenue and with a development of 831 units at the Levy Company project and also with the development of high density at the old high school site it would create a tremendous amount of traffic on PoindexterJMoorpark Avenue /High Street & Gabbert. Living and working in Moorpark I feel gives me a pretty good prospective on traffic here. This older area will be unable to handle this problein and will be seriously impacted. While we acknowledge the right of the property owner of SP 41 to develop his land _ we have to ask at what price? His rights should not take away from our rights. The 118 bypass is a great opportunity for the city to continue forward with its plans for growth but tW there gre alternatives that may not impact us in such a way as to destroy our quality of life. Gabbert Road 00049 leading up into our neighborhood is a two lane winding narrow road without room for children walking to school or horsebackriding. The possibility of travelers making a mistaken right or left off of N 118 bypass would take them up into our area simply to have to turn around. There is no available space on Gabbert for U -turns. They would have to make a U -tam on Elwin or Darlene (these are privately owned and maintained roads by the homeowners) or turn into a private driveway. Where we live there are no street lights, cable tv, natural gas, sewer systems or curbs. Many of the papers available to Moorpark will not be delivered in our area. This is not a complaint it is simply a statement. The benefits of living this way for exceed the lack of some of these amenities. The area bordering the Levy project is one that encompasses a great deal of individuality. We have neighbors from all age groups, walks of life and nationalities who each have specific interests but share a common thread of needing open space, fresh air, solitude and the quiet that we find in our neighborhood. Each resident has devoted their lives to raising either thoroughbred horses, goats, sheep, racing pigeons, polo horses, organic vegetables, cattle, chickens, etc. Each of us have made tremendous sacrifices in trying to achieve the life style we hold so dear. My husbands family has been on Darlene lane since 1969 and rnX family has been in Moorpark since the late 1800's. Some of us in the future may move on to new areas but some of us hope to offer to our children the sense of continuity of family and Moorpark and belonging in a time when not much emphasis is placed on that anymore. This makes the proposed 118 bypass and level of density in the Levy Project simply inconceivable for our area. So gentlemen please consider tfiis offer by The Lary Company carefully. Although you do not live in our area or necessarily even share in our interests please help us to protect the quality of life that we know and love and gives the City of Moorpark the ability to honest present itself as a rural /country style city filled with uniqueness and Open space and where the needs of the resident's are given the highest priority. dhal�l �xE ��cPaL 00050 Moorpark City Council Memebers; You are about to make some changes in the General Plan for the city.I understand that a lot of density has been suggested for the land in the center of the city. We live in the tract called Moorpark Estates and already have Gisler Field near us.Please don't change things so that the Moorpark we like becomes rows and rows of apartments.Put apartments fur her away from us. Sincerely, RECEIVED' VIES - 3 1992 City of Moorpark February 1, 1992 00051 Moorpark City Hall 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: It has come to my attention that very high density is being proposed for more than one property in the "downtown" Moorpark area. My family and I reside in what was known as the "Moorpark Estates" located between Poindexter Road and Hwy. 118 (Los Angeles Ave.) We were aware of the proposed project for Gisler Field and felt that it would impact us as far as traffic congestion and incompatibility with our homes. Now we are faced with large complexes of multi - family dwellings on both sides of Poindexter Road and along the Arroyo. This would surround our existing homes with apartments which would compound problems of traffic, crime and declining property values. It appears as if you intend to "fill -in" all downtown open -space with this very high- density zoning. It is very difficult for us to enter and leave our neighborhood due to increased traffic in the City as it is. On Poindexter Road, because the School District uses Chaparral Middle School as a pick -up and drop -off for other feeder schools, we are impacted enough already. Add to that, Gisler Field, the School District "lower fields" and the A. Levy property all on Poindexter Road and you have grid -lock! We are very much opposed to this and would like you to look elsewhere for such zoning. Spread this type of zoning equitably around our City and people could still enjoy this type of housing while not creating uncomfortable living conditions for existing neighborhoods in the area. Sincerely, — RECEIVED — FEB 0 4 1992 City of Moorpark 00052 — RECEIVED — FEB - 1 1992 City of Moorpark THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER You testified before the Planning Commissiioin about the plans that will bring 20,000 people and 9,000 houses to our city. Your testimony was sincere and from the heart. Unfortunately it was not reported on or brought to the attention of the City Coouncil. At the first hearing before the Council this past Wednesday there was no testimony presente4d. Unless we repeat our testimony, the City Council will have no reason not to pass every request. We must gather again on the last opportunity we will have which is on Saturday morning the first of February at City Hall at 10:00 AM. You must be like Paul Revere and rally your friends to attend this meeting. More importantly you must come with your comments in writing. It is not enough to express your concern about the destruction of our way of life, a desecration of the hills and valleys north of our city. You MUST express your concerns in writing, and they must be concerns about air pollution, traffic congestion, lack of school facilities, the water shortage and other factors. You MUST present these arguments in writing so that if . City Council passes these massive growth developments that we can challenge them in court. Address your written comments to Mayor Lawrason and mail or deliver them to City Hall. You should also call the Couoncilmembers and express your views: Mayor Lawrason 523 -2144 Scott Montgomery 529 -6992 Roy Talley 529-..-4152 John Wozniak 529 -0329 Bernardo Perez 529 -7936 - ----In November-of-this year four council seats will become open. In order to protect our city and to determine future action we should organizee as a non- profit organizastion to become active in political, social and leadership roles. We need young, aggressive representative leaders, including women who presently are not represneted. If you would like to be part of Protect Moorpark organizastion, let us meet at City Hall early at 9:30m AM Saturday. Carpe diem ! 00053 RECEIVED FE B - 1 1992 City of Moorpark Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Monika Savic. I am a part - time instructor with the Ventura County Community College District as well as a wife and mother of two young children. I have lived in this city for eighteen months and in Southern California all of my life. I have come before you today on a matter of great importance to the future of our city: Should Moorpark expand its influence and city boundaries by nearly 18 1/2 square miles? My answer is no. Like many others in this city, my family and I moved here from a heavily populated urban area in order to improve our quality of life. When we saw the wind -swept hills and clear skies, we were impressed with the beauty of this area. And as time passed, we came to appreciate other qualities which this city is still able to offer, such as feeling safe to walk on our street after dark, and knowing that our neighborhood has confidence in our local public school. I realize that Moorpark has undergone immense change since incorporation over 8 1/2 years ago. Our downtown area is a place which used to proudly serve as the center of town, a place where all of Moorpark used to come together, but which now is being left increasingly on the wayside as many of our newer residents leave town to spend their money in other cities. Clearly, the more than $250,000 slated for renovating and redeveloping this area is needed and it is hoped that a settlement will be reached soon so that this process may begin. It is here, in the center of town, that Moorpark must come to terms with the population changes it has seen in the last several years. It is here that we must look for our sense of community. Having Moorpark more than double its size and increase the number of housing units by more than 7,000 do not seem to be factors which will enhance the quality of life presently still to be found in our city. Such a population increase would make it harder to control air pollution and would increase traffic congestion. We are also still in a period of drought; proposals for a golf course along with thousands of housing units north of Moorpark College, for example, seem out of step with the reality of our water shortage. / , c� l l 00054 I would like to address the proposed development of the hills behind Moorpark College in more detail. I live with my family in the Campus Hills area, and the open hillsides behind our home are not only beautiful but serve as habitat to a wide variety of wildlife. It has been suggested that either over 4,000 units be built in these hills with some additional land being given to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy or the developer will petition to have a new city built on this same land with no subsequent gift to the Concervancy. This threat to our ability to choose freely the type of future we envision for our city is not acceptable. This development group seems to want the same deal that was arranged with the Ahmanson Ranch coalition. That must not be allowed to happen here. Moorpark must stand firm and then go to the County Board of Supervisiors with our concerns. The arrangement which this group of developers would like to see occur will make some people very wealthy and leave the rest of us with increased congestion and lowered property values. The road which would be built through these hills, connecting Broadway with the freeway somewhere near Alamos Canyon, is being proposed in order to alleviate traffic on the soon to be old 118 and to ensure Campus Hills homeowners that any access to the new development would not pass through their neighborhood. Might I remind those who are presently upset by the uneven traffic flow on the 118 that once the freeway in completed congestion will be eased? And as far as access to the foothills is concerned, if no housing units are permitted to be built, there won't be any need to drive through anybody's neighborhood. A road along with subsequent development would spoil the hills forever. In addition, such change would not bring in the revenue hoped for in terms of increased consumer spending since those new residents would probably drive to Simi Vally or Thousand Oaks to spend their sales tax dollars; after all, they would just jump on the freeway at Moorpark College or take the new road through Alamos Canyon, and never have to see downtown Moorpark at all! A few individuals would gain from such a senario; most of us would lose. Hillsides once ravaged can never be restored. Houses once built cannot be removed. And a small town which becomes a rapidly growing city, should these areas be annexed, generally gets the problems that go along with it. Our schools would become overcrowded. There would be more people with less time to get to know each other or their community. High Street, which now may still become a vibrant center once again, would be dwarfed by a city of 40,000 or more. Moorpark would lose its hold on its past. 00055 As a mother of two young children who will grow up calling Moorpark home, I ask you to leave things the way they are. Moorpark will grow, that is inevitable. But let it grow within its present limits. Bring in new business, revitalize the downtown area, move the post office, hail the commuter train, expand the high school, build more parks. But leave the hills and valleys the way they are, since they are what help make Moorpark so unique. To quote Laguna Beach city councilman Robert Gentry, as stated in a recent issue of TIME magazine, " In Southern California, open space is becoming the symbol of quality of life." We still have the open space. We still have a chance to learn from our past as we shape our future. Please don't let this chance slip away. Thank you. ISS7(, Malcom r'A oo: Pc,r Y- CA z -/ -9;Z- M e1302 {, M/-AYo 9- L Aw ?-A-5 -4:r 0 0 0 5 6. : C ITS -rE s- "I 1-,tow y 7o TE4 E-- R7 co GE NS wELI- A!g- ?bt LQT1OA , TPA JL Hood.,. FAG t LL I "T°► Tt� -_TEtz s too r TAB ANA a 7t-t��... _ . 4 s A.i?EA ? GJ_ -` HE— fi t?- C _ �-� .i - -- v {?o ti -1 H E7 Cl _ MooZPA i RECEIVED - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - � - - . -- - - - - - -- -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - -- - - - -- F E B -�= t 1992 - -_ -- City of oorpark ---- - -. --- s Roseann 14371 E. Moorpark, January 31, 1992 Moorpark City Councilmembers: Mayor Paul Lawrason Scott Montgomery Bernardo Perez Roy Talley John Wozniak City Hall Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Sirs: Mikos, Ph.D. Cambridge St. California 93021 00054 RECEIVED FEB — 1 1992 City of Moorpark The purpose of this letter is to formally comment on the Moorpark General Plan Update issues that are currently before you. I already testified in opposition to many of the issues concerning the General Plan Update at one of the Planning Commission public hearings (on November 18, 1991) but did not provide written comments then. Let me summarize some of my concerns again now. 1. I am opposed to expanding the population of Moorpark by another 27,000 people without the infrastructure to support it. Moorpark has still not recovered from the rampant and irresponsible development that followed the passage of Measure F and preceded Measure F's implementation. A Moorpark city council deliberately ignored the will of the people of Moorpark to allow over 2000 building permits to be approved in less than one year and I am concerned that it could happen again. The stickiest point for me is trying to decide what is the best way to ensure that such irresponsible development will not happen again in Moorpark. Is it to annex the lands and hope the next Moorpark councils will be more responsible? Or, is it to leave it to the county who has a relatively good open space record but who recently has shown that it is looking for money anywhere it can get it (i.e., in the open space areas near Moorpark)? I really don't know. I only hope that whatever body gets control over this land does NOT open it to the rampant development that will overburden our already weak infrastructure. .f r' 00058 Moorpark City Council Page 2 2. I understand it would take 11 million gallons of water a day for another 27,000 people. We are still in a 6 year drought. There is no water for that many more people! I don't want a new pipeline from Castaic into Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. I don't want a major water treatment plant in Happy Camp Canyon Park. A wilderness preserve is not supposed to be the location for major infrastructure developments. If that goes into the park, we may as well kiss the wilderness preserve goodbye. I am not willing to do that - -at least not without a fight! As a member of the former Happy Camp Canyon Task Force and a keen follower of the Happy Camp Canyon Park issue, I know that if uses other than park uses are planned for the park, that would violate the terms of the land exchange agreement between the State of California and the County of Ventura (which brought the park under county jurisdiction). As such, I believe it would be grounds for causing the Happy Camp Canyon Park land to revert back to the State of California. 3. I am opposed to extending Broadway through Happy Camp Canyon Park and out to Alamos Canyon in Simi Valley. This land is now either open space or zoned for 1 dwelling in 40 acres. I see no reason to change the density and no reason for a throughway to encourage more traffic through this pristine area. I am opposed to anything that would encourage truck or other traffic through Happy Camp Canyon. 4. I am concerned that all the specific plans that are part of the study for this update could cloud the issues about each specific plan. I am afraid that if the general update passes "as is" that it could mean that the specific plans will also automatically be approved "lock, stock, and barrel." I do not want that to happen! Each specific plan should have to go through a rigorous examination and approval process, even if the general plan itself it updated to allow for certain densities that might be favorable for the developers. 5. Whatever you approve, anything. The land is developers want. They applied for changes in should be no guarantee they want. 3o not gua zoned now know this density. that they rantee any of the developers to less density than the and they knew it when they Applying for a change is and will get the zoning changes If developers have some "back- room" deal with the county that they think gives them the right to demand the changes, that is unethical and should not be tolerated. If there are no "back- room" deals, then their applications are just part of the business risk of doing development. They knew the rules before they started and if they don't get their requests, it is all part of the cost of doing business. I Moorpark City Council 00059 Page 3 Whatever you approve, make sure you include (1) a mechanism for monitoring compliance of very specifically stated mitigation measures - -all paid for by developers throughout the life of their construction /development; and, (2) stiff penalties for any non - compliance of such mitigation measures. 6. I am especially concerned about area #8, the area adjacent to Happy Camp Canyon and the Griffin Campus Hills development. When I looked at maps of that area at the planning commission public hearing, I saw little open space area near the park and large numbers of dwellings. I think it is a big mistake to increase density there so close to the wilderness preserve. Those hills are in one of the few areas left in Southern California that is relatively natural and pristine. Placing thousands of people that close to the wilderness preserve is a big mistake if we are serious about trying to maintain a wilderness preserve (which I hope we are). 7. There is nothing wrong with Moorpark being a small town. In fact, small towns have many good qualities. I hope that we can stay a small town and improve our small town - -but not at the expense of letting the county start another different town between Moorpark and Simi Valley in this area #8. I was appalled to learn that the county is considering allowing that kind of development in that area #8 if Moorpark does not annex it or make it part of the Moorpark sphere of influence. 8. How will the Moorpark school system handle the extra 27,000 people if we allow that much growth. They have had a difficult time with the quadrupling of our population since incorporation and I feel certain it will be at least as difficult if we now double the population again. 9. I urge the city council to do whatever it takes to control growth and foster as much open space as possible. Once the open space is gone, you can never get it back! Don't make the mistakes of so many other areas in Southern California. We still have the chance to control our own destiny and maintain a semi - rural, more open space community. Don't give up this advantage to the Moorpark area. Sincerely, Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. oaaso RECEIVED -- January 31, 1992 FE6 _ 1 1992 City of Moorpark To the Mayor and Moorpark City Council Members: I want to rei.terate to you what I expressed at the Planning Commission hearings for the General Plan Update EIR. I am greatly concerned with the protection of green belt areas, ag land and Happy Camp Park. I don't feel that the EIR deals with these undeveloped areas at all. 1. It is important at a time when there is a great deal of urban growth in Ventura Co. that each city's integrity be maintained. Having a buffer zone between cities defines boundaries, and I believe, gives each place a sense of individuality. City bound- aries should not be a heavily trafficed boulevard as we see in the San Fdrnando Valley. 2. Agriculture is an important economic activity in Ventura Co. (in fact, in the state of California as a whole) and it should be protected. We must have food for all those new arrivals that Gary Austin is worried about - 600,000 a year? 3. Happy Camp Regional Park's wilderness area should not be exposed to heavy urban encroachment either. It is meant to be a haven for native plant and animal life(humans included) and should not be interfered with. In closing - I am deeply disturbed by the plans for the Messenger property. Gary Austin has threatened - I think that's an accurate expression - to build a community of 27,000 people if the Messenger property is not annexed (only 14,522 as part of Moorpark)!! That is blackmail pure and simple!! I am hoping that none of you will buy into that thinking. Several of you, maybe all of you, seem to believe that annexation is the only answer to massive development since you seem to think that the county would welcome such a large urbanized area. A city of 27,000 right between two already growing cities - Moorpark and Simi Valley -? That does not follow any sort of "orderly development" as prescribed by the county. I don't believe that the county supervisors would approve of an "explosion" of growth such as we would witness on that property. The impact of a project of 1800 dwelling units or 1400 dwelling units will have a tremen- dously negative affect on the whole east side of this county_ - ,-- more traffic, more hillsides lost, more pollution, more water resources used - the added police, firemen, schools, etc. would not doubt eat up a major portion of all those wonderful tax revenues Mr. Austin was talking about. A There are already will eventually be borders now. 00061 areas within the existing city boundaries which developed - we do not need to expand our Sincerely, lkl4M Dawn Mortara 13631 Bear Valley Road Moorpark, CA 93021 "00062 COMMENTS ON LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN SCH #90010061 GENERAL: The suggested land use element encompasses projects ranging from 1.75 acres to (89 -1I) to 4,500 acres (Specific Plan 8). The terrain varies from inner city plateaus, rolling hills to mountainous. Usage includes commercial, residential, and unknown uses. Density increases as high as 1,000% are automatically mandated into existence with no evaluation of the projects, no hearing afforded contiguous property owners and no evaluation. -- Projects range from: Desirable projects which should be approved after specific hearings. Projects which are neutral, neither desirable nor undesirable, and should be considered on their merits. Projects which are clearly detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of Moorpark. RECEIVED F E B - 1 1992 City of Moorpark January 31, 1992 00063 BACKGROUND: Two processes have been going forward independently of each other. The first process was the submission of General Plan Amendments (GPA's) in which property owners petitioned the City of Moorpark to make changes in land use designation in regard to density or utilization. The GPA process is defined as the orderly process of in -depth Environmental Reports (EIR's) which examine in minute detail the impacts on air quality, traffic, schools, water supply, waste water and solid waste and all other aspects of each project for adverse impacts. Through 1989, ten projects had submitted GPA's and were queued up. Some or all of them had embarked on the EIR process. Hearings for contiguous property owners to present concerns and objections should have been scheduled. Traffic analysis of each project should have been made. The second process was a land use update, and the land use update was contracted for with a consultant PBR. At some point in the update process, property owners seized upon the update process to insert their "wish list" into the process. This, if successful, would gain automatic approval for their projects with no input from the affected property owners, and no need to comply with the formalities of the GPA process. Once the concept desired by each developer was accepted in the Land Use Update, only minimal fine tuning would be permitted at a later date. Once accepted, it was irreversible, and once uncapped, the genie could not be put back in the bottle. 00064 SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES IN THE LAND USE PLAN Buildout will impact agricultural, rural and ranches. The EIR indicates that only partial mitigation is possible. This means the rural nature of Moorpark will be lost forever. The County of Ventura has developed population limits for Moorpark which will be exceeded substantially on the order of 300 -400% with no mitigation possible. Traffic: Our City suffers gridlock at several major intersections. The EIR offers superficial and unrealistic solutions. It relies on such tired, old cliches as, "car pools, " "flex hours, " and other non- functioning solutions. There is no way to make the impact of this mega - project disappear. Air Quality: This is one of the most significant and dangerous impacts. Page seven of the draft EIR states that any effect on air quality can be mitigated to "...a level of insignificance." On Page 123, the EIR says thee exact opposite through some deceptive or obfuscatory statements: "These (pollutant) emissions are not considered significant in relation to the ENTIRE BASIN but ARE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT ON A SUB- REGIONAL BASIS." In other words, by averaging the pollutants over the entire Oxnard Plane, the effects are insignificant. Ventura, Simi, Oxnard and Thousand Oaks will not be affected, but the sub - region MOORPARK will be significantly affected, which is at direct variance, with no mitigation, in direct contradiction to the statement on Page seven. This borders on gross deceit! A major concern that the draft EIR totally ignores is the danger of Valley Fever. It has been postulated that construction disturbs and disseminates airborne spores that carry this disease which can be fatal. The LOS ANGELES TIMES, 30 January 1992, page 3, carries a significant article on the increase in the spread of the disease. 00065 Hillside and Ridgeline Protection: The EIR operates in a vacuum when it says that Hillside and Ridgeline ordinances should be written and implemented. The City has been incorporated for nearly a decade; and year after year, promises have been made to develop such protective ordinances; and year after year,they are not developed. The EIR suggests that hillside grading be limited to 20 %; and even before the EIR is approved, developers are asking that there be no limit whatsoever, but that it should be discretionary. The EIR is in direct contravention to the Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSCAR) adopted by the City of Moorpark which mandates protection of viewsites. Noise Level : The EIR on page 9 claims only partial mitigation; but again, in the fine print buried on page 123, the document says, "Significant noise level increases ...will occur." "Therefore, the EIR admits that noise pollution will occur and NOT be mitigated. Adequacy of Notice: No affected property owner whose property will be adversely affected by these developments was specifically notified as to the projects being considered contiguous to their property. At such time as these projects do come forward, they will be frozen in cement. Any attempt to lessen or moderate density will result in the threat of lawsuits. Finally, with regard to the beauty of Moorpark, listen to the EIR on Page 123: "Existing unurbanized rural lands contribute to the scenic qualities of Moorpark. Therefore, the urbanization associated with buildout of the updated Land Use Plan and the subsequent loss of ... open land... is a significant UNAVOIDABLE adverse impact." The EIR authors, instead of submitting a balanced unbiased report, offer Alternative 1. In their desire to "sell "the other options which they obviously favor, discount Alternative 1 as not being worthy of consideration. a 00066 Finally, the EIR states incorrectly that the Land Use Update will have a minor impact on current open- space, non - growth areas. The attached General Plan Map shows that over half of the density increases will be in non - growth areas. The Land Use Update should be unbundled from the GPA's. The EIR covers 10,000 additional dwelling units and 25,000 additional people in a document of basically 125 pages. A proposed hamburger stand has a much larger EIR! Two other major areas in which the EIR must be challenged are those of water resources and flora and fauna. We are in the seventh year of an unremitting drought. The EIR responds to the water deficit by suggesting low flush toilets. 25,000 people flushing low flush toilets still water lawns and wash laundry .--and take baths. Instead of opening the doors to unbridled growth, that water availability must be a major component of any permitted growth. The hills affected by these projects are alive with flora and fauna. Hawks and ravens wheel in the sky, and after the first kiss of rain, flowers peek their purple, orange and yellow hued heads through the renewed greenery. The EIR fails with regard to unmitigated air quality deterioration, noise pollution and traffic gridlock. L W. J. La Perch 7200 Walnut Canyon Road ,,_...Moorpark, CA 93021 ( 805 ) 529 -0222 MAP 3 MOORPARK GROWTH ARIA GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY VENTURA COUNTY RESOURCE' M ;N,,G -EMENT AGENCY DIVISION, 1979 0067 MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 January 31, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: General Plan Ainendlnetit Application Regarding Casey Road School Site Gentlemen: , 00068 (805) 378 -6300 — RECEIVED — ,JAN 3 11992 City of Moorpark HAND DELIVERED By way of a follow -up to the January 22, 1992, Public Hearing held by the Moorpark City Council regarding the City's General Plan Update, this memorandum is being submitted in order to accomplish the following: 1. Set forth written comments in addition to the testimony presented by Irma Tucker from Sage Institute, on behalf of the District, regarding the District's General Plan Amendment application regarding the Casey Road School Site ( "Site "); and. 2. Clarify questions posed by City Council Members at the public hearing regarding the conceptual site plan presented for potential development of the Casey Road School Site. I. HISTORY The following presents a summary background of tasks performed by the District regarding disposition of the Site. A. September, 1958 Upon recommendations from the District's School Site Advisory Committee, the Board of Education took action which set forth the following: 1. Found that the Site was no longer appropriate for long -term use as a school site; 2. Declared the Site Surplus and determined to proceed with site disposition planning: BOARD OF EDUCATION: TOM BALDWIN, President; SAM K. NAINOA, Vice President; PAM CASTRO. Clerk; GREG BARKER, Member, CLINT D. HARPER, Ph.D., Member; THOMAS G. DUFFY, District Superintlendent� An Equal Opportunity Emplover r: ? / 00069 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members January 31, 1992 Page 2 3. Determined that potential plans for re -use and /or development of the Site were to consider opportunities for: a. Community recreation and public open space; b. Preservation of community facilities and playcourts in the upper portion of the Site; and C. Private development in order to generate an income stream to be used for the construction of new school facilities for District students. B. Januarv.1989 The District solicited proposals for the re -use of existing buildings and grounds of the school Site. The District did not receive a single response for re -use of the Site. Responses were received however, from the private sector which proposed demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of new structures. C. August, 1989 The District solicited proposals for use of the Site, based upon a conceptual site plan consistent with objectives seeking to meet District and community needs which included: 1. The establishment of public recreation space and community facilities; 2. The construction of moderate and affordable housing for the community through an agreement with a private developer; 3. The generation of capital outlay funds to be used for the construction of new school facilities. Two proposals were submitted to the District by private developers. After a period of negotiations with each of the respondents, negotiations with the parties ceased due to economic constraints of the proposals relative to District needs and the perceptions of the City's reluctance to consider such project(s). v 00070 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members January 31, 1992 Page 3 D. November, 1991 The District solicited proposals for development of the upper portion of the site consistent with its objectives noted above. The District is currently in negotiation with a developer, however specific land use plans have not been determined pending finalization of the City's General Plan Update process. II. GENERAL PLAN APPLICATION In order to facilitate the entitlement process for the foregoing re -use of the site, the District filed an application with the City for a General Plan Amendment per the following: A. Insofar as the District does not elect to be the developer of the Site, only conceptual land uses were proposed: the proposed uses were calculated at densities which would generate financing for District needs and community use, as well as provide for a development which is economically viable. B. Conceptual land uses proposed. 1. Refer to Exhibit A, Casey Road High School Site - Conceptual Land Use Plan, attached hereto, for illustration of the proposed land uses, as discussed below. 2. Phase I Residential Development, applicable to Parcels A and B, as well as the potential Park and Recreation Area, correspond to the parcels for which "High Density Residential" use is being requested in the District's General Plan Application. 3. Phase II Future Residential Development, applicable to Parcel C, corresponds to the parcel for which "Very High Density Residential" use is being requested in the District's General Plan Application. 4. Potential designation of land for Park and Recreation Area, as well as the greenbelt and open space use within the development is considered to be a part of the amenities and community benefits provided by the project, and is subject to refinement per final development and land use plans per the site development process. 5. The foregoing conceptual land uses are consistent with the densities and land uses for the overall site being considered by the City Council in the General Plan Update. 0 00071 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members January 31, 1992 Page 4 6. It is requested by the District that any refinements to the forgoing densities which may result during finalization of the General Plan Update take into consideration the necessary retention of sufficient overall Site densities to result in an income stream which would: a. Provide for public recreation and open space; b. Result in an economically viable development project; and C. Generate an income stream sufficient to construct needed school facilities. C. The rationale behind the District's General Plan Amendment Application is a sincere desire on the part of the District to work together with the City regarding specific development plans for uses of land for the Site will be in concert with City's General Plan and attendant entitlement procedures. III. CONCLUDING REMARKS A. It is the desire of the District to formulate a development concept which strikes a balance between public needs for park and recreation space and private sector needs to ensure viability, and which is consistent with City standards, in order to produce a project which provides the benefits and fulfills the objectives as stated above. B. The land uses being recommended for the overall Site by the Planning Commission and considered by the City Council as part of the City's General Plan Update would provide the District with a range of densities to fulfill the stated objectives. C. The District looks forward to the continuing working relationship with the City during finalization of the General Plan Update and General Plan Amendment application process, as well as refining the details of a specific development plan for the Site. 00072 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members January 31, 1992 Page 5 Sincerely, District Superintendent TGD:ah cc: MUSD, Board of Education Irma Tucker, Sage Institute Steve Kueny, City Manager Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development 00073 lOUTRERn CAUFORMIN - �• AffOCIATIM OF GOVERnMEW 818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 -3435 (213) 236 -1800 j FAX (213) 236 -182 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE President Vennua County J o nyno, Superviror Fun Vice President Rep.. Cities of San Bernardino County John Lonevllle, Mayor Second Vice President Rep•. y Abe S It, Supervimr Laa Angeles County Mike Antonovleb, Supervisor Deane Dana, Supervisor Orange Canty Harnett Wleder, Supemito, Riverside Comrnty Melba Dutt4p, Saparviror San Bernardino County Jon Mlkela, Supervisor Cities of Los Angeles County Robert Bartlett, Mayor Monrovia Cities of Impenal County Stella Mendoza, Couwcibnenber Bewley Cities of Orange County Irwin Fried, Mayor Yorba Linda Cities of Riverside County Judy Nieburger, Mayor Motmo Valley Cities of venous County John Melton, Mayor Santa Paula City cf Loa Angeles Tom Bradley, Mayor Mark Rldley.Thomas, Coaaeibnembn Hal Bereson, Councibnenber City of Lmg Beach Clarence Smith, CoawciLrrrmber POLICY COMMITTEE CHAIRS Pat Crcyt, hl' —yor Pro .Ten Lomita; Chair, Transportation and Communications Diann Ring, Mayor Pro Ten Claremont; Choir, Energy and Environment Scott Garrett, Vice Mayor Hemet; Chair, Cornmunity, Economic, and Human Development AT -LARGE DELEGATES Judy Wright, Councibnenber Claremont Robert Gentry, Councibnember Laguna Beach Richard Kelly, Mayor Pro Ten Palm Desert ALTERNATES January 30, 1992 Mr. Patrick Richards so ricClI Director of Community Development , City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 ty ®f M RE: DEIR FOR MOORPARK LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION STUDY SCAG CLEARINGHOUSE # VE- 55283 -EDR Dear Mr. Richards: We have reviewed the above referenced project and determined that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the project was published in the November 1, 1991 Semi - Monthly Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact Maureen Farley at (213) 236 -1886. Thank you. WILLIAM . BOYD_-._.___ Clearinghouse Official L/ Imperial County o Sam Sharp, Supervisor o Lot Angela County o Ed Edelman, Supervisor and Kenneth Hahn, Supervisor o Orange County o Gaddl Vasquez, Supervisor o Rive side County o Patricia Larson, Supervisor o San Bemanhao Gxmty o Larry Walker, Supervisor o Ventura County o Vicky Howard, Supervisor o Cities of I�ai �y o Vkb Sanchez, Jr., Mayor Pro Tem, Westmorland o Cilia of Lot Angeles County o Abbe Land, Couwcibnember, West Hollywood o Cities of Orange County o Ruthelyn Plummer, CouweiLw, , ber, Newport Beach o Cities of Riverside County o (Vacant) o Goes of San Bernardino County o Elmer D igneo, Mayor Pro Ten, Derma Linda o Cities of Ventura County o (V canq City of Los Angela o Richard Alstorre, CouwiLnember o Rita Walters, Councibnembar o Michael Woo, Couwubnember o Long Beach 2nd posmon o Jeffrey Kellogg, Vies A/yor At Large o (Vacant) o Fred Aguiar, Mayor, Chino o Robert Lewis, Mayor Pro Tem, Thousand Oaks M�v DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES January 29, 1992 651 Via Alondra, Suite 714 Camarillo, CA 93012 (805) 484 -8303 • Fax: 484 -8993 Honorable Paul W. Lawrason, Jr., Mayor Honorable Members of the City Council CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Sirs: 000'74 I am writing on behalf of my client, The Levy Company, owners of 139 acres within the area referred to as Specific Plan Area #5 in the current General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Update. Based on the public comments and concerns raised by several speakers at the City Council hearings in regard to land use proposals in the Sphere of Influence Expansion Study I am attaching an 8 112" x 11" color exhibit of a land use concept for Specific Plan Number 5. This plan is based on the concepts proposed by PBR in the Draft General Plan Land Use Element. The DPS plan calls for the annexation of the 139 acres of the Levy Company property immediately adjacent to the west of the existing Buttercreek tract, north of the Arroyo Simi. The remaining 251 acres of Specific Plan Number 5 would remain in permanent agricultural use. This agricultural area could either be annexed to the city or left in the County, hopefully within the Sphere of Influence of the r— City of Moorpark. The updated General Plan recommends that the development of Specific Plan Number 5 would be concentrated on the Levy Company property, with a minimum 200 foot greenbelt or buffer being created between any new development and the permanent agricultural uses to the west. The concept proposed for the Levy Company property would be a planned unit development of 139 single family units, with a majority of the site dedicated to a privately owned, public -play golf course. This land use would provide an environmentally appropriate transition between the existing Buttercreek community and the intensive agricultural practices common to row crop production in this area. Additionally, there is a proven source of well water on the property which would serve the water needs of the golf course. Contrary to the draft EIR, the USDA Soil Conservation Maps for Specific Plan Number 5 illustrate that approximately one -third of the soil within the plan area is either Class III or IV, and is not classified as prime agricultural land. The largest concentrations of non -prime agricultural soil are located on the 139 acres of the Levy Company property. For these reasons it would be appropriate for the City Council to adopt this proposed land use plan for Specific Plan Number 5, and to include this 139 acres in the updated General Plan Land Use Element. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments to you. Please do not hesitate to call on me if I can provide clarification to you on these or any other items. Sincerely, Dennis Hardgrav cc: The Levy Company Public Agency Entitlement • Planning Design • Project Management LAND USE CONCEPT CITY OF MOORPARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 Agriculture / Open Space 251 Ac. ° Residential - 139 Units 139 Ac. TOTAL 390 Ac s•P_p.a. I � � all `eIl L J Industrial aIII L DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES r m 8 e 0 N Bugle Boy Property Industrial Los Angeles Residential RPD 1u /Acre 139 Units �Y SCE Facility x Industrial co m a a Ave. C7 Buttercreek Estates Medium Density Residendal Mountain Meadows Community O O O Ci • lull ' AG -1 y ; e rs jar; s 6 � � � t `. • *Grp, 21 AG Home Acres Community fills DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES r m 8 e 0 N Bugle Boy Property Industrial Los Angeles Residential RPD 1u /Acre 139 Units �Y SCE Facility x Industrial co m a a Ave. C7 Buttercreek Estates Medium Density Residendal Mountain Meadows Community O O O Ci T January 2e, 1992 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Attention: Planning Director RE: A.P. #163 -0 -030 -475 Dear Sir: Your notice for the meeting of January 29, 1992 arrive too late for me to arrange to attend. I have two comments: 1) Stick with the sphere of influence that would cover District 1 Water and Sewer. 2) Find a way.te continue Hitch Road so that it. connects up with Santa Rosa. Sincerely, �j H�arr,4 T nce di ' Pres i)ent HT:mn Enc Ias,-;-e 00076 RECEIVED City of Moorpar GENERAL CONTRACTOR • DEVELOPER Eirde T Carparatian CONTRACTOR'S LICE NSE•:t7104 " 00077 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Paul W. Lawrason, Jr., Mayor, John E. Wozniak, Mayor Pro Tem Scott Montgomery, Councilmember Bernardo M. Perez, Councilmember Roy E. Taley, Jr., Councilmember Dear Sirs: heavens Ranches A Family Parwersliil) January 27, 1992 Our family owns ranch property adjacent and north of the City of Moorpark. With the deliberations being made regarding the General Plan, we hope that you will consider including us within your sphere of influence because of our interest in the City of Moorpark. While we hope we can farm forever, in realty we realize that plans will have to be made for other uses of our property. Perhaps, not in our time but perhaps in our childrens lifetime. We are particularly interested in getting a road reserved on the map to take the sand gravel, cement and asphalt truck traffic, in the area north of Moorpark, east and /or west and south to connect to Highway 23, thus routing and bypassing the agricultural and populated areas of the Fairview area (Fruitvale Avenue) and most of Moorpark. Only part of this road is shown on Figure 2 of the Moorpark Circulation Element. The rest of the road, as proposed by Charles Schwabauer and Dean Rasmussen, should be added so that Quality Rock and Blue Star traffic is routed properly from their plants to Highway 23. This loop is most important if we are to maintain viable agriculture and not create adverse impacts on the Fairview area and the city. Please get the road on the Map for the FUTURE. All it will cost now is in the ink. Sincerely, Paul J. ns Enclosure: Figure 2 Map c: Charles Schwabauer Dean Rasmussen _ _ . , - , � • r .._.. !�•2��1•2 . / 1111 i:�l:_ 1 C!:` • 1' \ \' ! W1n1 IiJ'�- '�'ill'2 I 11 v it r c.&mo riL-mCl Cu '"64C QUJiti I?f, S, ..dur BIAIF STAR ITO FCTFITF In FLIP 4171 BEST P mck rRoodi:7m 01 lope CUP 407- 0.2S milts% 2 no Loll 1% 1(�(' 10 N A 1. i!Aru< I rod Im Y moon rARK sled nc rl.AN 07 m Sm WJLM Mt)ORVARK07 j 31 t 32.-' t -� "l , l'� -- � + ±..rf ��:� ,1-' -�.- i \_ .-Sid• �� 3�r�. .b��`• 3.� .�.�. ._5� --�•1 AT x 6 1 '44 DINI III, 00 ARK > > 71 > > ui LEGEND Loam T- am* — smperq redo wlp-+ br Men wdr.Ia tk.. ow..Y .b no oy at Nmp..t Irbfo wen. Dior and Co..mk Dembia lac .e�wsc..l Noer,.doa err 2 CUtCULAT[ON LT-MZESrT }i CHWAY NLTRORK A+.dh -Fwr N - kc.uik. O-w 0 0 Q • FREEWAY INTERCHANGE r SIX -LANE ARTERIAL FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL — �— RURAL COII.BCTOR LOCAL COLLECTOR ■ SIGNAIIZID UM SF-Cl'ION O A? -GRADE RR CROSSING GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING CITY LBW BOUNDARY .r�....� SR•118 FREEAAY CORRIDOR Loam T- am* — smperq redo wlp-+ br Men wdr.Ia tk.. ow..Y .b no oy at Nmp..t Irbfo wen. Dior and Co..mk Dembia lac .e�wsc..l Noer,.doa err 2 CUtCULAT[ON LT-MZESrT }i CHWAY NLTRORK A+.dh -Fwr N - kc.uik. O-w 0 0 Q • Urban Strategies January 21, 1992 00080 2509 E. THOUSAND OAKS BLVD. • THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91362 • (805) 494 -1336 Pat Richards, Planning Director City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Specific Plan 8 Dear Pat: On November 12, 1991 a letter was sent concerning properties within Specific Plan 8 noting that all properties were not owned -- by the same interests At that time, parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the attached map were held by others. Since that time parcels 3 and 4 have transferred ownership to the Messenger Development interests leaving the balance or parcels 5, -6, 7 and 8 owned by others parties. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Elaine L. Freeman ELF:dr j � i► r�L _ V�h � 4 . Unocal Land & Development Company A Unocal Company 1201 West 5th Street, P.O. Box 7600 Los Angeles, California 90051 Telephone (213) 977 -6449 FAX: (213) 977 -5933 UNOCAL d Patricia A. Ellis Manager, Property Development COMMENTS TO THE MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 22, 1992 REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Gentlemen: 00081 RECEIVED -•- JAN 2 2 1992 City of Moorpark My name is Pat Ellis. I am a representative of Unocal whose address is 1201 West 5th Street, Los Angeles, California. Unocal owns 273 acres of land north east of Moorpark College which is designated as Specific Plan 3 in the proposed General Plan. I will try to be brief. Since 1987 we have been sending letters and talking to various City officials in an attempt to have the General Plan reflect the underlying zoning for this property. My latest letter was dated November 7, 1991. When Moorpark was incorporated, our property was zoned for a mix of residential densities allowing up to 697 dwelling units. When the existing General Plan was written it was not in consistency with the underlying zoning. The current General Plan Update not only perpetuates this inconsistency but changes the use from residential to open space and reduces the allowed dwelling units from 697 to only 181. 00032 This inconsistency seems even more arbitrary and unfair when the densities proposed for our property are compared to the densities now given to Specific Plan Areas #1 and #2. Our average density is .66 DU /A - less than 1 unit per acre - compared to 1.6 for Area #2 and 2.9 for Area #1. Furthermore, the Overlay Designation of Open Space 2 will make it extremely difficult to secure approval to do any type of development on this parcel. Your Consultant has responded to this objection by stating that Specific Plan #3 "is not designated as Open Space ". I don't understand this comment. The Overlay Designation for Specific Plan 3 is "Open Space 2" and Open Space 2 is defined in the Land Use Element as "permanent open space areas " Unquote. We are at a loss to understand why our property should be designated as open space. Large portions of it are within the City's 0 - 20% guidelines for development. It is adjacent to Moorpark Community College and existing residential development. It is on the far northeast corner of the City limits and, for the most part, visually hidden from the rest of the community by a natural ridge line. It is an ideal location for both medium density and badly needed AFFORDABLE housing. It is adjacent to the 118 freeway and within a few blocks of an on -ramp. Except for residents doing business with Community merchants, it would seem that development would have minimal impact on traffic throughout the rest of the City. The Consultant goes on to say that our density designation identifies an overall target density of one unit per gross residential acre....... and does not mandate one acre lots for all residential designations. 00083 We agree that it would not be reasonable to lay a grid over the land and build a house in the center of each acre of land. Obviously the homes would have to be clustered to accommodate required open space and respect the natural topography. But the land that is left open still has a value which must be accounted for in any developer's pro - forma. The economics of any project must take into consideration the value of the total acres and amortize that value over the cost of the allowed dwelling units. The constant erosion of the number of units we would be allowed to build on our land has fallen to the point where the project is bordering on the uneconomical. In order to re -coup our costs, we will have to look more and more to expensive, estate type homes rather than a balanced combination of values which might generate a goodly number of AFFORDABLE units. We could do this and still make a reasonable return on our investment. But a plan like this would be a loss for the Community of Moorpark where many people cannot afford to buy such a home. For these reasons, Gentlemen, I am asking you to consider, at the very least, a low density designation which would allow one and a half dwelling units per acre and make the possibility of a mixed residential use - with affordable housing as a component - a realistic alternative. In closing, I would just like to say that I have made copies of my comments for each of you and for staff and will pass them out now if there are no questions you would like to ask. Thank you. PROPERTIES January 22, 1992 City Council CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: Comments on Draft E.I.R. and Circulation Element Dear City Council: 11 P. RECEIVED — JAN 2 2 1992 City of Moorpark This letter serves as written documentation for the oral presentation given by Mr. Phil Vein of PICON INC., the representative for Jemco Properties. Our views and opinions regarding the City of Moorpark's draft E.I.R. and Circulation Element were expressed in a meeting with the City Engineer on December 16, 1991, at the Planning Commission public hearings on November 4th and 18th, 1991, as well as the City Council public hearing on January 22, 1992. Planning Commission and Staff have recommended the realignment of the SR118 connector road by moving the SR118 connector road from the Buttercreek Rd. intersection to 850 feet west. We support the location of the road proportionately to be shared with ourselves and Bugle Boy at our common property line as recommended by Planning Commission and Staff. This realignment will be better suited for the Buttercreek Homeowners and will eliminate any single property owner from having to give up land for right of way. (Map showing realignment is attached). We are very concerned with the Circulation Element policy numbers 2.5 and 2.6 in the event that an unforeseen problem should arise and the recommended access road at Jemco Properties and Bugle Boy's common property line is unable to be agreed upon by both parties and is therefore eliminated. Policies 2.5 and 2.6 as presently stated are much too strict and would deny legal access to our properties along Los Angeles Avenue. Our traffic study indicates there are other mitigation measures available such as deceleration lanes and proper spacing of access roads and signals. 9061 Santa Monica Boulev=ard . Los Angeles, California 90069 .(213) 278 -1830 00085 January 22, 1992 City Council Page 2 We respectfully request that you support the Planning Commission and Staff recommendation with regards to the recommended relocation of the SR118 connector road, and that you change the wording used in the Circulation Element, policy number's 2.5 and 2.6 in order to allow direct access to our property from Los Angeles Avenue. if you have any questions do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, JEMCO PROPERTIES Alan Sette cc: Phil Vein All City Council Members City Engineer City Manager A: \AS012292.DOC -V -111 00086 lei d - 1s t _ j rlttJili .'iII1t' �y �,, i Jf t I I , i 1 I C11 d CID LLJ Ml • t m 0 U W 7 �11 J a Orf, J w br- = w F-- W Q 0 Z W W M: V) C:, � O Z O a W U O C7 W M: W a J . t 00087 336 McFadden Avenue Moorpark,Ca 93021 January 13, 1992 Moorpark City Council 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark,California 93021 Dear Sirs: 1�e.' GenE�al �ldn- hand 2,s Lo In considering what you plan to do about the plan for Moorpark I wish to let you know that we do not want any more land used to build apartments in the downtown area. We have enough density in the center of the city and more would not be good for the property value or the safety of all of us who live in this area. There must band in places besides in the central area that can be used for the apartments you seem to want so much. Consider the people who have been here for a long time and think about our property values and quality of life at least as much as you do the people who live on the hill! RECEIVED also JAN 2 &1992 1 City of Moorpark Yours truly, it l: WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER FEBRUARY S, 1992 1 00089 T March 10, 1992 Mr. Patrick Richards Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Mr. Richards: The sphere of influence for the City of Moorpark. should be increased to afford the City effective control of land surrounding the City. I believe all of District 1 (Water) should be under City control. Santa Paula failed to increase their sphere of influence three years ago and they got stuck with the County January 1 =_t, which they did not want. Sincerely, Harr Tancredi President HT:mn - RECEIVED - MA 1 2 1992 City of Moor; arl GENERAL CONTRACTOR • DEVELOPER Urde T Carparatlan CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE N 317104 4 A% n» A rA V 1i1 Al 070 1 r- March 5, 1992 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark A%_ -ue %'-_rLar -. C�1ifor-ia 93021 Dear Interested Party: 00090 (805) 529 -6864 SUBJECT: REOPENED PUBLIC HEAF.ING F,--'R GENERAL PLAN UPDATE The City Council has made a de-:�ermin -lion to reopen the public hearing for the General Plan pdate. This public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 18, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the City Hall located at 799 Moorpark Avenue. The City Council directed that a letter be sent to persons who previously testified a- the hearing or provided written comments to inform them of the reopened public hearing. The purpose of this letter is _o inf_=m oou of the opportunity to provide comments to the City Council on new issues or concerns related to the General Plan Update, which you may not have previously addressed. Comments that you previously submitted to the City on the General Plan Update, either verbally (at a prior public h=aring or in writing, are part of the public record and do not nee= to he repeated. fifyour „wou '_ ZZ ketosubmit p'tte o>egslt they must be S r� . received-at-:-or-prior-to the'p_blic`_earir�g; in order for the City Council to give consideration _o your comments in their deliberations on the proposed General Plan Update. If you have any questions regarding =he General Plan Update or the reopened public hearing, 7lease contact either myself or Deborah Traffenstedt at (805) 529 -6 =64. Sincerely, Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development cc: Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager PAUL LAYrF:. =i ='RJR = )HN E WOZNIAN FER': -RDO 1.1 1'L11FZ ROY F TALLF`! :R _— _.. _.. . r . ... -- , - .... `J January 28, 1992 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Attention: Planning Director RE: A.P. #163 -0 -030 -475 Dear Sir: Your notice for the meeting of January 29, 1992 arrive too late for me to arrange to attend. I have two comments: 1) Stick with the sphere of influence that would cover District 1 Water and Sewer. 2) Find a way to continue Hitch Road so that it connects up with Santa Rosa. Sincerely, e----� Harr T nc edw i Q Presi ent HT:mn Enclosure 00091 GENERAL CONTRACTOR • DEVELOPER Circle T Carparatian CON TRACTOR SLICE N'SE•'2,7104 Li ' I —+--------- 7ji� +---- - -! - -- ----------- +- -I - - -_ —_ -- ;49 7 1 I I I II MOORPARI< r; J WOORPAR I I r' ' ri Iml v=r enwv_ 1 I , I . ' I ' I 4 ------------- - - - - - - }- 1 I �r• , Clyl T rnrnNX' 1 � 1 I � ; —�' w, .tip � � '�•• r— i • � -- _.. - "r" /' .mil � I I I F�� —.._. �1•. � of I, .'¢ r.e- p � -� i I � , I 1000 t -- -- ---- i - - - -- - - - -- i - -'� -;- -►- - -_ -1•F ' I :C,Sj /� I ANGELES n I ' - '. gFyy. , ❑ yr•��ty � -`r1+ �..,.. .... y r r. - •cl w.n r,: Z �- llld I �- i "1, , oo , c prlC:EtFS A �� I j i Seri % , I �.. '1N'I��r -!!.•� ''" ' R P r p 1 I 1 G� ; ,. , I •and Tr" i•� 1 t r w:. ,. b TlCrl'1. .c,.o. ,.. a, MOORPARI' - - - - -- .:may 1� 6� .u: I -- - - - - - - - `'� - - -' - - - - - - - - - - - —q 1 I.Of��E1 CREW �- -- �BfAG I lei !3 Ip THOUSAND OAKS � � ; l `_+__ w %,; � � d," �' C � I 1' � "`.. ' /^ � t ' 'p5• v" �, ; ( it , t , � (r I �.�.•� 5 I ,' S -- a - - -- - -_ - - -_ ' - - �y�,•y- - �"'"~• - --------+- - - - - - -• T_ - -___ __--+ '•, - - nP�{ - - -i wit -- -'y�__ -r/T r� _- _ - -__ •, �'�1H�'�__ _ -�_ i _I__ 1 'QJ \' X11 1 I /I I I ?� 1. T. p��' ' -.J.', �••� I __J ,� ...• � I• ... i� I I / ' ' t. Jt �.I cnnfN ,/ I I I ,.V•� -- .r--- I /I ... t NOR',IEWAN'�' 00093 CHAMBER OF March 10, 1992 Mayor Paul Lawrason and Members of the City Council City of Moorpark 799-Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: General Plan Update Dear Mayor Lawrason and Members of the City Council: At its regularly scheduled Board of Directors meeting held on March 5, 1992 an item for Board discussion relative to the re- opening of the General Plan public hearings was placed on the agenda at the request of Chamber members. The consensus of the Board of Directors was that the General Plan Update process should not be prolonged. There has been ample time for public comment. By re- opening the public hearings, there should be no question as to the Council's effort to hear from the entire community. It is important that decisions now be made in an expeditious yet conscientious manner. It is our belief that the City Council has dedicated a significant amount of time in reviewing the General Plan Update and is now extremely capable of making well-informed decisions. We urge you to continue moving ahead with the Update process so that we can all look forward to our community's bright future. Sincerely, MOORPARX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Dr. Robe t Abrams RECEIVED -^ President MAR 1 0 1992 City of Moorpark 530 MOORPARK AVENUE ♦ MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 ♦ (805) 529 -0322 , 0^ . I N V f/AMESSENGER E S T N I F N T C O M P A N Y March 3, 1992 Mayor Paul Lawrason City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 111' RE: Additional Comments Concerning the Need to Re -open the Public Hearing for the City of Moorpark General Plan Update Process Dear Mayor Lawrason: At your February 26 Council meeting, the Council decided to re -open the public hearing to allow inclusion in the public record of information presented to the Council after the General Plan Update public hearing had been closed. The purpose of this letter is to comment on City staffs recommendations to the Council regarding the necessary procedures to properly and legally complete the General Plan Update process. 1. Although the public hearing was closed, the General Plan has not yet been finalized. Therefore, any comments made by the public to the Council at Council meetings prior to finalization and adoption by ordinance are a part of the public record. Any subsequent concern by the Council with respect to procedural matters can be significantly lessened by directing staff to prepare an addendum to the EIR that incorporates all public comments, correspondence, petitions and other information received by the Council subsequent to "official" close of the public hearing. This procedure, along with the inclusion of appropriate "findings" when the General Plan is certified, can help avoid the need to re -open the public hearing for more than one additional Council meeting. The point of this procedure is not to limit public comment since both the Commission and Council have held numerous workshops and public hearings already. Rather, the addendum can be used to legally acknowledge that additional discussion, comments and opinions have been received by the Council after the public hearing is again officially closed. Since the planning commission has participated in the six workshops and also held its own public hearings, there is no statutory requirement to request additional public hearings by that body unless there is a significant change in the "proposed project ". If individual planning commissioners feel that the commission's recommendations are at odds with their own particular viewpoints, they have the opportunity to express those opinions at the re- opened City Council public hearing. 1751 2 V 0 N KAR%IAN A 1: NU1: I R V I N E, C A 1. 1 F 0 R N I A + 2 71 4 ( 7 1 4) 4 7 4- 1 (l i t f.-N \ ; - ; - 8 4 1 1 -- RECEIVED = MAR 0 4 1992 City of Moorpark 00095 March 3, 1992 Mayor Paul Lawrason City of Moorpark Page 2 2. We would like to respectfully object to the staff's extensive re -write of portions of the draft land use element not yet reviewed by Council (particularly pages 19, 20 and 31). Although staff's memo to the Council dated February 19, 1992 states that staff rewrote the Residential Density discussion portion of the document to eliminate inconsistencies with the revised goals and policies, we believe that the proposed changes constitute a significant departure from the language that evolved from all of the previous workshops and public hearings. Therefore we respectfully request the Council to direct staff to re- instate the original language starting at Section 5.0 in the draft documents until the Council has had a chance to review this portion of the document. 3. Finally, we respectfully request the Council to continue in an expeditious manner to finalize the General Plan Update process. Significant hardships are being experienced by property owners seeking entitlements to develop their properties located within Moorpark's Area of Interest because of the lengthy period of time required to complete the process. We recognize the difficulty of making these long -range planning decisions but we also sincerely believe that the public has had more than ample opportunity to provide its input to this process. Now it is time for the Council to make the decisions needed to finalize the �-- General Plan. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Sincerely, MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY at,,�t_ Gary Austin Vice President GA:noh CC: City Council Members City Manager ,ftMESSENGER IIV V EST%IE %T C0NOVA \Y 00096 January 28, 1992 — RECEIVED — To: Moorpark City Council F E Q 2 6 1992 From: Concerned residents and homeowners of the City of Moorpark City of Moorpark As homeowners and residents of Moorpark, we wish to express our strong opposition to proposed plans to develop significant portions of open and agricultural land within Moorpark city limits. Of particular concern to us are development plans for the Schleve, JER, Levy, Guny, and Fstes properties. The implementation of these plans would severely impact the quality of life that so strikingly distinguishes Moorpark from its congested, crime - plagued neighbors and has made this small city an idyllic spot for us to live in and raise our families. We love Moorpark just as it is and vehemently oppose these "development" plans. w p 7) k Li-7q3 �� ao,& ,,d �- zf 7 3-7 q�20 61del bev V�11hi-e-) 1., �/ 3z �7 C +72,1�_ Cld4r " AY-z:_. q7 a 6- d--y- L-Y-r � A,,e . 00097 City Council Members Paul Lawrason SEC � Scott Montgomery F E B 2 6 1992 aw (of ►Mwpuk Bernardo Perez Roy Talley John Wozniak Address: c/o City Nall 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 a Meeting held February 18th 1992 at 7:OOPM at Mary Kairoui home 11922 Darlene Lane between "The levy Company" and "Gabbert Canyon " residents. SP #1 is owned by 'The Levy Co" which is a trust for the Milligan family which owns the Bank of A. levy of Ventura County. land part of a repossession in 1976s when landowners walked away from property. #1 -118 Bypass inappropriate for this area. This bypass will be a divider separating our neighborhood from the city. We are an older established neighborhood with roots deep in Moorpark. We shop at local stores and markets and feel part of the city's downtown area. 118 is earmarked in the future to be a freeway as shown in the Thomas Guide. Although a long way off we should look to the future for our children and grandchildren. A freeway running in the center of a city detracts from the city and fills it with noise pollution, air pollution & criminals from other city's finding the freeway easy in /out. Does not provide good circulation within a city - should be on the outskirts. Levy Co clients have said they'd also rather not have bypass but because Cal trans has R marked, R has to be included. Not an answer for short or long term traffic concerns for Moorpark. Nigh St. should be opened for circulation within the Levy Co. project to the neighboring commercial areas. Going out on Casey and Gabbert to then drive to Nigh Street to shop requires backtracking in already high traffic areas forcing some to drive by Chapparal Middle School which has a lot of congestion during school begin and and times. More traffic endangers children walking to and from school (there are many walkers because of distance that age group must walk before getting bus service). Seems logical to take advantage of a Nigh St. continuation, why isn't that possible? 118 bypass would be more appropriate wrapping around the city and then linking up with the 126 and Oxnard. #2 - Levy Co will consider equestrian trails on outer edge of property - north top edge and northwest side which will provide a buffer between existing and new residents. Too early to say whether inside development will have equestian trails (ex. Bridle Path). Sometimes homeowners buy these homes then make up CCRs which disallows horses so that makes equestrian trails inside not financially wise for developers. No commitment by the Levy Co. at this time. 00099 #3 - Retail commercial as shown in south west comer of project would invite crime, traffic congestion, inappropriate for rural lifestyles in our neighborood and in new low density area of levy project. Crime report issued to City Feb. 7, 1992 from the City of Moorpark Police Dept showed one crime in 1991 under area 5102 which is our exising neighborhood. As known in our neighborhood that crime was a dog bite. levy may consider moving commercial to center of their project where a church is now planned and put church in southwest comer. No commitment by the levy Co. at this time. #4 - Will change density now marked 2U /AC in north of bypass to tU /AC. Although larger than tU /AC (mixed size) parcels which we requested may be possible due to topography on hillside bordering our properties. Will commit to tU /AC on the record but no commitment by the levy Co. on larger parcels at this time. #5 - Bypass bordering Yvonne bud's place and med. density behind causes serious concern since there will be no buffer for her on either issue. No response by the levy Co. at this time although still open for discussion at a later time. #b - High density on RR tracks concerns that the area may not retain high quality of homeownership because of proximity to �\ RR tracks and noise R generates. #7 - to widen Gobbert to 4 lanes from bypass to Poindexter would require all existing pepper trees be removed. Cutting down hills on west side of Gabbert for intersection. Gabbert Canyon residents would still be locked in neighborhood with no exit out if accident on bypass at intersection. RR blocking people exiting off 118 could route some looking for a way around blockage up into our area which couldn't accomodate that without endangering children and animals which currently have free run on private roads (Darlene, Elwin, Aspin Hills) Narrow & winding Gabbert from bypass north lacks of good view for a bypass (freeway) exit. The levy Co. could not respond on this. The 118 bypass is a city /state road. 00100 #8 - Other concerns a) Water - while we are rationed and rates have been increased we continue to grow without access to new water sources. b) The more we grow the more crime we'll have the more police services we II need. c) Schools are overcrowded now - a greater population will require more schools - budgets show no real improvements in fixture. Can we really afford to grow so much and not jeopardize quality of Moorparks school system? d) Medical Services - a city of 60,000 would require hospitals, more physicians, paramedics, more firemen, etc. Do we real want to grow this large? The most serious issues, concerns and questions that the Gabbert Canyon residents have were unanswered. Attendees Representing Gabbed Canyon Residents: Lowell & Willa Withington, Barbara & George Wilhelm, Yvonne loud, Fred Kinion, Manny Asadurian Sr., Jim & Madeline Hartley, Cher Hutchinson, Karen FranWin, Mary & Fadl Kairouz, John Attig, Bob & Glenna Meadows, Morteza Yassini, Jim & Yvonne McCurley, Mike & Rene Mayfield Representing The levy Co: Dennis Hardgrave, Gordon Jenewein H. E. BAHER INC. A DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 210 MOORPARK AVENUE SUITE 200 MOORPARK. CA 93021 18051 5908228 18181 002 -1005 PAX 18051 5.00288 February 26, 1992 City Council C/O City HALL 799 Moorpark Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Levy Company Development Dear Councilmen; 00 10 1 RECEIVED FEB 2 6 1992 Regretfully, my wife and I were out of town during the gearing regarding the Levy Company future project in Moorpark. Our initial reaction to the proposed development were the following two issues that we are very concerned about: 1. Since the proposed 118 bypass will end at Gabbert Road, we anticipate that the traffic count coming of this bypass onto Gabbert Road will be tremendous. 2. The "Park 1 open space" will be abutting our property and expect to be fully protected from anyone entering our property from that area by, for instance and 8' block wall. Please address our above concerns, before any commitment is made to approve this project. Thank you, Very truly yours, Baher V -- RECEIVED FEB 2 5 1992 CJLy Of M00rri r i . el FROM 02.2e. 1992 14:14 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERYiCES February 20, 1992 651 via Alondra, Sulte 714 Camarillo, U 93012 (805) 484.8303 • Fax: 484 -8993 Steve Kueny; City Manager CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Steve: 00102 I am writing In regard to our recent telephone discussion of the Levy Company property located within Specific Plan Area Number 5, adjacent to the Suttercreek neighborhood. I am in agreement with the comments made by Gene Kjellberg of the County of Ventura Resource Management Agency at the February 12 City Council General Plan hearing relative to the need for butlers end transition uses between residences and farmlands. With that In mind I hope that conslderation of the conversion of the eastern 139 acre portion of Specific Plan 5 to land uses for residential, pubtic -play golf course, and ag buffer (falrways) will be part of the ultimate updated General Plan. ey'the defiriftions outlined In the General Plan and the criteria stated by the Ventura County representative it would be defensible to convert this property since it is not 'vlable' farmland from a residential compatibility perspective. At the hearing Mr. Kjeltberg stated that the desirable separation between residential uses and orchards was a mlydmum of 200 feet. with row crops needing substantially more separation. I propose that the westernmost 800 to 600 feet of the 139 acre Levy Company property in Specific Plan 5 be left In open space, preferably as fairway, as a transition between new single- family residential units on the Levy Company property and the existing farmland to the west of the site. Attached you wilt find a soil types map and summary table for the 139 acres. This Information was taken directly from the Sall SUrrvev_ - Ventura Area. California: United States be gr Mont of Aadculture. Solt Conservation Service (April. 19791 . This report* is the accepted source document for agricultural classifications throughout Ventura County. Please note that only' 6.3 acres (4.6%) of the property Is Class I (very good) Prime Ag soil: another 59.5 acres (42.7%) is Class 11 (good) Prime Ag soil. Approximately 21 of the 65.8 acres of Class 1 & 11 soil are within 600' of existing homes, leaving 44.8 acres (32,2 %) as potentially farmable Prime land If the parcel remained In ag use. The majority of the site (52.7 %) is Class III and VIII soils, with the Class tit sous demented in value for shallow topsoil depth, low water - holding capacity, and gravelly texture. On page 107 the Soil Survey text defines capability classes for soils as follows: Class 1 soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Class 11 solls have moderate Rmhations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. Class Ill soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special conservation practices, or both. 1 hope this Information will be helpful to you in your analysis and review of Specific Plan Number 5. Please do not hesitate to call me If I can provide further clarification. cc: Mayor & City Councllmembers Sincerely, Dennis Kardgrav N a SOIL CLASSIRCATION EXHIBIT LEWOOMPAWPFCF13 Y SPECiFiC PLAN AREA NLRABER 5 CIYYOFLIOORPARK CAUFOFis"!1A Au�aoe sourcec USDA, Soil ConservaAw Service Soil Tvnes USDA Soil C.aOabilft Unit CLAW I SOIL S Om 01* 6.3 Class 1 subtotal (4.6% of overall) H P 9.6 CLASS II SOUS JMM: WA Its -4 .. 28.2 MIA ils -4 CD 21_7 BA Its -4 CD 59.5 Class II subtotal (42.71% of overall) 49.8 ASL .�S III .AQL.SiW* 140A 311s -4 2-1 iG ills -4 58.9 Class III subtaw (42.3% Of overall) 7.5 SX-A.rbj VIII SAILS �.nsultabiel: GG Vllle -1 LQ Ebu V l l l w -4 14.5 Class VIII wixam) (10.4% Of Ov+B'r' N) SUMMARY: 44.8 Ctass I & 11 ( Prime) beyond 500' of existing homes 32.2% of site 21.0 Class 18 11 (Prune) w"t" SOOT of aduN homes 15.1% of site Zia Qlass III !& VnI (Fair to unsuitable) 52.7% of Site 139.2 TOTAL SITE AQ-EAGE 100.0% 0 Y 4 COS r A-�_` / �aa PEA 0 z a • s O O O W Gary _ou _ 15120 Mar �:uett = St _-E Moorpark, 19 F�brua_• 15,. City Council of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, California 93021 Sirs, 001.04 The General Plan Update proposed for the city of Moorpark would have a devastating effect on the cauality of life in our community. This update would double -the density zoned for the area. This will increase traffic congestion (particularly on the 118 freeway), increase air pollution, increase crime, and cause the general public to bear an unacceptable cost for the private benefit of a few developers. No -one who buys property has a right to expect that the zoning will be changed to acccnnodate his narrow interests. The owner has a general right to develop his property, but only in accordance with the zoning that it had when it was acquired. The city should not accept any General Plan update that would involve an increase in residential density over that already allcwed by the current general plan. With guidance and forethought this community can develop very nicely under the existing density limits. The goal for the city of Moorpark and for our entire area should be fcr a low density high value community. As to where the 118 Bypass should be placed, the answer is very simple, nowhere. This city and area cannot benefit from an extension of the Simi Valley Freeway. The Simi Valley Freeway is what made Simi Valley the extension of the San Fernando Valley that it is. The concept that a freeway or major highway reduces congestion is incorrect. The residents of this city know the history of Southern California. First the freeway, then development, then apologies about the traffic jams, then riore Ireeways. You cannot use high density development to cure zhe ills caused by high density development. Respectfully. • � L l RECEIVED F F R 2 1 1992 a,t„ Rf Met)rosrk 00105 City Council of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, California 91021 Sirs, The General Plan Upd::, proposed for the city of Moorpark would have a devastating effect on the quality of life in this community. This update would double the density zoned for this area. This will 12-crease traffic congestion (particularly on the 118 freeway), increase air pollution. crime. and cause the general public to bear an unacceptable cost for the priya::, benefit of a few developers. No -one who buys property has a right to expect that the zoning ,,%U be changed to accommodate his narrow interests. The owner has a ger,�ral rigl;t to develop his property, but only in accordance with the zoning that it had when it was acquired. The city should not acc--pt any General Plan update that would involve an increase in residential densit.• over tha: already allowed by the current general plan. With guidance and forethough: this community can develop very nicely under the existing density limits. The deal for tlz city of Moorpark and for our entire area should be for a low density high value community. The cities and comet ities in :.his country that have had the sense to avoid rezoning have usually done very we1L Good examples are Marin County and Beverly -- Hills. Marin County adopted ::s zoning in 193 and has simply kept the levels established. Beverly Hills oridnal dev elopers established strict building standards which have generally been maintained by the City. Neither location has suffered economically by those decisions. Houses and businesses in Los Angeles are advertised as being adjacent to Beverly Hills -- not the ot_ler way around. As to where the 118 Bypass should be placed. The answer is very simple. Nowhere. This city and =-a cannot b.--nefit from an extension of the Simi Valley Freeway. The Simi Valley Frt--wav is what made Simi Valley the extension of the San Fernando Valley that it is. Tht idea teat a free,.vay or major highway reduces congestion is utterly silly. The residents of this c:ty know the history of Southern California. First the freeway, then developmec:, then pologies about the traffic jams, then more freeways. You cannot use high density development to cure the ills caused by high density development. Respectfully. Dennis Miller 229 Charles St. Moorpark, CA 93021 „b 1'.,. RECEIVED dow FEB 1 9 1992 City of Moorpark February 18, 1992 Mayor Paul Lawrason and Members of the City Council City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 00106 .,. . CHAMBER OF COMMERCE y FEB 19 1aa2 OFF1 I EY OF MOORPARK CITY MANAGER Re: Economic Development Goals and Policies - General Plan Update Dear Mayor Lawrason and Members of the Council: Eaclosed are Economic Development Goals and Policies proposed by the Chamber for inclusion in the City's Updated General Plan. This information was previously outlined during a presentation by Chamber President Dr. Robert Abrams and vice President-Governmental Relations John Newton to the City Council on February 1, 1992. The Council authorized future submittal of specifically detailed goals and policies, in writing, following closure of the public hearing if the material could not be .__ developed prior to that time. The delivery of this information by John Newton during the public comment portion of the special Council meeting on February 12 was consistent with that action. These expanded goals, policies and implementation measures supplement our letter of November 12, 1991 to the Planning Commission on this subject, as discussed with the Moorpark Economic Development Committee. Chamber volunteers invested a considerable amount of time to brainstorm, research and prepare a comprehensive plan to establish a clear and firm commitment to our city's economic development. At it's February 13 meeting, the Chamber Board of Directors took formal action to recomm cn d the City CC'lnci , ' s i n[rnrporati on of these economic development goals, policies and implementation measures into the City's Updated General Plan. Thank you for the continued opportunity to participate in this important process. Sincerely, MOORPARK CHAkIBER OF COMMERCE Dr. Robert Abrams -- President cc: Moorpark Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors ,Members of the Moorpark Economic Development Committee 530 MOORPARK AVENUE t MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 + (805) 529 -0322 A 00101 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT Intent and Purpose The City of Moorpark is committed to the preservation of its existing economic base and the attraction of new commercial and industrial development which will provide jobs for local residents and expand the community tax base. The City's proximity to major metropolitan markets, the expansion of local purchasing power, the quality of its labor force, the connection of State Route 23 & 118 freeways and the City's positive attitude toward managed growth are all indicators of the economic development potential within Moorpark. Goals, Policies, and Actions have been designed to facilitate economic development and by so doing, help Moorpark realize its potential. The overall goals for Economic Development are listed below. Following is a list of policies associated with each goal. GOAL 13 ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WIDE RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES WHICH MEET THE NEEDS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS AS WELL AS INCREASE TAX REVENUES FOR THE CITY. The purpose of this goal is to encourage a variety of commercial activity that will increase tax revenue for the City. Equally important to this goal is allowing commercial development to proceed in an orderly manner that does not create adverse impacts on surrounding land uses and is consistent with other goals and policies contained in this document. POLICY 13 1: The City shall promote the establishment of an outlet mall, or similar facility, to reduce sales tax leakage, promote energy conservation, provide local consumers with a convenient place to shop for a full range of goods and services, and generally create a more balanced community as the top priority commercial goal of the City. POLICY 13.2: The City should assist private businesses to capture the commercial trade which is currently flowing out of the Moorpark trade market area. POLICY 13.3: The City should encourage the systematic revitalization of obsolete or declining commercial areas, particularly focusing on the downtown area. POLICY 13.4: The City shall work with the business community in a cooperative manner to actively recruit desired business to the community. .+ POLICY 13.5: GOAL 14 00;08 The City shall work with the business and development community to encourage an increase in sales tax concurrently with expansion of housing stock. ATTRACT AND RETAIN HIGH QUALITY, NON- POLLUTING INDUSTRIAL USES. Industrial development has increased slowly in recent.years. While this increased development has benefited the City, Moorpark does not want expanding industrial growth to result in the degradation of the environment or cause conflicts with surrounding land uses. It is the intent of this goal to attract high quality light industrial uses that will have minimal impact on environmental quality and surrounding land uses. POLICY 14.1: The City shall provide an adequate variety of sizes and locations of land for non - polluting, ' light industrial uses. POLICY 14.2: The City should encourage the use of high qualtiy industrial and business parks, especially in highly visible or particularly attractive areas, to accomodate new industrial development. POLICY 14.3: Industry should be recruited based upon 1) the -^ number of jobs per acre provided, 2) its environ- mental impact, and 3) its ability to utilize the skills of the City's residents. An adequate amount of industrial land in parcel sizes to meet the requirements of large employers shall be provided. POLICY 14.4: The City shall establish and implement an industry retention plan. GOAL 15 ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF INDUSTRIAL USES WHICH CAN UTILIZE THE LOCAL LABOR FORCE AND PROVIDE POSITIVE ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR THE CITY. POLICY 15.1: The City, in cooperation with local civic leaders, industrial developers and existing industrial firms shall actively recruit industrial firms, giving primary emphasis to firms generating high local employment and economic benefits, and assist existing firms in expanding their operations. POLICY 15.2: The City shall particularly encourage the location of labor- intensive industry (15 -20 workers per acre) in designated industrial zones. 00109 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ACTION ITEMS) The Implementation Section of Economic- Development Goals and Policies recommends and suggests ways in which the City may continue to promote commercial and industrial development. These measures will assist Moorpark in expanding its economic base while providing clean, non - polluting uses. IMPLEMENTATION General A. The City shall establish a policy of priority - processing of commercial and industrial development applications; a planned development permit shall be required for all commercial and industrial developments; maintenance districts and the like shall be included in the planned development permit in order to insure acceptable property maintenance and adherence to standards. B. The City shall staff one or more positions under the City Manager to assume the responsibility for expediting commercial and industrial development applications,recruit- ment of new business, promotion of Moorpark and other functions directly related to the City's economic development. C. The City shall designate economic development zones which identify specific commercial /industrial uses, such as entertainment centers, automotive outlet centers, business parks, etc., in targeted locations of the City. D. The City shall promote the extension of the Route 118 free- way West, and Route 23 freeway North. To facilitate the City's economic development efforts, the City shall initiate planning for freeway related commercial /industrial development along these vital corridors. E. The City shall assist local development organizations, private, public, and non - profit, in the recruitment of commercial businesses which would reduce Moorpark trade leakage. F. The zoning Ordinance shall be amended as required to reflect changes in commercial land use designations and zones adopted as part of the General Plan Update. G. A five -year Capital Improvements Program shall be carried out by the City and by all agencies affecting economic development in order to provide a dependable and coordinated schedule for development upon which industrial firms and developers can depend._ 00110 H. The City in cooperation with the State Employment Development Department shall research the job skills in the community and shall give special attention to attracting industry which utilizes such skills. I. The Zoning Ordinance shall be amended as required to reflect changes in industrial land use designations and zones adopted as part of the General Plan Update. J. The City shall proactively investigate and evaluate any reports of potential relocation of local industry out of the City, and shall identify and evaluate alternatives to out -of -City relocation,in coordination with State and local governments, utilities and economic development organizations. K. The City, in consultation with the Moorpark Chamber of Commerce, shall develop and maintain a target list of desirable commercial and industrial uses so that economic development efforts are focused and prioritized for maximum effectiveness. MEMO FROM CITY CLERK 00111 TO: CC: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 The Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager Lillian E. Kellerman March 4, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 00112 (805) 529 -6864 The Council was provided the following Planning Commission Meeting minutes related to the General Plan Update as Attachment 1 to the Staff Report from the Community Development Department dated January 17, 1992 (CC meeting of 1/22/92): DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES HANDWRITTEN PAGE NO. Minutes of December 20, 1991 9 -- Minutes of December 6, 1991 21 Minutes of December 2, 1991 32 Minutes of November 25, 1991 53 Minutes of November 18, 1991 61 Minutes of November 4, 1991 85 The Council was copied on an excerpt (General Plan Update discussion) from the Planning Commission Minutes of November 21, 1991. An additional copy of this excerpt is attached for you to include with the aforementioned staff report, should you desire. It should be inserted following handwritten page 60. Also attached is a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 1992 where the Planning Commission adopted the resolutions containing the recommendations regarding the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and the Certifying of the Final Environmental Impact Report. These minutes were approved at the Planning Commission meeting of February 18, 1992 and are now being provided to the Council for the first time. Attachment PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Printed On Recvcled Paner 00113 M E M O R A N D U M To: Steven Kueny, City Manager From: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development Date: November 25, 1991 Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS OF NOVEMBER 21, 1991 (Special Meeting) The Planning Commission meeting began at 7:00 p.m. All members present except Commissioner Miller who was excused because he had the flu. Charles Abbott and Dirk Lovett of Abbott & Associates were present. PUBLIC COMMENTS iNone APPROVAL OF MINUTES None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. General Plan Amendment No. GPA -89 -1, Zone Change No. Z -89 -1 and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study (continued from November 4. 1991). There were four (4) public speakers who addressed the Commission. Of the four who spoke, three were General Plan participants. The other speaker commented on his concern with the proposed location of the roadway circulation on the industrial lots north of Los Angeles Avenue, west of the Edison substation. The public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. The Commission reviewed various aspects of the draft EIR asking Mr. Ken Ryan, PBR a number of questions. The Commission reviewed in detail Table 14 regarding the different alternatives of the General Plan. The Commission concluded their comments on the draft EIR and directed that their comments,all public comments and those letters received be responded to after the November 25th deadline. :J 00.14 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ITEMS The Commission reviewed the recommendations of staff to set future • meetings regarding the General Plan Update. Also, staff advised of Council direction regarding the need to have the General Plan Update as a single agenda item at any future Commission meetings. The Commission selected November 25, December 6, December 20, 1991 and January 6, 1992 as meeting dates to review the General Plan Update. It is the intention of the Commission to review the General Plan Update text document on November 25. To begin a review of requested property land use changes on December 6 and December 20th. The Commission will provide their summary statements and recommendations at their December 20th meeting. The January 6, 1992 meeting will be a review of the Commissioners resolution to the City Council. Ke) -vil -046 20W 4IV 11i� None STAFF COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT • There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. cc: The Honorable City Council Community Development Staff Cheryl Kane, City Attorney Charles Abbott, City Engineer D-krk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer Dave Baird, Moorpark Building & Safety pca \21nov91 40 00115 ,�. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of January 6, 1992 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 6, 1992 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting called to order at Commissioner Torres. 7:10 p.m. presiding. . 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance led by Chairman Wesner. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Steve Brodsky, Christina May, Barton Miller, John Torres; and Chairman Michael Wesner Jr. Absent: None. Other City Officials and Employees present: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Paul Porter, Senior Planner; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA There were no additions or reordering of the agenda. a:\92 -1.6 00110 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of November 21, 1991 and December 16, 1991 were deferred for approval to a later date. Motion: Commissioner Torres moved and Commissioner May second a motion to approve the minutes of December 6, 1992 and with corrections to December 20, 1991. Motion passed on 5:0 voice vote. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Brown asked the Commission if the proposed day labor site was a land use change. The Commission had no comment. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR �-- A. RESOLUTION NO. PC -92 -253 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CASE NO. 89 -1. Motion: Commissioner Brodsky moved and Chairman Wesner second a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -92 -253 with a modification to page 5 and the addition of Section 6 to read as follows: Section 6. That the adoption of this Environmental Impact Report, Land Use and Circulation Elements are for the sole purpose of updating the General Plan. These documents shall not preclude the City from requiring additional studies, EIR's, Mitigated Negative Declarations or monitoring policies for these projects when deemed necessary by the City. Motion passed on a 4:1 roll call vote. Commissioner Miller voting NO. B. RESOLUTION NO. PC -92 -254 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF a: \92 -1.6 Motion: Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of January 6, 1992 Paae -3- 00117 MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF 196 MULTI- FAMILY TOWNHOME PROJECT KNOWN AS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RPD -91 -2, ZONE CHANGE NO. 91 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 4792 ON THE APPLICATION OF URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES. Commissioner Torres moved and Commissioner Brodsky second the motion to approve Resolution No. PC -92 -254. Motion passed on a 5:0 roll call vote. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENTITLEMENT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 4785 and 4786 APPLICANT: C. T. Financial, a General Partnership by Carlsberg Financial Corporation PROPOSAL: The proposed tentative Tract Maps are for large lot subdivisions which correspond to the approved land use designations of the Carlsberg Specific Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4785, which consists of the northern portion of the Specific Plan, contains approximately 206.49 acres. This subdivision contains the following lots: (Continued from December 2, 1991.) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4785 Lot No. Acres Land Use Zoning Lot 1 28.0 Sub -Reg. Commercial CPD Lot 2 25.0 Business Park M -1 Lot 3 2.5 Commercial Restaurant CPD Lot 4 11.0 Sub. Reg. Commercial CPD Lot 5 23.0 Residential RPD -2u Lot 6 23.0 Residential RPD -3u Lot 7 6.5 Park O -S Four Open Space Lots Open Space O -S a:\92 -1.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of January 6, 1992 Page -4- 00118 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4786, which consists of the southern portion of the Carlsberg Specific Plan, contains approximately 287.56 acres. This subdiv.sjon contains the following lots: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4786 Lot No. Acres Land Use '.oning Lot 1 25.0 Residential RPD -5u Lot 2 21.5 Residential RPD -3u Lot 3 4.0 Institutional RA Lot 4 3.0 Institutional RA Lot 5 20.6 Proposed School RPD -3u Lot 6 55.0 Residential RPD -lu Five Open Space Lots Open Space 0 -S LOCATION: The proposed subdivisions prof(-:.' :ate is located on approximately 497 acres land in the southeastern portion of the City Moorpark. The cities of Thousand Oaks to the F-out.h and Simi to the east are located approxima i c -- ,? _ix miles from the project site. The site is JJOL )-ided by New Los Angeles Avenue and Arroyo Simi to lie north, Spring Road to the west, Tierra Rejada to the south, and the Moorpark Freeway (State Highway 23) to the east. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO(s).: VTT4785: 500- 35 -15, 500 -35- 33, 512- 15 -60, and 513- 05 -11. VTT4786: 500 - 35-034 and 500 -35- 041 CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 16, 1991. Presented by Paul Porter, Senior Planner. ):cf..erence: Staff Report dated December 2, 1991. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED Testimony received by the following: Ron Tankersley, C.T. Financial, 2800 28th ..;t.i c:et, Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90405. Mr. Tankersley referenced his January a:\92 -1.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of January 6, 1992 Page -5- 00119 2, 1992 letter with the attached revised map conditions on Vesting Tentative Maps 4785 and 4786. He requested a modification to his January 2, 1992 letter within the 4th paragraph as follows: "That the AOC fee be payable at the time of Building Permit issuance." Another revision stated was the last paragraph on page one of the January 2, 1992 letter as follows: Condition No. 63 not 65. Mr. Tankersley stated that those conditions of the respective maps which do not permit phased recordation of lot maps within each tentative map of preclude phased installation of infrastructure. The proposed changes were to Tract 4785 and 4786 - 8, 11, 57; TR -485 77, and 91; TR -4785 77 and 91; TR- 4786 77 and conditions. Condition 55 of both maps should be revised to reflect the appropriate standard road plates an description of the streets _. included in each map (streets which are not on the map should be omitted). His opinion was that no improvements to Spring Road are required by the EIR due to the connection of Science Drive from Tierra Rejada Road to New Los Angeles Avenue and the reference in this condition to Spring Road should be eliminated. Condition 56 of TR -4785 should be deleted as Peach Hill Road is not a part of the map. Condition 60 of maps 4785 and 4786 should be clarified to state that in the event the subdivider installs any improvement which are identified as "projects" under section IV of the Tierra Rejada Area of Contributions, subdivider shall receive full reimbursement or fee credit for the related cost of installation and payable at time of Building Permit issuance. Condition 62 of map 4785 should be eliminated as the EIR states that no widening of New Los Angeles Avenue east of Spring Road is required with the 23 and 118 freeway connector. Condition 63 of map 4785 should be eliminated as Spring Road bridge improvements do not relate to impacts generated by the project. -- Lastly, that Condition 75 of 4785 and 4786 can not be imposed a: \92 -1.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of January 6, 1992 0012 as a map condition due to separate legal proceedings which apply to the formation of assessment districts which the City must comply. Commissioner Brodsky questioned the City Engineer on condition 56 of 4785. Mr. Abbott said that this condition was needed for Peach Hill circulation of the 4785 tract. Motion: Commissioner Brodsky moved and Commissioner Torres second a motion to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 4785 and 4786 with staff's recommendations. Motion passed on a 5:0 voice vote. B. ENTITLEMENT: Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow ambulance service use within the residential, and industrial zones within the City. The use is currently permitted within commercial zones. APPLICANT: City of Moorpark LOCATION: Within the corporate boundaries of the City of Moorpark. The Director stated that this item before the Commission was still under review by the committee and by Council direction it may return to the Commission. . 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS PC -91 -252 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Section 12 Commission Meetings, 11.1 Schedule: The Commission shall hold regular monthly or bi- monthly meetings as determined by the Commission at its first meeting in January of each year, such determination to include the dates, time and place of such meetings as set forth in Ordinance 33. a: \92 -1.6 0012 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of January 6, 1992 Page -7- It was the general consensus of the Commission by voice vote that regular monthly meetings shall be held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month commencing at 7:00 p.m. 11. STAFF COMMENTS Staff informed the Commission of the General Plan Update process that will be held before the City Council on January 22, 1992. Apprised the Commission of their upcoming agenda and meeting. 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Miller for the record stated that he would have surgery on January 21, 1992 and would be absent. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. No comments on future agenda items were made. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. *RESPECTF1VLLY SUBMITTED BY: &Alt- Celia LaFleur, Secretary Chairman: Michael H. Wesner Jr. a: \92 -1.6 00122 MINUTES MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California 00123 February 12, 1992 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on February 12, 1992 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lawrason called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak and Mayor Lawrason Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney In response to questions, Ms. Kane gave a status of the motion by Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD) attorneys (Bergman & Wedner) to recover attorneys' fees and costs on the City vs. MUSD (Casey Road, Naylor Case). She also questioned their ability to recover filing fees and stated that she would discuss the motion with the Council in Closed Session at the regular meeting on February 19, 1992. 2. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for a discussion of all items listed on the agenda: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) D. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. E. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. H. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. I. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al K. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. L. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. 00124 Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 2 February 12, 1992 M. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark Community Center site pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only Item 2.L. had been discussed. AT THIS POINT IN the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 7:00 p.m. Mayor Lawrason called the meeting back to order at 7:17 p.m. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Wozniak led the pledge of allegiance. 4. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; Don Reynolds, Management Analyst; Charles Abbott, Engineer; Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk; Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mayor Lawrason introduced the representatives from the Resource Management Agency of the County of Ventura and they addressed the Council first under public comment. Gene Kjellberg and Nancy Settle, County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, provided an update on the agricultural program within the County. Mr. Kjellberg outlined the activities and issues that the Agricultural Land Trust Advisory Committee will be addressing in 1992 and the role of the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) in this matter. Connie Lawrason, 4291 Ambermeadow Street, provided a report on the February 11, 1992 meeting of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee. She said the main topic was the Americans with Disabilities Act and an update on the paratransit and intercity transit study was provided to the committee. John Newton, 4410 Summerglen, spoke representing the Chamber of Commerce. He passed out information regarding the Economic Development section of the General Plan Update and indicated that this is not for decision - making this evening, but is a follow -up to the presentation that he and Dr. Abrams made to the Council at a previous meeting. He said this information is a result of continued interest in providing input to the Economic Development section to the General Plan Update. He said the 00125 Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 3 February 12, 1992 submittal they made to the final environmental impact report (goals and policy statements) is still valid. He highlighted the Chamber's proposed changes to Goals 13, 14 and 15 and the Economic Development Implementation section. He said the Chamber would be happy to respond to questions after the Council has an opportunity to review the provided information. Ms. Kane raised a point of procedure. She said that under the Council's own rules of procedure public testimony on a public hearing item is not taken during the public comment period. She said the public hearing on the General Plan Update was closed on Saturday, February 8, and it is not appropriate to be taking any comment from the public as it relates to the General Plan. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said under the Council rules of procedure Mr. Newton's testimony should have been heard during the public hearing. She said once you have closed the public hearing that action indicates you are taking no more testimony from the public. Councilmember Montgomery asked "if it is not testimony, but merely information that the public wishes to share with the Council, is it not allowed, recognizing it will not go on the official public record of the hearing ?" Ms. Kane stated that the whole idea of a public hearing is to bring forth information that members of the public think your body should consider in making its final determinations. She said it's not a matter of how you classify what is being said, if it's information that is being given to ,..�, you to consider in your deliberations, then it falls within the scope of a public hearing. Councilmember Montgomery asked how the City Attorney would recommend the Council obtain information which it deems necessary upon which to make decisions subsequent to the closing of the public hearing. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that at the time YOU closed the public hearing you have reached the determination that you have adequate information to begin deliberating the merits of the item. She said if it is your determination that you don't have adequate information, then you would not be closing the public hearing. Councilmember Montgomery continued by asking what recourse was available if a determination were subsequently made that the Council wanted additional information that was unknown at the time the public hearing was closed. Ms. Kane indicated that the public hearing would need to be reopened and notice readvertised so that the public would know that further testimony was being taken. In response to further questions from Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said the City's exposure to liability is a challenge to the final decision regarding the General Plan based upon the fact that there were procedural defects in the decision. Mr. Talley said during the public hearing portion of the General Plan Update process, Mr. Newton and Dr. Abrams spoke regarding the information presented today and requested the opportunity to submit the information in written form, further refined, at a future date. He said the Council -- agreed by consensus to allow that later submittal. 00126 Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 4 February 12, 1992 Ms. Kane said with respect to an assessment of that action, the public hearing has been open and has been continuing for many weeks and the fact that information is being brought to you at the last moment and not in a complete form is not a defense to the fact that it should have been filed with you during the public hearing. Councilmember Montgomery responded that he felt it is entirely within the Council's "jurisdiction and authority" to make the determination that the public has the right to speak its mind. Barbara Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue, spoke regarding a drainage problem from Gisler field. She indicated that water is draining through her yard and she has had difficulty finding sandbags to stop the water. She requested help in resolving her drainage problem. Ivadel J. Sandoval, 210 Sierra Avenue, supported the comments made by Ms. Schultz and said the drainage in the area of Gisler field needs to be corrected. Mela Kano, 148 Sierra Avenue, stated that she has water in the interior of her home due to the situation in the vicinity of Gisler field. She said the Fire Department has been helpful, but she feels the Mr. Macleod, owner of the Gisler field property, is responsible for the damage being done to the surrounding homes. Councilmember Perez said the City will assist to the extent that it can. Councilmember Talley said he has viewed the situation and there is a definite drainage problem with the Macleod property -- it ponds and does not go to a storm drain. He said the owner needs to review the situation and correct it. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Kueny said the City's responsibility is to protect public property if it is threatened and in that instance, the City would go onto private property to protect the public property. He indicated that this situation is between two private property owners. He said historically, public agencies try to make sandbags available to private property owners to help them with flooding situations. Mr. Talley requested that City staff be prepared to help the public when they call City Hall looking for where to obtain sandbags. Mr. Wozniak commented that it would be in the City's best interest to call Mr. Macleod on behalf of these residents. Ethel Sulkis, 270 Sierra Avenue, mentioned an advertisement she saw for an individual who will assist in the removal of water from carpeting. She also spoke regarding the rate increase for Ventura County Cablevision. She requested the City send a letter of objection to the telephone company or proper agency protesting the rate increase to pay for undergrounding of cable in the Oakland, California area. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, spoke regarding the presentation given by County representatives this evening regarding agricultural lands. She said her letter of dissent which was written while she sat on the Beyond the Year 2000 Committee should be considered when the Council is making 00127 Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 5 February 12, 1992 agricultural determinations. She also expressed concern about the General Plan process, saying that the Council's Affordable Housing Committee should not meet with developers to discuss specific land use changes with respect to the General Plan update. She requested the Council investigate the process to make sure determinations are not being made at the committee level. Councilmember Perez said he acknowledges Mrs. Brown's concerns but that he has questioned the City Attorney in the past and feels confident that proper procedure is followed with regard to his participation on the Affordable Housing Committee. Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, spoke regarding the drainage from Gisler field. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, Mayor Lawrason declared a brief recess. The time was 8:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Perez made a statement that he does not now nor ever has derived financial benefit as a Board Member of Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) therefore there is no conflict of interest per the Political Reform Act, and that in the past he has abstained from Council issues directly related to CEDC out of concern with avoiding any appearance of impropriety. He said regarding the General Plan Update process and his role on the Affordable Housing and Community Development Committees, he has met with CEDC regarding four specific parcels, one of which was never part of the General Plan Update process. He said CEDC is not engaged in any negotiations regarding the General Plan Update. He said CEDC's submittal of an RFP to MUSD was public knowledge and was made subsequent to the City's formal settlement offer to the school district. With these facts before the Council he said doesn't believe there is an issue of conflict of interest or any impropriety on his part and he is looking forward to continuing his participation in the General Plan Update process. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Consider General Plan Update Land Use and Circulation Element Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, and Environmental Impact Report {GPA -89 -1 and Zone Change 89 -11. (THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED 2/8/92.) Debbie Traffenstedt gave the staff report. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Ms. Traffenstedt clarified that the shaded text incorporates staffs' comments and the City Attorney's comments on each item and does not include prior changes from the Planning Commission. She clarified that Planning Commission comments were Attachment 2 to the first public hearing staff report that the Council received. It begins with numbered page 106. By consensus, the Council made the following changes and /or requests for revisions to policies of the Land Use Element: The definition of "Goals" will be changed to read as follows: "A goal is a statement of a value or quality desired by the Community and is abstract by nature. Goals express an ideal future state or condition 00128 .� Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 6 February 12, 1992 within the community and set the direction of future development. Goals are generally not quantifiable, time- dependent or suggestive of specific actions for achievement." The fifth bullet in the last grouping of bullets on page 9 should read, "preservation of important natural features, agricultural areas and visually prominent hillside areas." The sixth bullet in the last grouping of bullets on page 9 will be rewritten by staff using similar language to Policy 6.4 on page 13. New Policy 1.4 will read as follows: "New development and redevelopment shall not adversely impact the existing and planned capacity of public facilities and services." Mayor Lawrason declared a brief recess to change the videotape. The time was 9:36 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:37 p.m. New Policy 2.1 - staff to draft two policies: one to address criteria as far as timing and the second to express that the planning area is the area of interest and it is not the intent that the entire area of interest be the sphere of influence. Policy 3.2 - Staff will modify to include the language that residential projects of scale shall include variation of residential product types, lot sizes, and designs. Policy 3.1 - Councilmember Talley commented that the Planning Commission made a recommendation on this policy. Policy 4.1 - revise to read, "The residential character of identifiable neighborhoods shall be maintained by requiring adjacent new development to have compatible architectural, streetscape design, landscape, color and materials, building setbacks, and building heights." Policy 4.2 - to be deleted. Policy 4.3 - to be addressed later. Policy 5.3 - to be revised to read, "Natural and /or landscaped buffer areas shall be provided around and within residential projects to minimize land use conflicts and privacy impacts." Policy 7.3 - to be revised to read, "External cross - connections between commercial uses shall be provided so as to reduce the number of curb cuts and number of vehicle trips on adjacent roadways." Policy 7.4 - to be revised by staff. Policy 8.1 - to be revised to read, "New commercial uses shall be compatible in scale and character with all adjacent commercial uses." Policy 8.2 - to be revised to read, "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..." Policy 8.3 - to be revised to read, "Automobile and truck access to commercial properties shall be located so as to minimize impacts to adjacent uses." 00129 Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 7 February 12, 1992 Policy 9.1 - to be revised to read, "The visual character of the downtown commercial core shall be strengthened in order to attract a variety of commercial uses and to promote the economic viability of downtown Moorpark." Policy 9.3 - to be revised to read, "The establishment of a community meeting /marketplace in the downtown core shall be promoted." Policy 9.4 - to be revised to read, "A comprehensive plan for the downtown commercial core shall promote new commercial infill areas, park or recreational opportunities, public parking, and a potential multimodal transportation center." Policy 9.5 - to be revised to read, "The civic center shall remain in the downtown area to encourage the revitalization of downtown." Policy 9.6 - to be revised to read, "Public spaces and services shall be maintained to create an aesthetically and functionally welcoming environment." Policy 10.2 - to be revised to read, "Industrial uses shall incorporate design features, such as screen walls, landscaping and setbacks, and include height, and lighting restrictions so as to minimize adverse impacts to adjacent uses and to enhance the visual characteristics of the area. Policy 10.3 - to be revised to read, "Industrial uses shall be well maintained to enhance the visual characteristics of the area." Staff directed to also include this in the commercial land use area. Policy 10.4 - to be revised to read, "Industries which meet local, regional and state air and water pollution control goals and standards should be encouraged to locate within the City." Policy 10.5 - staff directed to draft a policy pertaining to enterprise zones (i.e., recycling). Policy 10.6 - staff directed to draft a policy to include non - polluting, non heavy metal industrial uses. Policy 11.1 - to be revised to read, "Farm land which has been identified as Prime and of Statewide Importance should be retained as an agricultural land use designation for as long as it remains economically viable within the City's Area of Interest." Policy 11.2 - to be revised to read, "When new residential development is adjacent to existing agricultural uses, a setback shall be provided to minimize compatibility conflicts." Policy 12.1 - staff directed to revise. Policy 12.3 - to be revised to read, "The city shall cooperate with the County of Ventura and other appropriate agencies in the siting of any future waste handling facility." Policy 12.5 - Staff will revise to read similar to "the city's current standard of maintaining maximum number of acres of parkland available 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..." 00130 Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 8 February 12, 1992 Policy 12.7 - to be revised to read, "Any proposed project shall be required to contribute its fair share of the cost of providing adequate public services and facilities." Policy 12.8 - staff directed to draft a policy to address the need to require parkland development from the industrial and commercial sector. Goal 13: - staff directed to review the input from the Chamber of Commerce for consolidation and inclusion in this section. Goal 14 - to be revised to read, "Establish land uses which are compatible with scenic and natural resources and which encourage environmental preservation." Policy 14.2 - to be revised to read, "New development shall respect, integrate with, and complement the natural features of the land." Policy 14.3 - to be revised to read, "New development shall not contribute to or cause hazardous conditions of any kind." Policy 14.4 - to be revised to read, "The flood control easement area adjacent to the Arroyo Simi floodway shall be preserved and enhanced as an important natural and scenic feature of the community." Policy 14.6 - to be revised to read, "Areas identified as significant aquifer recharge areas shall be protected and preserved." Policy 15.2 - to be revised to read, "Ecologically sensitive habitats shall be protected and preserved." Staff will draft added language for this policy. Policy 15.5 - to be deleted. Policy 15.6 - to be revised to read, "Commercial, industrial and manufacturing uses shall implement recycling programs to be consistent with the City's Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE)." Policy 15.8 - to be revised to read, "Development in significant hazard areas, which cannot be mitigated without resulting in significant adverse environmental impacts, shall be prohibited." Significant hazard areas" to be defined in a glossary within the document. Policy 15.9 - Staff directed to draft the language for a policy to address the establishment of and maintenance of trails and wildlife corridors. Goal 16 - to be revised to read, "Enhance and maintain the suburban rural identity of the community." Policy 16.2 - to be revised to read, "Hillside development standards shall be adopted which restrict grading on slopes greater than 20 percent and which encourage the preservation of visual horizon lines and significant hillsides as prominent visual features." Policy 16.3 - to be revised to read, "The overall density and intensity of development should decrease as the slope increases." Policy 16.4 - to be revised to read, "New residential development should complement the overall community character of the city, establish a sense of place, and ensuring compatibility with important existing local community identities." 00131 Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 9 February 12, 1992 Policy 17.3 - to be revised to read, "Design standards should be established for City entryways on the south (Moorpark Freeway), east (SR- 118 freeway), north (Walnut Canyon Road and future SR -23 extension), and west (Los Angeles Avenue), which encourage landscape setbacks, sign monumentation and other special design treatments to enhance gateways to the city. Policy 17.6 - staff directed to add language relative to xeroscaping to this policy. Policy 17.7 - staff directed to review the language of this policy. Policy 17.9 - staff to review this policy for inclusion of language related to undergrounding. Policy 17.10 - to be deleted. Policy 18.2 - to be relocated elsewhere in the document. Policy 18.5 - to be revised to read, "Development in the downtown area should incorporate the careful use of compatible or similar construction materials and architectural style, so as not to detract from the integrity of historical features." PUB - Public /Institutional - staff directed to develop a policy statement wherever they deem most appropriate (i.e., residential or specific plan goal) which encourages this type of land use in the specific plan areas. Mr. Richards indicated that some changes would be necessary for zoning and general plan consistency. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to continue this item to February 26, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to adjourn back into Closed Session for a discussion of all items listed on the agenda under Item 2: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) D. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. E. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. 00.32 Minutes of the City council Moorpark, California Page 10 February 12, 1992 H. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. I. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al K. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. L. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. M. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark Community Center site pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 12:30 a.m. The Council reconvened into Closed Session at 12:33 a.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmember; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 12:44 a.m. Mr. Kueny stated there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only item 2.L. had been discussed. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 12:44 a.m. Paul W. Lawrason Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk 00133 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California February 26, 1992 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on February 26, 1992 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lawrason called the meeting to order at 5:58 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Absent: Councilmember Perez. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. 2. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for a discussion of all items listed on the agenda: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). D. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. E. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. H. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. I. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al. K. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. L. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. M. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark Community Center site pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. N. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School �- District. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Perez absent for the vote. 00 134 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 February 26, 1992 Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers but Councilmember Perez; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. Councilmember Perez joined the Closed Session at 6:27 p.m. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 6:58 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only items 2.D., 2.E., 2.G., 2.L., 2.N., had been discussed. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 6:58 p.m. Mayor Lawrason called the meeting back to order at 7:32 p.m. He explained that this was a special meeting of the City Council for the Council to discuss the General Plan Update and that the public hearing was closed. •3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Dee Talley. 4. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak and Mayor Lawrason. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; and Lillian Kellerman, City Clerk. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: Joe Latunski, 289 Casey Rd., stated he should not have to pay for trash pick -up service when his trash is not picked up. Dennis Miller, 229 Charles Street, asked the Council to consider reopening the public hearing on the General Plan Update. He said the City should adopt a policy limiting the City Council's ability to increase residential density to a small percentage of the City's land area in any 10 year period. Rene Mayfield, 6085 Darlene Lane, was not present when called to speak. John Roberts, 15787 Graduate Circle, spoke representing the Campus Hills Home Owners Association (HOA). He said Resolution 90 -634 was adopted to establish a zone to allow parking in excess of one hour by permit only on portions of certain streets near Moorpark College because of parking abuses by students at the College. He said residents in the area are not receiving the parking enforcement which was promised. He said the HOA was receiving 3.7 calls per day regarding problems related to parking. Councilmember Montgomery responded to Mr. Roberts that the Council would see that the problem was resolved by adequate enforcement. Sandra Schneider, 4731 Elderberry Avenue, addressed the Council. She said she watched the General Plan Update meetings on cable and had concerns regarding the proposed specific plan developments. She presented a petition to the Council signed by 15 of her neighbors expressing their opposition to the proposed plans to develop significant portions of open and agricultural land within Moorpark. Mark Stanley, 721 Sir George Court, said he watched the General Plan Update meetings and was concerned with the proposed development in his neighborhood. He asked where he could get more details on the specific plan projects. 0035 ,.. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 February 26, 1992 Mayor Lawrason responded that Mr. Stanley should contact staff who would be able to answer questions in relation to the location of his property. Councilmember Talley explained the Specific Plan process. Gerry Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, said that the gates behind City Hall should be unlocked during Council meetings so that overflow traffic would have a place to park. John Roberts was allowed to address the Council again. He said he thought the public hearing for the General Plan Update was closed. He said various petitions regarding the General Plan Update had been presented at the Campus Hills Homeowners' Association meeting but he had informed the HOA that the petitions could not be presented to the Council because of the closure of the public hearing. He asked to be allowed to submit further information to the Council as the Council had taken additional testimony and accepted another petition tonight. He said he had not heard any protest from the City Council regarding the new General Plan comment given this evening. Mayor Lawrason responded that the public hearing was closed and asked the City Council for a ruling on the acceptance of the material Mr. Roberts wished to present. Councilmember Perez said that he felt many of the questions from speakers tonight had been general questions and they were appropriately directed to staff for answers. Ms. Kane said that as she had advised the Council at the last General Plan meeting concerning the General Plan hearing process. She said the Council has closed the public hearing and any testimony relative to the General Plan would be outside the scope of that public hearing. She said the Council would be raising procedural issues to accept public testimony after the public comment period. She said she agreed with Councilmember Perez that some of the speakers tonight have just asked questions, however, there was also some testimony that was directed specifically to the General Plan or properties that are the subject of general plan amendment consideration. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Ms. Kane said that what has been received has been made part of the record but the Council could make a statement that they would not consider it as part of their deliberations on the General Plan. She said she strongly recommended that no further testimony on the General Plan be taken. Mayor Lawrason stated that he had announced that the public hearing on the General Plan was closed and expected the public to adhere to that but they had not. He said he agreed with Mr. Perez that the questions asked had been, for the most part, general in nature. He said that at this point he will make the statement that none of the information heard this evening will be used in deliberations on the General Plan Update. Councilmember Perez said he agreed. Councilmember Montgomery said he did not know how the public could be kept from exercising their freedom of speech. MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Mayor Lawrason seconded a motion that the Council will not consider public comment received since the closure of the public hearing in their deliberations on the General Plan Update. In response to Councilmember Montgomery's question regarding telephone conversations received by Councilmembers at home regarding the General Plan Update, Ms. Kane said any information received that has not been recorded on the public record raises another problem. The purpose of a public hearing is to allow full disclosure of the information that an individual Councilmember is 00136 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 February 26, 1992 going to base his decision on and to give people who have an opposing view the opportunity to come forward and set forward their opinions, particularly landowners. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said written material received outside the public hearing raises the same concerns as oral comment. CLARIFICATION OF THE MOTION: In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Councilmember Perez clarified that the motion's intent was that all public comment whether written or oral, received since the public hearing was closed, would not be used in deliberations on the General Plan. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion failed by roll call vote 3 -2, Councilmembers Montgomery, Talley and Wozniak dissenting. Mayor Lawrason asked what alternative the Council had at this point. Ms. Kane said that the Council could reopen the public hearing and at that time the Council could accept into the record the written testimony and verbal testimony that had thus far been received and give anyone else who wished the opportunity to testify, the forum to do so. Councilmember Montgomery said he did not support reopening the public hearing. He said he felt another option was to accept the minimal risk involved and allow the public to continue to speak under public comment and receive any written testimony the public wished to submit. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Ms. Kane said that Councilmember Montgomery's alternative was a matter of weighing the risks and she could not give a legal opinion on that. Mayor Lawrason said it was his concern that the process be kept within the guidelines of the law so that the City was not open to litigation. Councilmember Talley suggested that the Council reopen the public hearing for one more meeting and advertise that date as the last open hearing date. MOTION: Councilmember Talley moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to readvertise and reopen the public hearing. Councilmember Montgomery said he would not support the motion as it would extend the process without adding anything to it. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that substantive changes in the General Plan would require review by the Planning Commission. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that she would need specific examples to determine what was a substantive change. Councilmember Talley said that the whole process might be extended. He said he had some concerns that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to comment on some additional alternatives to those in the EIR. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that the Council could continue reviewing the General Plan Update documents even if the motion to reopen the public hearing passed as long as the Council made no final action. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Kueny indicated that March 16 was the earliest date that a public hearing could be advertised. OOi3i Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 February 26, 1992 In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that straw votes would be permissible and the Council would need to be clear that before any final decisions were made on the General Plan that final testimony had been considered. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that to the extent that the Council was changing policies substantively and the substance of any change was not considered by the Planning Commission, those changes would have to go back to the Planning Commission for its review and comment. Councilmember Montgomery requested that the City Attorney determine if any substantive changes had been made thus far by the Council. Ms. Kane said that she would have to review the changes made thus far by the Council to make that determination and could probably accomplish that before the next meeting. Mayor Lawrason said that the Council had not made any final changes on the General Plan yet. The goals and policies are still in draft form. Councilmember Talley said he agreed with the Mayor regarding the fact that the Council had not made any substantive changes yet. He continued by saying that if the Council did not follow any of the alternatives listed in the EIR, but come up with proposals of lesser impact, that would be a substantive change. In response to Councilmember Talley, Ms. Kane said that if he was referring to the Land Use Map and if the Council's final determination was a Land Use Map that was not part of the EIR and was not otherwise considered by the Planning Commission, it would have to be returned to the Planning Commission for its review and comment. Councilmember Montgomery said that it appeared to him that the Council was "in decision avoidance ". He said he felt that the Council should "get on with their job." Councilmember Talley said he had requested an answer from the City Attorney because it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was told that they had to stay within the confines of the EIR -- Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 or no project. He said in order for us to do our job, the Council may not be able to address Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as written in the EIR. He said he asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to look at other scenarios and they responded yes but that they (the Planning Commissioners) were told "no they couldn't." He said the Planning Commission should have been allowed to get the proper guidance and the proper opinions that would have allowed them to proceed in a direction similar to that in which the Council desires to go. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried by roll call vote 4 -1, Councilmember Montgomery dissenting. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to set the General Plan Update public hearing for March 18, 1992, moving regular business to a meeting on March 25, 1992. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that the Council should not take public comment on the General Plan outside of the public hearing. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to continue discussion of the General Plan Update at the meeting of March 11, 1992; no public testimony, written or oral to be taken until the reopening of the public hearing on March 18, 1992. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 00138 February 26, 1992 A. Consider General Plan Update Land Use and Circulation Elements, Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, and Environmental Impact Report (GPA -89 -1 and Zone Change 89 -11. Staff Recommendation: Continue Council discussion. Mayor Lawrason said the Council went through the Land Use Designations and now had that document in revised draft form. He suggested reviewing the Circulation Element. In response to Councilmember Talley, Mr. Richards indicated that staff would review the General Plan policies relative to compatibility with the County's Congestion Management Plan. The Council reviewed the Circulation Element contained in a document dated February 11, 1992 By Consensus, the Council made the following changes and /or requests for revisions to policies of the Circulation Element: Policy 1.2 - staff was requested to revise this policy and bring back to the Council for consideration new wording to indicate that this policy deals with a State route and not another arterial. Policy 1.3 - staff was directed to revise this policy to add "soundwalls" after "special landscape treatments...." and any other such similar mitigations. Policy 1.4 - staff was directed to revise this policy to replace "should not allow" with "discourage" and to reconsider the use of the word "through ". Policy 1.6 - staff was directed to revise this policy to replace "shall be evaluated" with "shall be reviewed and if necessary updated." Policy 2.1 - staff was directed to revise this policy to change the word "standard" to "objective" or a similar word. Policy 2.2 - staff was directed to revise this policy to delete "specified performance standards" and to define more clearly the performance standard. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 9:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m. Policy 2.4. - staff was directed to revise this policy to add the word "new" after "All ". Policy 2.6 - staff was directed to revise this policy to say that any project should have adequate secondary access. Policy 3.3 - staff was directed to revise this policy to read "Roadways in hillside areas shall not have a significant, adverse impact on the natural contours of the land; grading of streets shall be minimized and harsh cut slopes which may not heal into natural appearing surfaces shall be avoided." Policy 3.4 - staff was directed to add the word "New" to the beginning of the sentence. Policy 4.1 - staff was directed to change "shall" to "should" in the policy. 00139 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 February 26, 1992 Policy 5.1 - staff was directed to revise this policy to reflect that this policy is required for new development. Policy 5.6 - staff was directed to revise this policy by placing a period after "industrial building site" and deleting "with a large work force ". Policy 5.8 - staff was directed to revise this policy to include language that, though not required, a meandering sidewalk or landscaping between the sidewalk and the curb shall be considered. Policy 6.1 - staff was directed to revise this policy to read "Equestrian linkages to regional parks shall be developed and maintained" with additional language to be developed by staff addressing a requirement for linkages from within the City to outside the City. Policy 6.2 - staff was directed to strike the word "major" and "wherever feasible ". Policy 6.3 - a new policy was added for which staff was directed to write language to address the integration of multi -use trails -- equestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian. Policy 7.1 - staff was directed to place a period, ending the sentence, after "and commuter rail." Policy 7.2 - staff was directed to delete the word "large" and "with a large work force" from this policy. Policy 7.3 - staff was directed to look at this policy with regard to the paratransit plan. Policy 7.4 - staff was directed to delete "vehicle -miles traveled" and insert "vehicle trips ". Staff was directed to develop a policy or policies regarding a plan for the collection and expending of air pollution control monies. 4.0 Implementation Mr. Richards stated that with the identification by the Council of a number of new policies, this section must be revised by staff to include those new policies. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Richards indicated that the figures in the table on page 14 referred to average daily trip capacities. Staff was directed to change 7.0 Equestrian Facility Plan, bullet 4 to read "Equestrian trails and hiking trails are generally compatible." CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to review Table 1 - Standards for Roadway Levels of Service, 6.0 - Bikeway Plan, and 7.0 - Equestrian Facility Plan at later date. The Council discussed the upcoming reopening of the General Plan public hearing. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane clarified that General Plan Update applicants should be allowed to speak if they desired at the reopened public hearing. 00140 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 February 26, 1992 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that all previous speakers at the Council General Plan public hearings are to be noticed regarding the reopening of the hearing; all those providing written comment to the Council on the General Plan since the beginning of the public hearing are to be noticed regarding the reopening of the public hearing; no time limit will be set for speakers at the reopened public hearing. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council directed that Rene Mayfield be specifically noticed regarding the upcoming reopening of the public hearing for the General Plan. Councilmember Montgomery requested that the rules governing public hearing speakers for the reopened public hearing should be clarified -- what limits there were; when they can speak; how they can register to speak; what they will be allowed to present to the Council. Mayor Lawrason requested that staff prepare an opening statement to address Councilmember Montgomery's concerns regarding the rules governing speakers at the reopened General Plan public hearing, which rules should be the rules of procedure for the City Council. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council directed staff to place the notice of the public hearing in the newspaper, to prepare a press release and cablecast notice of the reopened public hearing; a copy of the public hearing notice to be reviewed by the Council at the next meeting. Mayor Lawrason asked for consideration for a later motion to leave the public hearing open until the end of the General Plan process. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to continue Council discussion of the General Plan Update to March 11, 1992. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for a discussion of all items listed on the agenda: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) D. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. E. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. H. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. I. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al 004; Minutes of the City Council t Moorpark, California Page 9 February 26, 1992 K. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. L. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. M. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark Community Center site pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. N. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School District The motion carried by unanimous voice vote., AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 11:12 p.m. The Council reconvened into Closed Session at 11:22 p.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. Ms. Kane left the Closed Session at 11:28 p.m. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 12:02 a.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only A. Personnel and, C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) were discussed. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Talley moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 12:02 a.m. Paul W. Lawrason Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk 00142 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California March 11, 1992 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on March 11, 1992 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lawrason called the meeting to order at 6:22 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. 2. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for a discussion of all items listed on the agenda: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) . D. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. E. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. H. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. I. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al. K. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. L. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. M. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark Community Center site pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. N. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School District. 00143 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 March 11, 1992 The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 7:01 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only items 2.A. and 2.I. had been discussed. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 7:01 p.m. Mayor Lawrason called the meeting back to order at 7:10 p.m. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Perez. 4. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak and Mayor Lawrason. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk; and Lillian Kellerman, City Clerk. Mayor Lawrason presented a proclamation in honor of Women's History Month to Connie Lawrason, Anna McVerry, and Virginia Rogalsky of the Ventura Commission for Women. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: Connie Lawrason, 4291 Ambermeadow Street, gave a report as the City's representative on the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee /Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC /SSTAC). She indicated that a presentation was given by Chris Stevens of the Ventura County Transportation Commission which addressed the Congestion Management Program, and he spoke regarding several other programs and requested input as to their importance for each member of the Committee. Each member will list five of the programs which are of utmost importance to them and these results will be compiled and will come back to them for further consideration. Mrs. Lawrason also explained that they received an update on the Santa Clara Rail Corridor study and that the Unmet Transit Needs hearing will be held at the Camarillo City Hall on March 16. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, spoke regarding the residents of Tafoya Terrace. She said a younger person was recently allowed to move into the complex and the residents are concerned. She said the housing was originally intended to be available only to senior tenants 62 years of age and older. In addition, she said she is aware of one vacancy that exists at the complex; however, qualified seniors are being turned away and told there are no vacancies. Mrs. Brown also said emergency bells have been removed from the project so the seniors do not have that method 00,144 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 March 11, 1992 of getting emergency help. She requested the City Council place this item on a future agenda for consideration. Mayor Lawrason requested this item be added to a future agenda. Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, said he hopes the residents of Virginia Colony can work with the City to get a playground constructed in their neighborhood for the safety of the neighborhood children. Ethel Sulkis, 270 Sierra Avenue, commented that the condition that was placed on Park Lane Car Wash prohibiting them from selling fuel unless it is in conjunction with a car wash should be changed. 6. ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Consider Improvement Agreement for Carlsbera Staged Grading Permit. Staff Recommendation: Approve the agreement subject to approval of the final language by the City Attorney and City Manager, and authorize the Mayor to sign. Mr. Kueny gave the staff report. MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to approve the staff recommendation to approve the agreement subject to approval of the final language by the City Attorney and City Manager, and authorize the Mayor to sign. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Consider General Plan Update Land Use and Circulation Elements, Sphere of Influence Expansion study, and Environmental Impact Refit (GPA -89 -1 and Zone Change 89 -1). Staff Recommendation: Continue Council discussion. CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to review later in the meeting the City Manager's report regarding the procedure for the reopened General Plan Hearing. The Council discussed the revised Draft. Circulation Element dated March 3, 1992. Mayor Lawrason commented that he felt the Goals and Policies of the Circulation Element had been revised pursuant to Council direction. Figure 2 - Circulation Element Highway Network Councilmember Montgomery said this exhibit would need to be changed to reflect the Council direction to initiate the change of street names, for Los Angeles Avenue and Princeton Avenue to High Street and New Los Angeles Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue. Councilmember Montgomery said during final consideration, he would be looking for the removal of (1) the Unidos /Majestic Court Road which dissects a number of properties; (2) Liberty Bell Road shown as a through street from Los Angeles Avenue to Poindexter Avenue. He said in addition, there is a question as to where the State Route 118 Bypass Road should end. He said it should not extend into a very significant agricultural area currently owned by the McGrath 0014" Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 March 11, 1992 family. He said the exhibit shows the State Route 23 Bypass and State Route 118 Bypass assumes approval of certain Specific Plans which have not yet been discussed. Councilmember Perez said it was too soon for him to "yield" to Councilmember Montgomery on deletion of the Liberty Bell Road extension or Unidos and Majestic Court Road. Councilmember Talley said the Council should determine how necessary the extension of Gabbert Road to Grimes Canyon is because of the possible negative effect on the existing neighborhood in that area. Mr. Kueny said that the Council might want to consider the following in their deliberations: (1) whether the portion of Los Angeles Avenue east of the Los Angeles /High Street /Spring Road intersection to Princeton Avenue should be designated as four lanes rather than the two lane local collector it is now designated; (2) showing Campus Park Drive, from the intersection of Campus Park Drive and Princeton Avenue west to its present terminus, as a local collector; (3) State Route 118, west of Gabbert, whether it should be designated as a four lane or six lane arterial. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Kueny said that a rural collector (2 -4 lanes) designation might not fit the portion of Los Angeles Avenue east of the Los Angeles /High Street /Spring Road intersection (Los Angeles Avenue to Princeton Avenue) but that the flexibility of having two or four lanes would be beneficial and would be reviewed by staff. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Richards said that without going through the mathematical analysis of a traffic model, a determination could not be made as to the percentage of decrease in density that would be required for surrounding projects, if the State Route 118, west of Gabbert, were designated as a four lane arterial rather than a six lane arterial. Councilmember Perez said he felt a six lane arterial might be needed or the level of service would deteriorate as growth occurred. Councilmember Talley said that the completion of State Route 118 as proposed in the 1960's would relieve much of the traffic in the City. He said the City should "push" for completion with Caltrans. Mr. Kueny said the staff could look at the physical limitations on State Route 118 west of Gabbert Road with regard to both minimum as well as optimum (six lanes) width, the minimum being without a median. He said it appears that the existing location of the south curb and gutter cannot be moved. Mayor Lawrason said he felt the route 'projected for an easterly extension of Broadway to Alamos Canyon was questionable as to whether it should go somewhere further west than Alamos Canyon to terminate with the freeway. Mr. Kueny said staff would look at whether the portion of Mountain Trail Road adjacent to the shopping center in Mountain Meadows subdivision should be shown as a four lane arterial. OO14G Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 March 11, 1992 In response to Mr. Kueny, Mr. Richards clarified that it was staff's intention to show all local collectors on the exhibit. Figure 3 - Bikeway Plan The Council discussed the Bikeway Plan exhibit. Councilmember Montgomery said bikeway paths to community parks and neighborhood parks should be shown on the exhibit. Mr. Kueny said Peach Hill Road (north and south) could be classified as Class III Bikeway but staff would look at this and whether Peach Hill Road from Tierra Rejada Road to Peach Hill Park could be shown as a Class II. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to direct staff to look at any schools that cannot be accessed by means of the bikeway network in Figure 3. Mayor Lawrason said that an interconnection between the east and the west is not shown except for Tierra Rejada Road. He said once the State Route 118/23 connector is finished there would be the potential designating the proposed High Street (existing Los Angeles Avenue) as at least a Class III Bikeway. Councilmember Wozniak said that all the Bikeways end before you get downtown. He said that High Street, Spring Road and proposed High Street (existing Los Angeles Avenue) out to Princeton Avenue should be looked at for bikeway designations. Councilmember Montgomery said that Figure 3 and Figure 4 (Equestrian Trail Network) could be overlayed to identify some additional areas where there could be bikeways. North of Broadway along the continuing State Route 23 bypass and on up to the north could be identified as a potential bikeway. Mayor Lawrason said that a new "class" category of bike routes might be needed for mountain bikes. Councilmember Talley asked if most of the equestrian trails would be compatible with mountain bike use. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that Councilmember Montgomery and Councilmember Talley would review and recommend to staff those equestrian trails that would be compatible for mountain bike use. The Council concurred that they had reviewed every recommendation made by the Planning Commission with regard to the Circulation Goals and Policies. Draft Land Use Element Goals and Policies Mayor Lawrason read Table 1 of Section 2.1 for the public. It was determined that the percentages for park and agriculture land uses were incorrect. 003.4 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 March 11, 1992 Councilmember Montgomery indicated that Section 5.1 on pages 19 and 20 was an area that was greatly changed from the Planning Commission workshops. Mayor Lawrason requested a summary or examples of each of the milestones passed in arriving at the final numbers in this section (5.1). He said he would need the various versions of this section "side by side" to review. Councilmember Montgomery requested a list of examples of the types of uses that would "fit" into the Public/ Institutional category. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Richards went over those things that would have to be accomplished with regard to the implementation of the General Plan - the Housing Element, Noise Element, OSCAR Element must be revised to be internally consistent with the General Plan. He said, in addition, that the City's Zoning Code would have to be revised. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 9:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Upcoming Reopened General Plan Meeting - March 18, 1992 Mayor Lawrason read the City Manager's memorandum dated March 6, 1992 to the Council regarding the guidelines for the Reopened General Plan Meeting. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to delete the reference to any time limit for any speakers at the meeting. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for a discussion of all item listed on the agenda as Item 2: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) . D. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. E. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. H. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 March 11, 1992 I. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al. K. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. L. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. M. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark Community Center site pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. N. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School District. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 9:30 p.m. The Council reconvened into Closed Session at 9:39 p.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 10:42 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only items 2.A., 2.F., 2.G., 2.J., and 2.N. were discussed. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Talley moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 11:40 p.m. Paul W. Lawrason Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk