Agenda — Community & Economic Development Committee, May 6, 2026

CITY OF MOORPARK
All writings and documents provided to the members of the Community and Economic Development Standing Committee of the City of Moorpark regarding all agenda items are available for public inspection at the City Hall public counter located at 323 Science Drive during regular business hours. The agendas and agenda reports for City Council Standing Committee meetings are available on the City’s website at www.moorparkca.gov.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to review an agenda or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Community Development Department at (805) 517-6200. Upon request, the agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Any request for disability-related modification or accommodation should be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to assist the City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104; ADA Title II).

CHRIS R. ENEGREN
Mayor

RENEE DELGADO
Councilmember

CHRIS BARRETT
Councilmember

TOM MEANS
Councilmember
DR. ANTONIO CASTRO
Councilmember
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 323 Science Drive, Moorpark, California 93021 Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2540 | www.moorparkca.gov

NOTICE AND CALL OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STANDING COMMITTEE
(Councilmember Delgado and Councilmember Means)
Wednesday, May 6, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Community and Economic Development Standing Committee is hereby called to be held on Wednesday, May 6, commencing at 5:00 p.m. Said meeting will be held in the Moorpark City Hall Century Conference Room, at 323 Science Drive, Moorpark, California.

Said Special Meeting shall be for the purpose of considering the following items:

1. CALL TO ORDER:

2. ROLL CALL:

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

4. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

A. Consider Pre-Screening Application No. CD-GPAPRE-2025-0002 to Authorize the Filing of a Proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Associated with a Conceptual Project Known as Arroyo Verde, on the Application of Dennis Hardgrave. (Staff: Gene Burse)
B. Receive a Presentation on the Draft Downtown Specific Plan. (Staff: Doug Spondello)

5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
(Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to change.)

6. ADJOURNMENT:

Posted: April 30, 2026.

COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA REPORT MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Committee Members
FROM: Gene Burse, Deputy Community Development Director DATE: 05/06/2026 Special Meeting
SUBJECT: Pre-Screening Application No. CD-GPAPRE-2025-0002 (Arroyo Verde)- Response to Committee Comments and Applicant’s
Preliminary Fiscal Impact Analysis

BACKGROUND
This memorandum serves as a supplement to the previously published agenda report regarding the Arroyo Verde Pre-Screening application. At the Community and Economic Development Committee meeting held on February 18, 2026, the applicant, Dennis Hardgrave, was asked to provide additional information describing the fiscal implications of the proposed annexation and development. During that meeting, Committee members expressed specific concerns regarding the financial impact of the proposed new development on the City’s general fund, the specific cost of municipal services per household relative to the revenue generated, and the need for a formal analysis of the project’s economic advantages and disadvantages.

FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
In response to these requests, the applicant submitted a preliminary Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA/Attachment 1). To provide a clear comparison of the fiscal impacts, staff has outlined the data in three stages:

1. Citywide Baseline: Based on a 2023 study by California Lutheran University (CLU), the annual cost of municipal services is estimated at $1,164 per resident, or $3,608.87 per household. CLU Researchers arrived at these figures by reviewing six years of City budgets, evaluating General Fund expenditures relative to population growth, and identifying the long-term maintenance costs for roads and parks as the City’s most significant financial burdens. In contrast, a typical existing median-priced home ($741,011) generates $672.84 in direct City revenue. This results in a citywide funding gap of $2,936.03 per existing household. It is important Item: 4.A.
1 Community and Economic Development Committee
05/06/2026 Special Meeting

Page 2 ends

to note that these figures are preliminary and will be further refined as the project moved forward.

2. Project Specifics: Because the proposed homes are projected at a $1 million valuation, they will generate a higher base City share of $908 per unit. While this is a 35% improvement over existing homes, it still leaves a $2,700 discrepancy compared to the $3,608 service cost. Staff believes the use of a 3.1-person household size for the financial analysis is a sensible approach compared to the

3.2-person household size figure in the City’s General Plan 2050.

3. Proposed Resolution by the Applicant: To bridge the $2,700 gap and achieve fiscal neutrality, the applicant proposes a Community Facilities District (CFD) with a

0.27% tax increment. This would bring the total local tax contribution to $3,608 per household, effectively offsetting the cost of the City to provide services. The applicant asserts this approach would result in a total annual property tax load of

1.35% for new residents of the new development.

CONCLUSION
The applicant’s FIA indicates that the project can achieve fiscal neutrality through special assessment districts such as a CFD and Landscape Maintenance District. General Plan 2050 speaks to growth that result in being financially revenue-neutral or that results in revenue growth. Specifically, Policy LU 1.4 requires that new growth does not adversely impact the capacity of public services, while Goal ED 4 and Policy ED 4.1 commit the City to maintaining fiscal health and financial resiliency.

By using mechanisms like a special assessment district to offset costs of the City to provide services, the project aligns with the City’s goal of ensuring that the new jurisdictional expansions do not have an adverse financial impact on the City.

It is important to note that the submitted FIA is a preliminary study provided by the applicant. Should the project proceed, it will be required to undergo an independent fiscal impact study. The independent study will be a required part of the entitlement and environmental review process to verify these initial findings before any final decisions are made by the City Council.

Attachments:

1. Arroyo Verde Moorpark Economic Impact Summary

2. CEDC Agenda Report Packet from February 18, 2026
2 Fiscal Impact Analysis of New Development
For Costs for Municipal Services
Arroyo Verde General Plan Amendment Referral
City of Moorpark
March 2026
Prepared by Dennis Hardgrave Consulting, Inc.

For Milligan Ownership entity
PURPOSE: The Milligan Ownership entity filed a General Plan Amendment (GPA) Pre-Screening Request with the City of Moorpark in October 2025. The request was initially reviewed at the February 18, 2026, meeting of the City of Moorpark Community & Economic Development Standing Committee.

At the meeting, the committee members requested that the applicant team provide additional information on the economic burden or benefit that new development may have on the City of Moorpark operational budget. This information was considered vital for review prior to the committee making a recommendation on the GPA Pre-Screening Request to the full City Council.

This document provides an initial analysis and review, utilizing City of Moorpark website data, County of Ventura Tax Collector data, US Census information, public record data for existing Ventura County special districts, and the August 2023 California Lutheran Capstone Study entitled “Housing Production Fiscal Impacts on the City of Moorpark”.

NOTE: A complete fiscal analysis, prepared by an independent outside firm, would be a component of the entitlement process if the project is approved by the City Council for General Plan Amendment consideration. The entitlement process would require an Environmental Impact Report, Tentative Tract Map, Specific Plan, Development Agreement, City of Moorpark SOAR vote, and LAFCo Annexation, along with subsequent outside agency approvals.

SUMMARY: Utilizing the available data and extrapolating to 2026 for new home prices the following summary concludes that through a combination of the City of Moorpark share of property taxes, project-specific Community Facility District, Landscape/Lighting Maintenance District, and Homeowners Association the project could be revenue-neutral or better. The average existing home in Moorpark does not generate enough revenue to the city to cover the cost of identified municipal services. The data is laid out in the following tables and text to provide the methodology for this initial review. Note that the initial data is based on a per dwelling unit property tax revenue. The final two tables in the report translates the overall impact into a “Cost per Capita of Public Services” to illustrate the true impact of property taxes on municipal services.

NOTE: This analysis does not include the property taxes generated by commercial and industrial properties and excludes an analysis of the cost of municipal services to commercial and industrial properties.

ATTACHMENT 1 3
EXISTING HOME SAMPLE PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS: The City of Moorpark website provides a sample analysis of how the 1% Proposition 13 base property tax is divided up between agencies for a $500,000 assessed valuation home. The following table illustrates the percentages received by agencies benefiting from the base 1% tax. Note that the City of Moorpark collects only 9.08% of every dollar generated in base property taxes. The table also include a column “Additional Property Taxes” to include the additional property taxes collected under both the General Tax Subtotal and the Direct Assessment Subtotal as it appears on a County of Ventura Property Tax Bill. A selection of property tax bills from newer subdivisions in the City of Moorpark were utilized to establish the “0.08%” additional taxes to arrive at a 1.08% total average property tax amount.

PROPERTY TAX SPLIT BASED ON 2022 US CENSUS MEDIAN HOME VALUE: The latest US Census data for Moorpark is the 2022 estimate of $684,600 for a detached residential dwelling unit. The following table reflects the property tax generated by the 2022 data. There is a nominal increase in property taxes generated to the City of Moorpark.

PROPERTY TAX SPLIT ON 2026 MEDIAN HOME VALUE (based on Prop-13 2% annual increase):

Utilizing the 2% annual Proposition 13 maximum tax increase from 2022 to 2026 the median home price increases to $741,001, generating an additional nominal increase in property taxes to the City of Moorpark. The table identifies that the estimated city share of property taxes for the median priced home is $672.84 per unit. The average US Census and California Department of Finance household size for the City of Moorpark is 3.1 persons. This translates to a per capita contribution of property taxes to the city of $217 per person.

City Website Sample for Base Property Tax Splits:

Additional
Property Taxes
Home Value 1% Base Property Tax City Share 9.08% Schools 33.49% Fire 16.04% County 17.06% 0.08% $ 500,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 454.00 $ 1,674.50 $ 802.00 $ 853.00 $ 400.00 Property Tax Split based on 2022 Median Existing Moorpark Home Value (US Census Data):

Home Value 1% Base Property Tax City Share 9.08% Schools 33.49% Fire 16.04% County 17.06% 0.08% $ 684,600.00 $ 6,846.00 $ 621.62 $ 2,292.73 $ 1,098.10 $ 1,167.93 $ 547.68 2026 Median Existing Moorpark Home Value (projected @ 2% annual Prop 13 increase from 2022):

Additional
Property Taxes
Home Value 1% Base Property Tax City Share 9.08% Schools 33.49% Fire 16.04% County 17.06% 0.08% $ 741,011.04 $ 7,410.11 $ 672.84 $ 2,481.65 $ 1,188.58 $ 1,264.16 $ 592.81 4 PROPERTY TAX SPLIT @ ARROYO VERDE COMMUNITY (based on $1M median new home price):

Utilizing a conservatively low median new home price for the proposed Arroyo Verde development of $1,000,000, the following table identifies the property tax distribution of the 1% base property taxes and identifies the “Additional Property Taxes” generated to other agencies. The city share generated increases approximately 35% over the 2026 Median Home calculation but still falls below the cost per capita of municipal services.

COMMUNITY SERVICES INCLUDED (per Cal Lutheran Report and City Budget data): The identified major expenditures within the reference materials include Law Enforcement, Park Maintenance, and City General Services (staff, operations, and other). Public Street Maintenance is funded from Gas Tax funds returned to the City of Moorpark from the State of California.

Maintenance of neighborhood private streets in future subdivisions is intended to be funded by Community Facility District (CFD) annual taxes imposed on the homes within those neighborhoods. Sewer, Water, and Fire Protection Services to the City of Moorpark are provided by County of Ventura agencies and funded through other components of property taxes or additional fees.

COST PER CAPITA OF PUBLIC SERVICES (per City of Moorpark data for 2016-2021): The following table is compiled based on City of Moorpark published data for the period of 2016 through 2021.

The data has been averaged over the 6-year period, resulting in a $895.50 per person per year cost of Public Services. That number has been increased by 30% as an escalator to 2026, resulting in a $1,164 per person per year cost of Public Services. Utilizing the average household size of 3.1 persons per household, the per household Cost of Public Services is estimated to be $3,608.87.

This number is utilized as the “Break-Even” cost of services for the proposed homes in the Arroyo Verde project.

The current estimated City Share of property taxes, based on the 2026 estimated Median Home Value, is $672.84, leaving a shortfall of nearly $3,000 per household on existing homes.

NOTE: Assumes a 30% escalation to 2026 dollars per capita from $895.50 to $1,164 per capita.

Property Tax Split for New Development @ $1M Median Home Value (Arroyo Verde Projection):

Additional
Property Taxes
Home Value 1% Base Property Tax City Share 9.08% Schools 33.49% Fire 16.04% County 17.06% 0.08% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 908.00 $ 3,349.00 $ 1,604.00 $ 1,706.00 $ 800.00 Cost Per Capita of Public Services (per City of Moorpark published data for 2016 - 2021) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 6-year average
$ 873.50 $ 1,014.41 $ 940.90 $ 910.30 $ 847.97 $ 785.92 $ 895.50 $ 1,164
Arroyo Verde Residents Services Cost per Dwelling Unit (@ 3.1 persons per unit) $ 3,608.87 5 COMMUNITY FACILITES DISTRICT & OTHER MECHANISMS FUNDING FOR ARROYO VERDE:

The following table provides a sensitivity analysis for the additional taxes required to fund the Arroyo Verde development without a negative impact on the existing residents of Moorpark or on City of Moorpark finances. The revenue could be funded through a combination of Community Facility District, Local Park Tax, and Lighting & Landscape Maintenance Districts. A Homeowners Association would also be formed to cover other expenses, consistent with existing recent developments in Moorpark and the surrounding communities. The City Base Share of Property Taxes is identified as $908, and the additional CFD and other taxes are identified at the rates generated by the percentage increase over base taxes; 0.2% increase results in $2,000 per unit in funding for the project “fair share”. The analysis indicates that at 0.27% over base taxes that the project would “Break-Even” with the Cost of Public Services. The additional taxes would generate $2,700 per dwelling unit per year. The $3,608 total ($2,700 + $908 Base City Share) is an estimated amount to be generated for the City of Moorpark per dwelling unit.

CONCLUSION: For the proposed Arroyo Verde community, the total Property Taxes plus CFD/Special Districts annual tax load would be 1.35% (Typical city tax rate of 1.08% + 0.27%). This would translate to an annual property tax bill of $13,500 for a median-priced $1,000,000 home.

Best practices for maximum combined Property Tax + Special Taxes rates are considered to be no greater than 1.4% to 1.45%. The 1.35% projection is consistent with recent master-planned projects in Ventura County and northern Los Angeles County suburban communities. The project could accomplish the net-neutral goal on Public Services while also providing the community with the public benefit of a 20-acre Community Park, public trails, and expanded housing purchase opportunities.

Community Facilities District, Park Tax, &L'scape Maint. District combined Funding Potential at Arroyo Verde:

Overall Tax Increase CFD/Park/LMD Tax City Base Share Total Local Tax

0.2% over base $ 2,000.00 $ 908.00 $ 2,908.00

0.25% over base $ 2,500.00 $ 908.00 $ 3,408.00

0.27% over base $ 2,700.00 $ 908.00 $ 3,608.00

0.3% over base $ 3,000.00 $ 908.00 $ 3,908.00
6 CITY OF MOORPARK
All writings and documents provided to the members of the Community and Economic Development Standing Committee of the City of Moorpark regarding all agenda items are available for public inspection at the City Hall public counter located at 323 Science Drive during regular business hours. The agendas and agenda reports for City Council Standing Committee meetings are available on the City’s website at www.moorparkca.gov.

CHRIS R. ENEGREN
Mayor

RENEE DELGADO
Councilmember

CHRIS BARRETT
Councilmember

NOTICE AND CALL OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE

COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STANDING COMMITTEE
(Councilmember Delgado and Councilmember Means)
Wednesday, February 18, 2026, at 5:45 p.m.

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Regular Meeting of the Community and Economic Development Standing Committee is hereby called to be held on Wednesday, February 18, commencing at 5:45 p.m. Said meeting will be held in the Moorpark City Hall Century Conference Room, at 323 Science Drive, Moorpark, California.

Said Regular Meeting shall be for the purpose of considering the following items:

1. CALL TO ORDER:

2. ROLL CALL:

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

4. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
(Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to change.)

6. ADJOURNMENT:

Posted: February 12, 2026.

ATTACHMENT 2
7 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Committee Members
FROM: Doug Spondello, Community Development Director
BY: Gene Burse, Deputy Community Development Director
DATE: 02/18/2026 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Pre-Screening Application No. CD-GPAPRE-2025-0002 to Authorize the Filing of a Proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Associated with a Conceptual Project Known as Arroyo Verde, on the Application of Dennis Hardgrave.

REQUEST AND BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2025, Dennis Hardgrave filed Pre-Screening Application No. CDGPAPRE-2025-0002 to change the land use designation of 126 acres of land south of Los Angeles Avenue and immediately west of the Buttercreek subdivision from Agricultural (County) to Specific Plan (City) for a mixed-use development with 700 residential units and a mix of commercial uses, collectively known as Arroyo Verde.

The Pre-Screening application is a procedural step conducted pursuant to §17.44.050(C) of the Moorpark Municipal Code (MMC). This process serves as an early coordination tool to provide the applicant with initial feedback and to gauge City Council interest before the applicant pursues a formal application involving significant financial investment. The process also serves as a risk-mitigation phase, allowing the City and the applicant to identify major constraints prior to formal entitlement submittal.

Authorization to file a formal application does not constitute support, policy endorsement, nor an evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the project. These factors can only be evaluated upon subsequent review of a formal application by the City Council.

Item: 4.A.
8 Community and Economic Development Committee
02/18/2026 Regular Meeting

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION
Project Setting
The Arroyo Verde site encompasses 126 acres of land used for agricultural purposes under the jurisdiction of the County of Ventura. This site is not currently within the municipal boundaries of the City of Moorpark. The site consists of a single lot that features an existing packing house slated for demolition as part of Arroyo Verde.

Surrounding uses include the Buttercreek residential subdivision in the City to the east; vacant industrial land in the City of Moorpark to the north across Los Angeles Avenue; the Arroyo Simi to the south; and agricultural land in unincorporated Ventura County to the west. An overview of the project site is included in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Project Site
9 Community and Economic Development Committee
02/18/2026 Regular Meeting

Page 3 ends

Proposed Development
Arroyo Verde proposes a community of approximately 700 residential units, featuring a mix of single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings with densities ranging from 5 to 26 units per net residential acre. The plan includes approximately two acres of limited neighborhood-serving commercial and retail space, a 20-acre community park, and an integrated network of regional trails and greenbelts. A conceptual site plan outlining the land uses and their orientation on the property is included as Attachment 2.

The application was evaluated by the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC), which facilitates early coordination between the Planning Division, Public Works, Building and Safety, Parks and Recreation, and external agencies, such as the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District and Ventura County Waterworks. The DRC review allows staff to consolidate technical comments regarding site plan layout, required permitting, infrastructure capacity, and public safety requirements. Technical comments were provided to the applicant (see Attachment 3).

Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation The current General Plan land use designation for the site, which is under the jurisdiction of the County of Ventura, is Agricultural. This designation is intended to preserve areas to produce food and is typically characterized by large-lot operations. The applicant conceptually proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Agricultural to Specific Plan. This land use designation is intended for large-scale, complex projects where unique development standards and infrastructure plans are required.

The site is conceptually proposed to be pre-zoned as Specific Plan. This zoning designation will allow for the establishment of comprehensive development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure plans that are unique to this new community.

Required Entitlements
Upon submittal of a formal application, the following entitlements will be required:
• Annexation and Pre-Zoning: The site must be approved for annexation by the City and pre-zoned before an application for annexation is filed with LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission).
• General Plan Amendment (GPA): Required to transition the land use from County to City designation.
• Specific Plan: Necessary due to the scale and complexity of the 126-acre site. • Development Agreement: To vest development rights, secure community benefits like the 20-acre community park, and ensure the orderly provision of required infrastructure as the project develops.
• Environmental Review: An Environmental Impact Report will be required to analyze potential impacts associated with the project.
10 Community and Economic Development Committee
02/18/2026 Regular Meeting

Page 4 ends

Policy Considerations
Arroyo Verde will be subject to the Moorpark Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) – 2050 Initiative, which established the City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). The purpose of the CURB is to protect the character of Moorpark by concentrating development within existing urban areas and protecting surrounding agricultural lands from conversion to urban development.

Because the 126-acre project site is located beyond the CURB, the City is prohibited from granting any discretionary entitlements- including Annexations and 2050 General Plan Amendments – unless Moorpark voters first approve an initiative to expand the boundary.

Per the 2050 General Plan, the CURB may not be amended or revoked by the City Council alone until after December 31, 2050, except under very specific and limited administrative exceptions. Consequently, the pre-screening process allows the applicant to gauge Council interest before pursuing the significant investment required for a citywide voter initiative.

Beyond the voter mandate, any formal proposal to expand the City’s jurisdictional boundaries, must adhere to Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) policies and the City’s broader planning goals. This includes addressing the conversion of agricultural land and ensuring that any proposed development is fiscally neutral or positive for the City. Should the project move forward, a comprehensive entitlement phase would be required to satisfy all regional and local regulatory standards, which can only be finalized following the completion of the required environmental review and voter approval of the CURB expansion.

The formal application must meet the standards for sustainability and fiscal neutrality as outlined in the City’s 2050 General Plan. Because the project proposes 700 residential units, a mandatory Water Supply Assessment will be required to demonstrate a sufficient 20-year water supply. The proposal will be evaluated for fiscal neutrality or benefit, consistent with 2050 General Plan Policy, through a comprehensive fiscal impact analysis. This ensures that the long-term costs of providing municipal service- such as police, fire, and road maintenance- are fully offset by projected revenues, thereby protecting the City’s quality of life and unique character.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Pre-Screening application has no direct fiscal impact on the City.

PROCESSING TIME LIMITS
Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.44.050(C) establishes timelines for the review of pre-screening requests. Based on the application submittal date of October 3, 2025, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing no later than the second meeting in May. 11 Community and Economic Development Committee
02/18/2026 Regular Meeting

Page 5 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Pre-Screening application does not involve any approval action of a project and is therefore not subject to environmental review pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) and 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If authorized, the entitlements associated with this project will be subject to environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA.

NEXT STEPS
The Committee must provide a recommendation to the full City Council. Pursuant to MMC Section 17.44.050(C)(3), the City Council shall hold at least one public hearing to consider the pre-screening application and render a decision on whether to allow a formal application to be submitted to the Community Development Department. Should the City Council authorize the filing, the project will enter a comprehensive entitlement and environmental review phase estimated to take 16 to 24 months following the acceptance of a complete application.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Committee recommend that the City Council authorize the filing of formal applications for Annexation, a General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Amendment, and all other necessary entitlements for the proposal known as Arroyo Verde, subject to a Development Agreement.

Attachments:

1. Pre-Screening Application Process (MMC Section 17.44.050(C))

2. Arroyo Verde Land Use Concept Plan

3. Staff Comments for Pre-Screening Application for Arroyo Verde 12 § 17.44.050. Amendments to the general plan, specific plans, zoning map and zoning code.

A. Authority. The adoption or amendment of a general plan element or map, specific plan, zoning map or zoning ordinance is a legislative act. The planning commission and city council shall each hold at least one public hearing on any general plan, specific plan or zoning amendment request. Following a public hearing, the planning commission shall make a written recommendation to the city council whether to approve, approve in modified form or disapprove any proposed amendment. The city council shall be the decision authority for all general plan amendments, specific plans and zoning amendment requests.

B. Initiation. Proposals to amend the general plan, any specific plan, the zoning map or zoning code may be initiated by either of the following methods:

1. By the owner or the owner's agent of the affected property filing an application with the community development director;

2. By the adoption of a resolution of intent by the city council either directly or upon the recommendation of either the planning commission or the community development director.

C. Pre-Screening. Applications for general plan, specific plan, or zoning amendments proposed pursuant to subsection (B)(1) of this section shall only be accepted during the following submittal cycle schedule:

ACTION CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2
Application cycle
deadline (application must
be deemed complete by
this date)
November 30th May 31st
City council public
hearing and decision
Not later than the second
regular meeting of city
council in May
Not later than the second
regular meeting of city
council in November

1. A pre-screening application shall be submitted and approved by the city council prior to submittal of a formal application for a general plan, specific plan, or zoning amendment submitted by an applicant other than the city of Moorpark.

2. A pre-screening application shall be made in a form and include the information as required by the community development department. The application shall include appropriate maps, diagrams, text, and materials and shall include a fee or deposit as set forth by adopted council resolution.

3. The city council shall hold at least one public hearing to consider a prescreening application for a general plan, specific plan, or zoning amendment and render a decision on the approval or denial of the proposed amendment to City of Moorpark, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/MO4972 on 2025-12-10 ATTACHMENT 1 13
(Ord. 515 § 10, 2023)
allow a formal application to be submitted to the community development department.

4. In accordance with Section 17.44.060, no resubmittal of a substantially similar application may be made for one year after a denial decision of a pre-screening request.

5. City council approvals of general plan, specific plan, or zoning code prescreening applications are valid for two years from the date of approval, by which an application for the general plan, specific plan or zoning amendment must be filed and deemed complete.

D. Filing of Formal Applications. Applications for general plan, specific plan, or zoning amendments proposed pursuant to subsection (B)(1) shall submit an application consistent with the requirements outlined in Chapter 17.44 of this title.

Applications for which have not received an approved pre-screening, as described in subsection C, shall not be accepted.

E. Study of Additional Area. The community development director, upon review of an application or resolution of intention for an amendment to the general plan map, any specific plan map or zoning map may elect to process the study of additional areas for amendment concurrently with the amendment request.

F. Findings. The city council shall make the following findings for amendments to the general plan, specific plans, zoning map or zoning code:

1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.

2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the general plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.

3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.

4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

G. Public Hearing Procedures. Hearings associated with general plan, specific plan, or zoning amendments proposed pursuant to subsections (B)(1) and (B)(2) shall adhere to the public hearing procedures outlined in Section 17.44.070.

H. In accordance with Section 17.44.060, no resubmittal of a substantially similar application may be made for one year after a denial decision for a general plan, specific plan or zoning amendment.

City of Moorpark, CA
§ 17.44.050 § 17.44.050
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/MO4972 on 2025-12-10 14 ATTACHMENT 2 15

CITY OF MOORPARK
CHRIS R. ENEGREN
Mayor

RENEE DELGADO
Councilmember

DANIEL GROFF
Councilmember

STAFF COMMENTS FOR PRE-SCREENING APPLICATION FOR ARROYO VERDE DECEMBER 24, 2025
Project: Arroyo Verde Annexation Pre-Screen
Planner: Gene Burse, Deputy Community Development Director Permit Numbers: Pre-Application No. CD-PRE-2025-0002
Request: A request to consider a Pre-Screening for General Plan Amendment of a mixeddensity residential community of approximately 700 dwelling units, a 20-acre community park, and limited commercial use on a 126.98-acre site.

Location: APN 504-0-021-260 (South of Los Angeles Avenue immediately west of the Buttercreek subdivision).

Applicant: Dennis Hardgrave on behalf of Smith-Hoist Tenants in Common The City of Moorpark Community Development Department has completed a preliminary review of your "Arroyo Verde Community Plan" pre-screening application. We appreciate your group’s proposed investment in our City and the opportunity to provide early and open coordination on this request.

The following memorandum consolidates staff comments from the Planning Division, Public Works, Building and Safety, Parks and Recreation, and external agencies including Ventura County Waterworks and the Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). This memo also outlines the path for annexation as discussed with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) staff.

Planning Division
A. This "Pre-Screening" is a request for initial feedback, not project approval pursuant to Section 017.44.050(C) of the Municipal Code. The process is designed to save significant investment by providing an opportunity for public input, gauging City Council interest and receiving initial direction prior to formal processing of your application. The process will proceed as follows:

1. Community and Economic Development Committee (CEDC): The application will first be reviewed by the CEDC for a recommendation. The CEDC is an ad-hoc committee consisting of Councilmembers Delgado and Means.

2. City Council Review: The CEDC recommendation will be forwarded to the full City Council. The Council will vote on whether to authorize the filing of a formal application.

B. Required Entitlements - Should the Council authorize a formal application; the project will require a comprehensive entitlement package. The following discretionary actions will be required based upon the proposed plan:

1. Annexation – The proposed area for annexation is located beyond the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Moorpark and will need to be annexed to be able to develop under the City’s regulations.

2. General Plan Amendment (GPA) - To change the land use designation from its current County designation to appropriate City designations (e.g. Specific Plan).

ATTACHMENT 3
16 December 24, 2025 Page 2
A component of this analysis will include the extent to which the proposed project furthers the City’s attainment of General Plan goals and policies.

3. Specific Plan - Due to the scale (700 units, 126 acres) and complexity of the site, a Specific Plan will be required to establish comprehensive development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure plans unique to this community.

4. Pre-Zoning- The site must be "Pre-Zoned" to a City zoning district consistent with the General Plan prior to annexation application to LAFCO. A zoning designation of “Specific Plan” is recommended by Staff.

5. Development Agreement- A Development Agreement will be required to secure community benefits (such as the 20-acre park), timing for public improvements, and vest development rights.

6. Tentative Tract Map – to create parcels, rights of way and related reservations.

7. Residential Planned Development Permit(s) (optional) – Depending on the project timing and construction phasing, you may wish to include an application for a Residential Planned Development Permit with the initial application for each project or planning area within the Specific Plan. This could also be deferred to a subsequent phase.

8. It is expected that an Environmental Impact Report or amendment to the City’s 2050 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report will be required to analyze potential impacts associated with the proposed development.

9. City Processing Timeline- Due to the project's complexity and size, City entitlement is generally estimated to take 16 to 24 months following the acceptance of a complete application.

C. SOAR Ordinance & Voter Initiative- The site is located outside the City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). Expanding the CURB requires voter approval. Please note the following critical clarifications regarding this process:

1. City-Only Vote- Contrary to prior discussions, expanding the CURB for this site requires a vote of City of Moorpark voters only, not a county-wide vote.

2. Sequencing- The City must certify the CEQA environmental review and approve the project entitlements before the item can be placed on the ballot for voters.

3. Sphere Alignment: The City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) must be coterminous with the CURB; therefore, the SOAR vote and SOI amendment must result in aligned boundaries.

D. LAFCO & Annexation Process- The City of Moorpark will act as the "Lead Agency" for CEQA, and applicant to LAFCO for the annexation. LAFCO will participate as a "Responsible Agency". LAFCO processing can only commence after the City has completed the General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning, and CEQA review.

1. Sphere of Influence (SOI) & Municipal Service Review (MSR)- The project site will require an amendment to the City’s Sphere of Influence. If the current Municipal Service Review (MSR) does not account for this specific expansion, the applicant must fund an update to the MSR to demonstrate the City's capacity to provide services.

2. Prime Agricultural Land- LAFCO policy strictly scrutinizes the conversion of prime agricultural land. The applicant must provide an Agricultural Conversion Study justifying the loss of productive farmland and demonstrating that no non-prime alternatives exist.

3. Agricultural Mitigation (1:1)- LAFCO policies strictly scrutinize the conversion of Prime Agricultural land. Please anticipate a requirement for 1:1 mitigation, 17 December 24, 2025 Page 3
necessitating the preservation of equivalent agricultural land elsewhere (like-forlike). Staff recommends reviewing the Santa Paula East Area 1 annexation (Staff Report dated 3/16/2011) as a precedent for how this mitigation is applied. Note that the site is not located in an established Greenbelt, which removes one layer of regulatory constraint.

4. Process Timing- The City must first complete its CEQA review and approve the entitlements (Pre-Zoning, GPA, etc.) before an application can be filed with LAFCO.

5. Contiguity- The project area must be contiguous to the existing City boundary to be eligible for annexation and creates a logical service area.

6. Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA)- Annexations must be fiscally neutral or positive. A comprehensive FIA will be required to project ongoing municipal costs (police, fire, road maintenance) versus projected revenues. This analysis is critical for the "Plan for Services" required by LAFCO.

7. LAFCO Processing Timeline- Due to the project's complexity and size, the LAFCO process is estimated to take 4 to 5 months following the acceptance of a complete application. This timeline includes:
i. Approximately 2 months for distribution to impacted districts. ii. Approximately 2 months for LAFCO hearing scheduling. iii. 30-day reconsideration period post-approval.
iv. LAFCO approval is valid for one year, with a single opportunity for a oneyear extension.

8. Site Plan Comments – Reorient commercial space to more usable width with consideration for loading areas, trash service, etc. where these elements would not result in impacts to existing or proposed residents.

Public Works Department

1. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required. It must analyze the two proposed access points on Los Angeles Avenue, specifically evaluating sight distance and the need for deceleration lanes. The study must also calculate the project’s fair share contribution toward the City’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) program.

2. Hydrology & Drainage- The project is located immediately upstream of the Buttercreek subdivision. A Master Drainage Plan will be required to demonstrate that no increase in peak flow will be directed toward existing downstream infrastructure.

On-site detention/retention will likely be required.

3. Right-of-Way- Dedication of frontage improvements along Los Angeles Avenue will be required consistent with the City’s Circulation Element. a. Frontage Improvements- Full frontage improvements along Los Angeles Avenue including curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, and landscaping will be required per City Standard Details.
b. Dedication- Provide for right-of-way dedication to achieve the ultimate halfwidth of Los Angeles Avenue as designated in the Circulation Element.

4. Hydrology & Stormwater Quality (MS4 Permit)
a. Technical Guidance Manual (TGM)- The project is subject to the Ventura County MS4 Permit. The Master Drainage Plan must demonstrate compliance with the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) for Stormwater Quality Control Measures.
b. Retention Requirement- The site design must capture and retain the runoff from the 85th percentile storm event on-site. Given the location immediately upstream of the Buttercreek subdivision, the hydrology report must 18 December 24, 2025 Page 4
demonstrate "Zero Net Increase" in runoff flow rates to protect downstream infrastructure.

Parks & Recreation

1. Parkland Programming- The 20-acre dedication is acknowledged; the Specific Plan must detail the programming (active sports fields vs. passive trails) to ensure it meets community needs.

2. Maintenance Mechanism- The City General Fund will not absorb maintenance costs for the new park, trails, or greenbelts. The formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) or Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) will be required to fund perpetual maintenance.

3. Trail Connectivity- The proposed regional trails must connect logically to the existing City trail network to the east (Buttercreek) and planned regional trails.

4. A Community Facilities District, or other funding mechanism, shall be established to provide funding for public roadways, parks, and landscape improvements.

5. The Community Park must provide for active amenities identified as deficient in the most current version of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, including but not limited to lighted baseball fields, volleyball courts, and multi-use fields, a concession building, picnic pavilions, children’s play areas, and a splash pad.

6. The public trail network must include areas with outdoor exercise equipment and a variety of pocket parks for picnicking and other passive uses.

7. Consider installing artwork at certain key areas and along the trail network.

8. Refer to the most current version of the Arroyo Simi Trail Master Plan. The trail network must include an improved trail along the north side of the Arroyo Simi adjacent to the project site, and between the project site and Tierra Rejada Road, including an improved trailhead with gateway feature at Tierra Rejada Road.

9. Refer to the City’s Landscape Standards and Guidelines for design criteria related to development projects and landscaping within the public right-of-way.

Building & Safety Division

1. Code Compliance- All new construction must comply with the current California Building Standards Code (CBSC) adopted at the time of permit application.

2. Demolition & Grading- Demolition of the existing packing house requires separate permits and hazardous materials clearance (asbestos/lead). A precise grading plan must address the site's 2% slope and ensure proper pad elevations.

3. Geotechnical Hazards- The application notes potential liquefaction. A preliminary soils and geotechnical report will be required to define these limits and propose structural mitigation.

4. High fire construction will be required for property inside of the Very High Fire Severity Zone.

5. Solar panels will be required.

6. Public areas require accessible path of travel to public right of way.

7. Commercial areas require accessible path of travel throughout.

8. Commercial/public parking must comply with Chapter 11B of the California Building Code.

9. Commercial areas may require a 60-foot yard around structures depending on square footage and occupancy type.
19 December 24, 2025 Page 5

10. Any construction inside of flood plain must comply with FEMA Floodplain Construction Standards as modified by the City of Moorpark Municipal Code.

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

1. Air Quality Assessment- The project must quantify emissions for both the construction phase (grading 126 acres) and operational phase (700 households). The Air Quality Assessment must evaluate if construction or operational emissions exceed the VCAPCD significance thresholds of 25 pounds per day for Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx).

2. Dust Control- Strict adherence to VCAPCD Rule 55 will be required during the demolition of the packing house and mass grading. Strict adherence to VCAPCD Rule 55 is mandatory during the demolition of the packing house and grading of the 126-acre site.

A Dust Control Plan implementing Best Available Control Measures (BACM) will be a condition of approval.

3. Nuisance- The project design must address potential odors and nuisances, particularly at the interface with any remaining agricultural operations.

4. See Exhibit 2 (Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Memo) for additional comments.

Ventura County Public Works

1. Water Supply Assessment (WSA)- Because the project proposes 700 residential units, it exceeds the statutory threshold of 500 units established by Senate Bill 610.

Consequently, a formal Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is mandatory. Please coordinate with the District to demonstrate a sufficient 20-year water supply under normal, dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios.

2. Infrastructure Capacity & Hydraulic Modeling- A hydraulic model will be required to verify that the existing 12-inch water mains at the site perimeter can support the project's fire flow and domestic demands. The modeling must confirm that service to the new development will not degrade pressure for existing customers and determine if the site can be adequately served by the current pressure zone.

3. See Exhibit 1 (Ventura County Water Memo) for additional comments.

Ventura County Fire Department

1. Code Compliance- Applicant shall comply with all current Ventura County Fire Protection District Codes, Ordinances, and Standards.

2. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone – The site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and all structures shall meet hazardous fire area building code requirements.

Contact the Building Department regarding requirements.

3. Fire Protection Plan- A fire protection plan shall be submitted to the Fire Code Official for this project as part of the formal development planning application review.

4. Apparatus Access Roads – Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with Public Road Standards, currently adopted Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code, and Ventura County Fire Department Fire Apparatus Access Standard, whichever is most restrictive.

5. Fire-Flow Verification - The minimum fire-flow required shall be determined as specified by the current adopted edition of the California Fire Code Appendix B with adopted Amendments and the applicable Water Works Manual for the jurisdiction (whichever is more restrictive).
20 December 24, 2025 Page 6

6. Fire Hydrant(s) Required - Fire hydrant(s) shall be provided in accordance with the current adopted edition of the California Fire Code, Appendix C and adopted amendments.

7. Fire Sprinklers - All structures shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with California Building Code and California Fire Code requirements, and current Ventura County Fire Ordinance at the time of building permit application.

8. Fire Alarm System - A fire alarm system shall be installed in all buildings in accordance with the current California Building Code and California Fire Code requirements at the time of building permit application.

9. Fire Code Permits - Applicant and/or tenant shall obtain all applicable Operational Fire Code Permits prior to occupancy or use of any system or item requiring an operational permit in accordance with Section 105 of the California Fire Code.

To proceed to a City Council Community Economic Development Committee agenda, please provide a written response acknowledging these comments. These comments will carry forward and be presented to the CEDC and Council, however no revisions are required at this time.

If you have questions, please contact Gene Burse, Deputy Community Development Director, directly at 805-517-6234 or by email at [email protected].

Respectfully,
Gene Burse, AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
CC: Doug Spondello, AICP, Community Development Director Attachments:

Exhibit 1- Ventura County Water Memo
Exhibit 2- Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Memo 21 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA REPORT MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Committee Members
FROM: Doug Spondello, Community Development Director
DATE: 05/06/2026 Special Meeting
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation on the Draft Downtown Specific Plan

BACKGROUND
At its April 15, 2026 meeting, the Community and Economic Development Committee (CEDC) provided feedback on the Draft Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) and directed staff to return with a summary of comments received and how they will be addressed in future revisions.

The Draft DTSP was available for public review from March 20 to April 15, 2026. Over 200 comments were submitted by 23 unique users. Staff also received a letter from the Moorpark Foundation for the Arts on April 15, 2026. Comments are summarized by topic in the table below.

COMMENT THEME #
Photo Concern 10
Housing 11
Gateway 15
Parking/Vehicular Circulation 27
Typo/Grammar 28
General Comment 3
N/A 14
Plan Boundary/Extent 3
Commercial/Businesses 15
Birkenshaw House 11
Ped/Bike/Transit 7
Cultural/Community Events 6
Development Standards/Permitted Uses 94
Public Realm Improvements 16
Total 260
Item: 4.B.
22 Community and Economic Development Committee
05/06/2026 Special Meeting

Page 2 ends

Staff has reviewed all public and CEDC comments and prepared the attached Comment Matrix, which provides an initial response to each comment and identifies how it will be addressed in future revisions.

Attachments:

1. Comment Matrix

2. Annotated Draft Downtown Specific Plan
23 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#001
Subject: Substance Over Style: A Critique of the 2026 Downtown Specific Plan Draft The 2026 Draft of the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan feels more aligned with a marketing or promotional campaign than a practical, actionable blueprint for a walkable urban center. While the proposal pushes an appealing agrarian-themed aesthetic, it appears to overlook critical logistical, financial, and logistical realities, including the potential strain on other city departments required to bring this image to life.

A glaring example of this "façade over substance" approach is the new $34 million library project. While the structure itself will double in square footage, providing a high-image building at a premium cost, the plan seems to prioritize this exterior impression over the necessary operational investment. A genuinely functional, larger library requires a proportional increase in resources—books, technology, and staff—rather than just a new building shell.

The city appears dangerously focused on branding, appearance, and perception rather than ensuring the long-term sustainability and utility of these developments.

Noted
#002 @ Noted
#003
not sure why it asked for my info yet since I am just looking at the doc for the first time. Just finished seeing the april 1 meeting replay. Will start to look next and may comment.

Noted
#004 Would be better to show a current photo with the lights installed on these.

Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#005
This effort obviously is the result of a massive, well-intentioned amount of time, skill, and thought. Very impressive!
However, this "downtown" development effort seems to have become a growing landslide that is sapping most the attention and funding in Moorpark.

It is leaving little for the the community outside of "downtown." Example: Streets elsewhere in Moorpark have become ridden with potholes, crumbling pavement, and cracks so wide plant life has sprung up in them. (Perhaps this the "agrarian look" that the visionaries claim they want here).

Noted
#006 spelled delgado
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#007 Castro is Mayor Pro Tem
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#008 test Comment No Action
ATTACHMENT 1 24
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#009 Why would you exclude the post office and the lot behind it from the plan? Plan boundary will be revised to include the post office.
#010 This center has been attracting wineries. Would it not make sense to include this area in the plan?
This area is physically
disconnected from the core of
Downtown. This area of the plan
focuses on properties fronting on
to Moorpark Avenue
#011 It is Princeton Ave. not Princeton St.!
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#012 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#013 So if you are not including this are in DTSP then where is the planning for this area documented (other than in the updated GP)?
No Action to DTSP. The general
plan land use designation will be
updated to bring into alignment
with the current zoning
designation.
#014 What do you have in mind to help this small strip of commercial/industrial that IS at the edge of the DTSP?
The purpose of this district is to
provide for flexible, transitoriented uses immediately south of the railroad tracks and the
existing
station.
#015 Has there yet been any effort to start this downtown revitalization plan as suggested in GP 2050? Sounds like a good idea. What is timeline to do it, do you think? See section 5.2 Economic
Development, which builds on
the Economic Development
Strategic Plan
#016 I would like to have a pdf copy of the economic dev. plan.

See this link to view the EDSP:
https://www.discovermoorpark.c
om/edsp
#017 Would love to see current photos used.

Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#017 I don't think a new plan should use photos of things that no longer exist Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#018
Senior Center is named "Active Adult Center" and that should be reflected in this document.

Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
25 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#019 Has three been involvement with the Birkenshaw family in doing this update of the DTSP? I sure hope so, but I wonder. They need to be onboard.

Noted. Multiple entities have had
conversations with the
Birkenshaw family over the years
about potential reuse of their
home and property. At this time,
the family has not committed to
any specific course of action. This
Plan introduces some potential
outcomes for re-use of the home
and property, but is not intended
to imply that a specific course of
action has been confirmed.
#020 Is there any chance that this home and property can be restored and used as a museum or cultural center?
Noted. Multiple entities have had
conversations with the
Birkenshaw family over the years
about potential reuse of their
home and property. At this time,
the family has not committed to
any specific course of action. This
Plan introduces some potential
outcomes for re-use of the home
and property, but is not intended
to imply that a specific course of
action has been confirmed.
#021
I continue to be concerned about the traffic at this intersection and that of Pointdexter and Moorpark Rd.

Noted
#022
Where is the info about the widening of Moorpark Ave and fixing the intersection of Poindexter, Moorpark, and 1st??? This is the most important infrastructure improvement that needs to get at least started, and of course ultimately done so we do not lose all the money waiting in the wings from the gravel mines that we will lose if we wait too long to start this and get a sufficient amount of it done. I have mentioned this before and it bears repeating. Maybe it is somehwere else in this plan and I have not seen it yet. I sure hope so,.

Refer to City Public Works Capital
Improvement Programs.
26 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#023 Would be great to have a parking structure on each side of the tracks and off of Moorpark and off of Spring.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#024 I would love to see a massive parking structure here The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#025 Shouldn't this be 0 since it is the Birkenshaw House? Although Birkenshaw is perceived
as historic, it is not a "Locally
Designated Historic Resource"
#026
This seems like a good spot for a traffic circle. Then move the entrance to the old civic center property off the circle. There could be fun public art potential or large tree in the center of the circle and it is consistent with the new traffic circles going in Hitch Ranch. When the civic center is revisioned, this would be a great place for a parking structure with easy walkable access to downtown.

Noted
27 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#027 Would be great to have a parking structure on each side of the tracks and off of Moorpark and off of Spring.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#028
I’d like to see enhanced pedestrian crossings that improve visibility and safety, including high-visibility markings and LED lighting that actively blinks when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. Similar to what has been done on High Street. This will be so important in ensuring safe access to the library and also for us families who walk to Walnut Canyon school.

Noted. Possible pedestrian
enhancements are discussed in
section 4.5. Specific design and
infrastructure elements would be
determined during
implementation of the Specific
Plan.
#029 Would be great to have a parking structure on each side of the tracks and off of Moorpark and off of Spring.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#029
Parking structures tend to require a lot of space though - the one at Moorpark College is around 200x300 feet, and the one in Downtown Ventura, which is pretty compact, is about 200x200 feet. I am not sure if there is a good place for a structure within the Downtown Specific Plan Area - maybe further afield like in the industrial area off of Spring Street if one of those properties becomes available, or the construction yard off of Princeton if that becomes available?
Noted
#030 Need a curb cut here to allow bicycles coming west bound to get off the path Noted. Comment shared with
appropriate City staff.
28 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#031
If these homes convert to businesses like the plan mentions, what is the parking plan for these businesses? Can we do setbacks for angled street parking? This plan should address their parking somehow.

The Municipal Code addresses
parking requirements in the Plan
area. The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#032
Would love to see a proper road connection here where everyone goes through the alley. Maybe if it was done with angled street parking it would also help with parking concerns for adding businesses to Moorpark Ave and any future use of the The Birkenshaw House.

Noted. The City will consider
whether a request for an
easement would be warranted if
this property is redeveloped in the
future.
#033
I would love to see the South Metrolink parking lot act as a Transit Center similar to how Thousand Oaks has: https://toaks.gov/transit
It would help facilitate easier transfers, consolidate to one location and remove the bus stops from High Street.

I can picture with the right setup, someone taking the Valley Express from Fillmore into Moorpark. Grabbing coffee at a high street business and then taking the train to their next destination.

Having a designated hub for this helps facilitate this mobility.

Noted. The Transit Adjacent
district allows for transit-oriented
uses.
#034 Ventura is to the west of Moorpark not east
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#035 Like that you show LA Metro rail and buslines too as these are also important to show regional possibilities.

Noted
#036 It is the "Active Adult Center!"
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
29 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#037 Shucks my rowhome sticky didn't make the cut? :(
Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#038 Maybe a driverless version as we look towards the future. Noted #039 People did not want housing? How is this possible? That means businesses in the DTSP will have to rely 100% on vehicle traffic... Where will the cars go? Noted
#040
High Street is a natural place for events like Country Days, Holiday on High Street or the Moorpark Apricot Festival. I also think there is future opportunity to expand and add additional events if a Business Improvement District is ever formed. This section is notably absent from this plan. I would love to see the addition of bollards that could block vehicles from the roads as an enhancement to downtown as a part of this plan.

Noted. See section 5.2 Economic
Development. Recommendation
will be shared with City Staff.
#040
I agree. Bollards are needed. Events are critical to downtown. I would love to see more of them. I would also love to see them span more of the street. I was disappointed to hear that the Apricot Festival is not going past Bard. Businesses like Freda's are working hard to have apricot things are are cut out of the event.

Noted. See section 5.2 Economic
Development. Recommendation
will be shared with City Staff
#041 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#042 This sentence doesn't make sense
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#043 This is not a complete sentence. something is missing.

Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#044 123 Noted
#045 123123 Noted
#046 123123 Noted
#047 123 Noted
#048 This looks like it is in the Metrolink Parking Lot? We have a great walkway with art and just got that lot redone. Please do not take that out to put in a plaza.

Noted
30 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#049 No Housing Here. We need Parking for this side of High Street.

City-owned properties at the
east end of Charles Street will
be redesignated as High Street
Mixed Use.

The City is currently
undergoing a separate
process to determine the
future of city-owned
properties. The DTSP presents
a possible scenario if the city
chooses to dispose of these
properties which would
require proceeding with a
Surplus Land Act process.
#050
The proposed High Street arch feels out of place. We’re not a tourist destination or built around a historic landmark, so it doesn’t feel like a natural fit for Moorpark.

Again it has that Hallmark-esque aesthetic.

Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.
#051 I'd love to see a parking structure here!
City-owned properties at the east
end of Charles Street will be
redesignated as High Street Mixed
Use.

The City is currently undergoing a
separate process to determine
the future of city-owned
properties. The DTSP presents a
possible scenario if the city
chooses to dispose of these
properties which would require
proceeding with a Surplus Land
Act process.
#051 This seems like a prime lot for parking for this end of High Street. I would not put housing here.

The City is currently undergoing a
separate process to determine
the future of city-owned
properties. The DTSP presents a
possible scenario if the city
chooses to dispose of these
properties which would require
proceeding with a Surplus Land
Act process.
31 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#052
Would love to see a boutique hotel that spans the city owned lots between Charles and High. With so many wedding venues locally, I would love to capture these visitors in downtown.

Noted
#053 Could we look at moving Magnolia Park and reopen this road for better circulation downtown?
The City is not contemplating
removing public parks
#054 Why are we taking out the parking lot that was just finally redone? Plan will be revised. Public Plaza
will not be shown in the parking
lot.
#054
If we were to do a plaza, I would love to see a build in stage that could have live music on weekends, or entertainment at events. If there was a Car Show every Friday Night during the summer where street parking was reserved for classic cars, and you had a band playing, it would create a fun environment/attraction.

Noted
#055
What is the Arch was a pedestrian walkway connecting two parts of a hotel/conference center that spanned the street. This would create great function and character while providing for a larger hotel without exceeding the three story limits.

Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.
#056
It might be fun to show the rendering of the arch done for the old downtown specific plan here. Here is a link to the photo:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=180691242464255&set=gm.18827491 45310605&type=3&sfns=mo
Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.
#057
Redeveloping this area without including a parking structure would effectively eliminate the commercial capability of the street as well as its drivability and overall enjoyment. Between the loss of the dirt lot now occupied by the Depot Project and this lot on the east end, High Street parking would be confined street parking only.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#058
I assume this is not on the sidewalk, but kids park next to the train, road and parking lot sounds like a bad idea. And it if it is a public plaza to link them you would not want to fence a park or you are blocking, not linking. This seems like an odd photo choice for this space.

Plan will be revised. Public Plaza
will not be shown in the parking
lot.
#059 NOT JUST HOUSING!
Plan will be updated to clarify that
any housing on High Street will be
part of mixed-use development.
32 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#059
I think there are plenty of housing opportunities in town. This is High Street. Mixed use, fine, but sections of just housing is not the vision of downtown that I want to visit.

Plan will be updated to clarify that
any housing on High Street will be
part of mixed-use development.
#060
Was there EVER a water tower in Moorpark in the past that is the supposed inspiration for this as a historic thing or did someone just decide to add it since they like the idea? Just curious. If it has a historic basis in Moorpark history, I would be more inclined to like it. I hope you can explain that so all of us know. If it does get built, people will want to know why it is there and what connection to past days in Moorpark.

Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.

Section 4 will emphasize vertical
land mark element non-specific
to a water tower.

A water tower can be seen in
Moorpark Circa 1912 on the City
of Moorpark's history page:
https://www.moorparkca.gov/381
/History
#061 "a" beer garden
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#062
Not sure I understand this comment? What about moving City Hall back here would help with staying in downtown past 4:30? I would love something that adds services and entertainment to Moorpark and can act as more of a regional draw. I would keep city hall where it is.

Per section 5.1, the plan
recommends updating the Civic
Center Master Plan to reflect the
relocation of City Hall and explore
potential uses for this area.
#062
I phrased that in a confusing way, I meant civic center as in a place for events, concerts, performances, etc.. I agree with you about city hall staying on Science Dr. and utilizing this space to liven downtown up in the evenings. Really make it a place people want to be
Per section 5.1, the plan
recommends updating the Civic
Center Master Plan to reflect the
relocation of City Hall and explore
potential uses for this area.
#062
Redeveloping the old City Hall site as a new civic center has the potential to redefine Moorpark’s “commuter city” status, and give residents a reason to stick around downtown past 4:30pm. A project like this would also spur investment from private businesses as it would signal a confidence in the area’s resurgence.

Per section 5.1, the plan
recommends updating the Civic
Center Master Plan to reflect the
relocation of City Hall and explore
potential uses for this area.
33 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#063
This feels a bit like a Hallmark-style addition rather than something grounded in Moorpark’s history. Since we haven’t had a water tower, it may be more meaningful to highlight elements that genuinely reflect our community’s heritage.

Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.

Section 4 will emphasize vertical
land mark element non-specific
to a water tower.

A water tower can be seen in
Moorpark Circa 1912 on the City
of Moorpark's history page:
https://www.moorparkca.gov/381
/History
#064 Would love to see farmer's market hosted on High Street instead Noted. Text will be revised to
suggest alternative Farmer's
Market locations.
#065 If the parking lot becomes a farmer's market on Sundays, where would potential attendees park?
This plan suggests possible
parking resources in proximity to
the post office lot, including the
Metrolink parking lot south of the
station platform and potential
interim parking adjacent to the
new library. A precise plan for
parking would be studied and
implemented should planning for
a Farmer's Market proceed.
#066 Yes; beer garden or restaurant; not housing on this corner.

Vision will be revised to
emphasize entertainment uses.
#067 Seems like all reasonable options. Noted
#068
The post office and the post office parking lot are listed here in Chapter 4, but are specifically excluded in the DTSP outlines as shown in Figure 1-1 and 1-2 back in chapter 1. Just wondering where the specific boundaries for the DTSP are, how they were decided, and if they should be amended to include any outlying spaces.

Additionally, the business row west of the old Kahoots building (north side of Poindexter Ave.) seems to be omitted from the DTSP. Is there a specific reason, or should that be reconsidered?
Plan boundary will be revised to
include the post office. The
business west of the old Kahoot's
building are physically
disconnected from the core of
Downtown. This area of the plan
focuses on properties fronting on
to Moorpark Avenue
#069
This would be a great event space for weddings, parties, etc...

Or it could be redeveloped into dense housing to where folks will walk out to high street and use the restaurants and bars on a daily basis.

Noted. Housing is a permitted
use.
34 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#070 Love this. Reminds me of the Anaheim Packing House. Noted #071
This is NOT city-Owned and anything done must be done in conjunction with the Birkenshaw family members, of which there are MANY. I already asked before if that family was consulted at all during the development of this revised DTSP. I hope they participated. If not, it could seem like city is trying to tell them what to do with their property without even consulting them. I hope that is NOT what has happened so far.

Preferences for density, intensity
and height were explored with the
community and city leadership
during the GP and ZC update
processes. The outcomes of
those conversations are reflected
in this plan.
#073
I did not think that Moorpark allowed 4 stories? I personally love the old packing house historic feel. It is in keeping with the downtown heritage. I love the idea of turning that into a food hall, but don't love this building stock photo that does not match the character of anything around.

Uninhabited architectural
features are excluded from max
height calculations. Plan will be
revised to clarify this information.
#074 Who's going to pay for existing businesses facade renovations? Funding has not been dedicated
at this time. There are several
alternatives for potential funding
sources that the City can explore
upon plan implementation.
#075
Please don't make anything on High Street look like this photo. It does not look like the vision at all. I agree with the concept of enhancing existing businesses, but this looks like something that needs enhancing!
Photo will be updated in revised
plan.
35 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#076
Maintain the historic house and build up the land into a garden-type hideaway and use it as a multi-purpose entertainment/ gathering place. Examples could include Malibu Cafe (but call it Moorpark Cafe) with outdoor dining with alcoves, and games with an outdoor fireplace. Another would be a best all-in-one reception venue like Hartley Botanica or Eden Gardens. Bottom line: Having different "public place atmospheres for sensory, emotional, and social environments shaped by design, lighting, sound, and activity. Common types include bustling urban centers, tranquil parks, energetic, cultural, and intimate spaces designed to foster interaction or relaxation."
Noted. Multiple entities have had
conversations with the
Birkenshaw family over the years
about potential reuse of their
home and property. At this time,
the family has not committed to
any specific course of action. This
Plan introduces some potential
outcomes for re-use of the home
and property, but is not intended
to imply that a specific course of
action has been confirmed.
#076 I agree - this would be an incredible event space for families to host wedding, parties, etc... Would be great to see the city fast track any event/wedding venue permitting.

Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.

Image will be replaced
#078
I am puzzled by this illustration for a gateway feature. I like the idea of a gateway feature here but not necessarily this ONE. Need more choices for what might go there.

Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.

Image will be replaced
36 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#079 See my other comments about this property in other locations where it is named.

The photo is intended to illustrate
a precedent for adaptive reuse of
a historic home and not depict
the Birkenshaw property in its
current state.

Photo will be replaced
#081
This looks like the plan was not done by the City of Moorpark? This is not the Birkenshaw Property. This is not a cheap plan to put together and to have it look and feel like a template is disappointing.

The photo is intended to illustrate
a precedent for adaptive reuse of
a historic home and not depict
the Birkenshaw property in its
current state.

Photo will be replaced
#082
This looks like graffiti on an old cracked road. It seems out of touch with the other elements of this plan. I think decorative sidewalks that have a historic feel, or something more in keeping with the nature of MOORPARK are more appropriate.

Photo will be updated in revised
plan.
#083 Like decorative crosswalks Noted
#084 Its Bard Street not Brad Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
37 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#085
A fake water tower seems a bit manufactured. Was there ever a historic water tower in Moorpark? Why water tower? I think it is cool if there is a story or reason behind it that I am not aware of. A farm style windmill, might be more area appropriate? Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.

Section 4 will emphasize vertical
land mark element non-specific
to a water tower.

A water tower can be seen in
Moorpark Circa 1912 on the City
of Moorpark's history page:
https://www.moorparkca.gov/381
/History
#086 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#087 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#088 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#089
When High Street Closes for events, this park blocks access for the fire department to get out preventing a full street closure. Would it be possible to add gates and a drive lane that could be open only when the street is closed to allow emergency vehicle access through the park?
The City is not contemplating
removing public parks
#089 This would have been super helpful for Holiday on High Street! Noted #090 there should be historic clocks throughout the street Noted. Streetscape
enhancements will be confirmed
through implementation of the
plan.
#091 Interesting idea Noted
#092 Like these....might need them in some other parts of city too that are not the DTSP Noted #093 This would be great for rowhomes.

Remove side and front setbacks please
Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#093 Adopt SB 1123 standards in this area.

Section 1.3.4 will be revised to
clarify relationship between the
Plan and State Law
38 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#094
Really think the city should consider a parking structure. Not only to handle parking for now, but into the future as well. Its existence can allow for zoning law changes with regard to parking requirements for new buildings in the area. Builders can pay a % cost as an alternative to parking spots on a new property, allowing for larger buildings and sidewalks
The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#095
The 2019 Parking Survey this is based on was flawed from the outset and needs to be redone. First an foremost, it overcounts existing parking spaces.

As listed in the study, lot 5B no longer exists, so that's 60 spaces from off-street parking already gone. The plan to turn lot 6 into a public plaza would see the loss of an additional 38 parking spots. The paving of lot 8 will reduce its overall count from 47, and developing it into housing would cost the rest of the spots along with the 64 spaces in lot 7. Add on to that the 13 spots lost in lot 5A as the chamber building becomes a beer garden and the 16 sapces from lots 2&3 (as they effectively serve as staff parking for the theatre outside of performances, and that is a loss of 238 parking spaces downtown; nearly 40% of existing off-street parking is not expected to exist if this plan comes to fruition.

Next, this study relies on counting every single bit of curb space on Charles St. as available public parking. If that were my house, I would be extremely upset at the city for considering the curb outside my front door to be downtown parking. As indicated by the planning committee, special permits may be given out to residents if it become an issue, but that would mean these no longer account for available parking downtown. Charles st. parking accounts for over 40% of listed on-street parking, without it, the count of downtown parking spaces is now down by 356 parking spaces from what the 2019 parking survey indicates. Also, the picture here indicates Everett St., and the sections of Walnut St. and Magnolia St. north of Charles St.; these streets were never accounted for in the 2019 parking study, nor did it include the new build located at Everett St. and Walnut St. which has increased the downtown density.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
39 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#095
Agreed with this. We're about to have 700 more families from hitch ranch who will be driving in to town, would be nice to give them somewhere to park.

A structure or two on the outskirts of the downtown are would do wonders.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#096
While I agree with a lot of what Adam says in his parking comment, I do NOT agree that it is too far to walk from civic center (old city hall lot) parking lot to High St. Arts Center.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#097 I like this concept to "park once." I hope it is really doable. Noted #098 Would love to see parking here to better access this end of High Street.

The City is currently undergoing a
separate process to determine
the future of city-owned
properties. The DTSP presents a
possible scenario if the city
chooses to dispose of these
properties which would require
proceeding with a Surplus Land
Act process.
40 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#099 Is there a better parking situation for this street? Would love to maximize the parking.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#100
I think we should consider angled street parking here on both sides of the street like Walnut has. This would bring additional parking and clean up the strange parking on the sidewalk situation at the Creamery.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#101
I am in favor of a street tree program for Moorpark Ave. HOWEVER, I think it would be a big mistake to try to replicate the High St. Pepper trees there-- which should be ONLY for Historic High Street and not for other streets in the downtown. There should be other more native and/or drought tolerant trees used that are good for local bird wildife. Pepper trees (sadly, despite their acknowledged historic significance on High St.) are known to NOT be very good for wildlife so we need to choose other trees for Moorpark Ave that are more environmentally friendly. This can be studied more during future plannning activities.

Language will be added to clarify
the intended character of street
trees on Moorpark Ave
#102 Everyone cuts through the parking lot here. I think a road connecting to Park Lane and Moorpark Ave is necessary with any changes to this site.

Noted. The City will consider
whether a request for an
easement would be warranted if
this property is redeveloped in the
future.
41 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#103
Surface parking lots are the saddest use of space a city bestow on a plot of land. At its core function, a surface parking lot is a temporary storage location for someone's vehicle while they experience something else (be it work, an appointment, grocery shopping or entertainment etc.), it is never the destination, merely the last stop before it. So at its most useful, a surface parking lot is full of empty vehicles, not exactly the most eye-catching of uses.

When they are empty, however, they sit as a desolate wasteland making everything around them visually appear like a ghost town (looking at you, Mission Bell Plaza, Moorpark Town Center, Tuscany Square, Moorpark Marketplace, The Village at Moorpark). They increase surrounding temperatures when it's hot, and contribute to both drought and flooding at the simultaneously when it rains by not allowing the ground a chance to soak up the water. While parking solutions are an absolute imperative for High Street's future success, a surface lot should be the last resort.

While never the most exciting thing to imagine spending money on, parking structures have come a long way since the late 90's. Underground structures acting as the foundation for a new building on top has been replicated countlessly across the state and the country. Alternatively, structures can be topped with a green roof/ park (Moorpark's first Park in the Sky?) to help cool the surrounding environment as well as help soak up rainwater and reduce street flooding. The cost of a structure could be offset by new developments in the area paying a % fee of their build cost (similar to the AIPP funding) in order to waive mandatory parking requirements as listed in the zoning laws.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#103 Love the idea of parking under something!
The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
42 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#103
Wish we had a structure or two - Having a green roof above would be fun! The low height limit makes combined parking pretty tough, but maybe off-site parking via structures could be a good compromise?
The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#104
I believe that there are (already) behind the scenes potential plans for a bigger performing arts center (hopefully at the civic center), not to replace-- but to augment the HSAC that would remain where it is on High St. We are never going to move the city hall back to downtown after all the that was done and spent to put it where it is now on
Science Drive, so a more vibrant performing arts center IS just what downtown Moorpark needs. So I do support much of what was said by I think it was Adam about this.

Per section 5.1, the plan
recommends updating the Civic
Center Master Plan to reflect the
relocation of City Hall and explore
potential uses for this area.
43 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#105
A new performing arts space could be exactly the type of project to revitalize the downtown area now and into the future. As it exists currently, it would seem the DTSP lacks in a few crucial areas: Updating Moorpark for the future, a reason for private business to buy in, and a reason for people to be in Moorpark. These issues persist throughout the DTSP, but are compounded by the existing Civic Center Master Plan and could be (mostly) solved with a new one.

First, the plan does not seem to prepare Moorpark for the future, it attempts to get it up to speed with the recent past. The library boondoggle was originally planned a decade ago in 2016 and the community imput for what was the city needs happened the following year. So the city is about to dump $35 million on a library based on what we thought we needed three years before the pandemic. The city its population - and arguably the city's needs - have changed dramatically since then, how could our ideas of what we need out of a library have remained the same since then. While predicting the future is impossible, we should strive to answer the question "what will our city need" instead of " what do we need right now" because "now" is such a fleeting moment in time. As it stands, the 285-seat High Street Arts Center operates at approximately 80-95% capacity for nearly every weekend day on the calendar. The venue cannot add more seats, it cannot add more days to the year, and it cannot book headliners or concerts because the venue is too small and inaccessible for a concert tour to add it to their schedule. Creating a new venue can bring exciting performances to the city, along with freeing up space at the original theatre for other types of content currently unable to grace the stage based on scheduling conflicts.

Next, the DTSP lacks a reason for private business to buy in. The plan as it stands has an "if you plan it, they will come" mentality to private investment in the area. The business prospects in Moorpark remain the same today as they did when the town was founded in 1905, outside of the occasional local entrepreneur, there remains no good reason to invest in Moorpark with Los Angeles to our east and Ventura to the west. Even in the 1920's with the explosion of movie palaces all over the state, Per section 5.1, the plan
recommends updating the Civic
Center Master Plan to reflect the
relocation of City Hall and explore
potential uses for this area.
#106 NO MORE HOUSING here. We need Services. Please use this property to bring people downtown. There is enough housing happening around this.

Noted. Recommended uses for
the Civic Center area will be
studied and confirmed in a
revised Civic Center Master Plan.
44 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#107
Agree mostly. I already made a comment about water tower in another location that applies here as well. If there is not a historical reason to have one here, we should not do that. Think of another thing, other than that. I would be surprised if we ever really had a water tower here. but I windmill.....for farming, maybe yes.

Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.

Section 4 will emphasize vertical
land mark element non-specific
to a water tower.

A water tower can be seen in
Moorpark Circa 1912 on the City
of Moorpark's history page:
https://www.moorparkca.gov/381
/History
#108
Moorpark is not in the Midwest, you don't need a water tower to tell people what town you're driving past. Especially a fake one at that. This isn't Disneyland either, we don't need fake decorations to trick people into thinking this is a real city. There is also no historical analogous for its existence, there was never a big water tower like that in the downtown, theres no need, you would just put your water tank up on the hill behind it - like where the actual city water tank is - to greate the gravity-fed water pressure we're all used to. You only build a water tower is there's no elevation around you.

Plus, with it having no function at all, how many times a year are the police going to be called because someone has scaled the water tower or graffitied it? Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.

Section 4 will emphasize vertical
land mark element non-specific
to a water tower.

A water tower can be seen in
Moorpark Circa 1912 on the City
of Moorpark's history page:
https://www.moorparkca.gov/381
/History
#109 What if a section of the street closed weekly for a farmers market? That would put it in the center of all the businesses and keep the parking lot for parking? Noted. Text will be revised to
suggest alternative Farmer's
Market locations.
#109
Going off this, installing retractable bollards into the crosswalks going across High Street at Moorpark Ave. and Spring Rd. would give the city the ability to block access safely and securely for this and country days
Noted. This recommendation will
be shared with City staff.
#110 Looks more industrial than I prefer. I think we could have a visitors center here and maybe a tasting room? Something with a draw/attraction.

Noted. The program and design of
a plan for reuse of this site would
be studied and confirmed during
implementation of the Specific
Plan.
45 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#111
Not sure how many people want to sit in a beer garden surrounded on three sides by train-tracks, High Street, and Highway 23 with dump truck constantly going over the track, making noise and kicking up dirt from their trucks.

Noted. The program and design of
a plan for reuse of this site would
be studied and confirmed during
implementation of the Specific
Plan.
#112
This is a good idea and there are ways to baffle sounds, if needed (to address concerns in another person's comment). You can use the sound of the train as an attraction like they used to do at the old Chuys just east of the 76 gas station near spring/princton. some of you might remember that. Don't assume that evetryone hates trains, because they do NOT. They are part of our history and a venue at that corner to honor that history could be very popular. For those who don't like trains or any noise, they don't have to patronize whatever goes there. But I think there will be plenty of people who would like this idea that is proposed. Give it a chance to see if it pans out!
Noted. The program and design of
a plan for reuse of this site would
be studied and confirmed during
implementation of the Specific
Plan.
#113 I love the lights going across the road. Noted
#113 me too Noted
#114 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#115 I don't think we should put money into this as a parking lot if that is not the long term plan?
Noted
#116
Is there space for this? Kids playing on the sidewalk, I assume we will need fencing? If it really could work, it sounds interesting, but would need to know more about how feasible it really is.

Safety elements could be
addressed in future plaza design
upon implementation of this plan.
#117
NOT a "wooly mammoth"!!!! It was a "southern mammoth" and if we have any mammoth, which is a GREAT idea, it needs to be done so it is the kind that was unearthed right here in Moorpark--NOT a "wooly" mammoth--which was not found here at all!
Noted. Text will be revised.
#118 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#119
Both what the plan says AND what Chris says should be considered. There will be plenty of room to debate various options. Overall, it is a good thing that we should do- -however it ends up.

Noted
#120
I love an arch, but think it would be even cooler if we could have a hotel that had a pedestrian connection over High Street that also became that entry arch. Not sure how possible this is, but is would be more unique then "What everyone else has" and help a hotel get to the size needed without going too high.

Noted. Potential gateway
components and design will be
confirmed through public process
in implementation of plan.
#121 What about using the earth day trees to for this one year? Also, we would need to look at proposed setbacks to allow space for trees on this road.

Per Section 6.4.2 - Moorpark Ave
requires 10-25 ft front yard
setbacks
#122 Please see my comment about these trees that I made near a map that named this. I wont repeat it here.

Language will be added to clarify
the intended character of street
trees on Moorpark Ave
46 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#123 Can you change this to a picture of the actual house? The photo is intended to illustrate
a precedent for adaptive reuse of
a historic home and not depict
the Birkenshaw property in its
current state.

Photo will be replaced
#124 See multiple comments from me where this was discussed elsewhere in this plan.....this is not owned by city and must involve the Birkenshaw family.

Noted. Multiple entities have had
conversations with the
Birkenshaw family over the years
about potential reuse of their
home and property. At this time,
the family has not committed to
any specific course of action. This
Plan introduces some potential
outcomes for re-use of the home
and property, but is not intended
to imply that a specific course of
action has been confirmed.
#125 Would love to see a venue like the Camarillo Ranch House Noted. #126 Parking for this restaurant is hard. One of the reasons I rarely go here. With the future widening of LA Ave here to 6 lanes, is there space for this with the restaurant? Noted. Potential gateway
components, design, and
location will be confirmed
through public process in
implementation of plan.

Image will be replaced
#127 Would love to see events addressed in this plan. I think we can have a plan to do them even better!
Noted. This Plan identifies
potential locations of events. This
Plan also identifies mechanisms
(PBID and Merchant's
Association) to better coordinate
events in DT Moorpark.
#128 Why would Moorpark not want to (and not be likely to) attract a major sales tax generator or auto dealer?
Although the city sits on the
"corner" of 118 and 23, the
nearby population centers of Simi
Valley and Thousand Oaks are
well served by these types of
establishments, and the local
population cannot support these
scale of businesses.
47 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#128 Great question. Not sure the opportunity is there, but to say there is no desire is an interesting statement.

Feedback provided during the
development of the Economic
Development Strategic Plan
indicated value of Moorpark's
small-town vibe and prioritization
of locally or regionally owned
businesses. There was
considerable resistance to the
idea of large retailers coming into
Moorpark.
#128
I think that is meant to reflect residents rejecting big name retail stores to go on High Street, but it is confusingly worded and pretty pessimistic to say. Can agree though that I would not want to see a car dealership go in. They're just big parking lots no one can use
Noted
#129 Would love to learn more about this.

More information on enhanced
infrastructure financing districts
can be found at this link:
https://cceda.com/wpcontent/uploads/EIFD-ResourceGuide-Feb-20161.pdf #130
There are a number of comments by some folks in here that reference state laws that would allow more in a number of different areas that this plan allows--pointing out, perhaps accurately (I do not know) that developers will choose the state law instead of our rules if we are not closer to state law in what we might allow....saying we could lose all local control. I would like to see staff and city attorney comment on this in as realistic a manner as possible so that our
CC decision makers have whatever ammunition and knowledge they need to have. to be able to hopefully maintain more local control, without having to allow everything that state law is trying to jam down every city's throat. This is a sticky wicket and requires careful analysis and thought!
Section 1.3.4 will be revised to
clarify relationship between the
Plan and State Law
#131 Are there no approvals for this? This seems like it could have create potential issues when looking at a project that spans from High Street to Charles Street.

Comment noted. This protocol
allows the greatest flexibility.
#132 Why the inconsistency with mixed use on east of walnut street, but not west side? Should we make Bard mixed use and Walnut Canyon as well? See Section 6.4.9 Charles Street
Commerce Overlay. The purpose
of this overlay is to maintain the
overall design intent of the
underlying zones along Charles
Street between
Moorpark Avenue and Walnut
Street while allowing for a wider
range of uses.
48 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#133
Why have any R-1 Zones in the DTSP? This is the Downtown Specific Plan? SB 9 and SB 1123 also remove R-1 so if Moorpark wants to maintain control, they can up zone to be the path of least resistance.

Section 1.3.4 will be revised to
clarify relationship between the
Plan and State Law
#134 Behind instead of next to? Text will be revised.
#135 This density seems very low for a downtown area, I would expect closer to 109/acre so we can support the local businesses on high street.

Preferences for density, intensity
and height were explored with the
community and city leadership
during the GP and ZC update
processes. The outcomes of
those conversations are reflected
in this plan.
#135
Using unit/acre sounds massive, but using unit/sqft of land sounds a lot more reasonable and better fits in a downtown plan where there are almost no 1 acre lots.

Example: 1/400 sqft of land is standard density for multifamily. on a 5000 sqft lot thats 12 homes (4 per floor, 3 stories). That's the maximum, you don't need to build to the maximum.

Noted
#135 That is crazy High! I thought 32 seemed high!
Preferences for density, intensity
and height were explored with the
community and city leadership
during the GP and ZC update
processes. The outcomes of
those conversations are reflected
in this plan.
#136 2 FAR is low - this will result in small units that are less desirable FAR restrictions will be removed
from standards for Mixed Use
projects
#137 5 stories would be better
Preferences for density, intensity
and height were explored with the
community and city leadership
during the GP and ZC update
processes. The outcomes of
those conversations are reflected
in this plan.
#138 I'd like to see 75ft here.

Preferences for density, intensity
and height were explored with the
community and city leadership
during the GP and ZC update
processes. The outcomes of
those conversations are reflected
in this plan.
49 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#139 What about driveways on narrow lots?
Comment noted. text references
building build-to line, not parcel
build to line.
#140
High Street is the amenity space. We want residents using restaurants and parks as their common open space so High Street has a vibrant pedestrian scene that supports local businesses.

Open space requirements will be
removed for developments under
1 acre and require 5% of lot area
for developments over 1 acre.
#141 Walls, Fences, Utilities, etc. are section 6.6.6 not 6.6.7 Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#142 Section 6.6.8 does not exist.

Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#143
In all residential/mixed use districts, I would like to see density calculated differently for family-sized homes, studio to two bedroom smaller types of homes, and microunits. So something like 24 family sized homes per acre, or 48 smaller homes per acre, or 72 micro-units, or the equivalent mix of the three.

Preferences for density, intensity
and height were explored with the
community and city leadership
during the GP and ZC update
processes. The outcomes of
those conversations are reflected
in this plan.
#143 I think your density suggestions are too high, but I like the concept here. It would help encourage people to build family spaces, not just units.

Preferences for density, intensity
and height were explored with the
community and city leadership
during the GP and ZC update
processes. The outcomes of
those conversations are reflected
in this plan.
#144
3 stories for mixed use and residential developments is definitely too low for the city's downtown, which should be planned to support a lot of new housing for residents that want to live near High Street, Moorpark Ave, or close to the Metrolink. 5 or 6 stories would be preferable.

Preferences for density, intensity
and height were explored with the
community and city leadership
during the GP and ZC update
processes. The outcomes of
those conversations are reflected
in this plan.
#145
I don't think this area should allow for any housing. This is our main parking for downtown and a commercial/industrial center. The access to the commercial/industrial area if it were to change to housing is not great. Can we make this zone limited to parking, and a transit center?
Table 6.5-1 will be updated to
require a CUP for residential uses
in this zone.
50 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#146
Our DTSP must be the path of least resistance if we're going to maintain local control.

We need to greatly increase what is possible here so developers choose the Moorpark zoning instead of Sacramento zoning.

Section 1.3.4 will be revised to
clarify relationship between the
Plan and State Law
#147 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#148 Developers will use state housing laws and bypass Moorpark zoning if the density is this low. We'll lose control of what gets built.

Section 1.3.4 will be revised to
clarify relationship between the
Plan and State Law
#149 FAR should be 3.0+
Development intensity is capped
by residential unit density and
height, FAR will be removed
#150 Three stories would dwarf the single story family homes adjacent. I feel like this would ruin the character of that neighborhood.

Comment noted. Development
standards are intended to
mitigate impacts to adjacent
neighborhood.
#151 Its Spring Road not Spring Street
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#152
Does this plan OR the new 2050 General Plan update allow anyywhere where "tiny lots homes" can be allowed? So far I have not seen any here and I cannot remember what the new GP allows. If not, should there be someplace for that where it is allowed?
The Plan does not require a
minimum unit size for residences.

Tiny Homes would need to meet
existing requirements in
Municipal Code.
#153
Allow rowhomes.

Eliminate front and side setbacks.

Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
51 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#154 Eliminate side yard to enable rowhome developments Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#154 I could see this in this zone.

Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#155
This zoning allows 3 units, but lot coverage caps each unit to only allow only 800 sqft each?
Seems pretty small
Lot coverage maximum will be
increased in revised Plan.
#156 eliminate front yards so we can activate the street, we want to see our neighbors and folks walking by in the downtown zone.

Front yard setback will be
reduced in revised Plan.
#157 Eliminate side yards to enable rowhome developments Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#158 60% lot coverage blocks the density in the R-3 "High Density Residential" zone Lot coverage maximum will be increased in revised Plan.
#159 I believe the current city council has already given different direction on this to staff.

And this area is intended for public services uses, not housing.

Comment noted. Per section 5.1,
the plan recommends updating
the Civic Center Master Plan to
reflect the relocation of City Hall
and explore potential uses for this
area.
#160 These tables don't exist in this document. Do you mean 6.4-1? Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#161 No Housing should be in this zone.

Table 6.5-1 will be updated to
require a CUP for residential uses
in this zone.
52 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#162 No Housing should be in the is zone.

Noted. Recommended uses for
the Civic Center area will be
studied and confirmed in a
revised Civic Center Master Plan.
#163
Multifamily dwellings of 11 or more units (including mixed use projects) should be made easier to develop within the Moorpark Ave, High Street, Transit, and Civic Center zones.

Comment noted. Table reflects
City Council direction provided
during Zoning Code update.
#164 RPD requirement on every 11+ unit building may add unnecessary delays and risk non-compliance with Cal Gov Sec 65913.3 timelines.

Plan will be updated to clarify that
any housing on High Street will be
part of mixed-use development.
#165 Would this be through a development agreement?
The Plan will be updated to
include a mechanism for
potential modifications to
development standards with a DA
for hotels.
#165 hotels (or other uses) should be able to seek relief from development standards if approved by CC. need to include mechanism to allow for this.

The Plan will be updated to
include a mechanism for
potential modifications to
development standards with a DA
for hotels.
#166 Can this be AP so we make it super easy for new bars and entertainment on high street?
Comment noted. Current table
reflects City preference.
#167 If something like a YMCA came here, this should be an allowable use.

YMCA could be characterized as a
social club, therefore allowed
with a CUP.
#168 I think this needs to extend into the R-1 and R-2 as potential for the city owned lots to become parking.

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
#169 Your map shows the post office in this zone, yet it is not a permitted use? The Civic Center prohibits private post offices.
#170 If a future theater had food, could we allow for this here? If civic center develops into a
cultural center, restaurants could
be considered as an ancillary use.
53 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#171 The YMCA in Westlake has a Cafe and outdoor patio.

If civic center develops into a
cultural center, restaurants could
be considered as an ancillary use.
#172
Why do we need to dictate this. Just say the city is not responsible. I can tell you that they are not locking them up today, and that is at their own risk. Nothing the city needs to police.

This requirement will be removed
#173 Confusing. No seating next to trees/light posts or 6 ft clearance to allow pedestrian traffic around the seating area?
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#174 Do you mean that you need to get a permit, or that it is just allowed? Live entertainment or music is
allowed but subject to any
applicable code requirements.
#175 Does this require a hotel to be enrolled in the AAA Diamond Program or just to follow the AAA Diamond Guidelines?
Hotels must mee the standards of
the AAA Diamond Guidelines or
an equivalent rating system, but
do not need to be enrolled.
#176 Encourage, but not require would be a great way to advocate for the things we'd like to see while remaining flexible
Plan will be revised. All new
hotels in the DTSP should
provide features and
amenities totaling 10 points…
#176
I love having these things, but something may have to give. If we are requiring a max of three stories, they may need to maximize the number of hotel rooms to make a project pencil. Maybe we encourage these, not require them? Plan will be revised. All new
hotels in the DTSP should
provide features and
amenities totaling 10 points…
#177 Why one? This requirement will be removed
#178 Why? If they move out, could they not make it all the business space? I understand not going the other way, as we want to encourage businesses in the district. This requirement will be removed #179 Why this size? This requirement will be removed
#180
400/900 = 44.44%
Minimum sizes conflict. This requirement will be removed #181 Maybe I missed it, but you should add the cities definition of a chain store in here. Definitions will updated to be consistent with the code.
#182 Since we do not allow 4 sorries, maybe we should show a different photo here? Uninhabited architectural
features are excluded from max
height calculations. Text will be
added to plan to clarify.
#183 Exception = good Noted
#183 Good call - Thank you Noted
54 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#184 We should not require roofline articulation so new buildings can match the historic brick buildings do not have roofline articulation.

Majority of lots, including High
Street, are 50' wide. Traditional
downtowns were varied by
differences between individual
buildings, not on an individual 50'
wide building. Requirement will
be revised to apply only to
buildings with more than 100' in
frontage.
#185 How does an applicant demonstrate compliance with this? Applicant will need to submit a
diagram or visual simulation
illustrating compliance.
#186 This entire section should be removed. If we had a 50ft wide building like looked like M on High, that would be excellent.

Major modulation requirement
will be removed and minor
modulation requirement will
apply to larger projects.
#187 facades not facacdes
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#188
Unnecessary facade articulation can add to the construction cost. It might be better to allow for varied decorative elements that don't change the shape of buildings that much, or in the case of all-affordable or mostly affordable projects where the goal is minimizing construction cost to deliver lower cost housing, to waive these requirements altogether.

Major modulation requirement
will be removed and minor
modulation requirement will
apply to larger projects.
#188 I don't think affordable housing is the goal for all these areas. Noted #189 This is inconsistent with historic down town high street. Historic brick buildings do not have step backs
Stepback requirement will be
removed.
#190 Stepback architecture is inconsistent with historic high st Stepback requirement will be removed.
#191 10% seems high
Open space requirements for
developments under 1 acre will
be removed. Projects over 1 acre
will require open space
equivalent to 5% of lot area.
#191
32/ac = most dense
50 units = 1.56 acre
10% of that would be 6800 sqft of required open space
High St Depot Village Green is ~5% of their lot area
Open space requirements for
developments under 1 acre will
be removed. Projects over 1 acre
will require open space
equivalent to 5% of lot area.
#192
NOTE: This is not consistent with existing downtown project. For example, this rule would require 8 trees in the village green which currently have 0 onsite trees and 4 sidewalk trees.

The village green acts as an excellent spot for the community to host events and gathering activities (i.e. Holiday On High Street Christmas Tree). Forcing trees in that space would hurt the ability for a developer to meet the actual needs of the community
This requirement will be removed.
55 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#193
This means a project is more expensive and less likely to be financially viable if it chooses to provide a benefit to their residents. Let architects be architects who design cohesive experiences for residents and guests.

This requirement will be removed.
#194 This limits the ability of interior conferences rooms or theater rooms from qualifying as common space.

This requirement will be removed.
#195
Potential Inconsistency:

This is defined as 75-100% in Section 6.4.1.f
Publicly Accessible Open requirements could conflict (6.6.3.1 & 6.6.3.3) This requirement relates to a
percent of the façade length,
rather than percent of frontage
required at build-to line described
in 6.4.1.f
#196 Wouldn't this be like the village green? If another business wanted to do something like that what is the issue?
Forecourt will be permitted in
High Street zone
#197 I know there are some legacy of these that exist, but I don't think this is constant with what we want on High Street.

Noted
#198 If there are no setbacks on Moorpark Ave, then you will not get the trees you wanted in this plan.

Noted
#199 Why not? Urban porch will be allowed in
Moorpark Ave zone
#200 Maybe I am not understanding this. I think a visual of these would be helpful. I think some of these could be allowed, but my google image might be misleading me.

See Section 6.6.4.8
#200 I guess I needed to get to the next page! Sorry. Noted #201 No ground floor homes would fix that! Noted
#201 North of High Street are all single story single family. 3 Story row homes would be epic there tho!
Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#201 What about for live/work lofts or ground floor homes? Noted #202 Is there an exemption for 100% housing or small lots? This section will be revised to
allow interior open space or
residential amenities or building
lobby to count toward this
requirement.
#202 There should be no 100% housing on High Street
Plan will be updated to clarify that
any housing on High Street will be
part of mixed-use development.
#203 of of
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
56 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#204
Would love to see front and side setbacks removed from the downtown zone so we can enable row homes or neighborhood porches
Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#205 Potentially inconsistent with section 6.6.4.2.A.2
less than 88% light vs less than 15% tint
The second sentence of the
maximum glass tint requirement
will be removed.
#206 We need to eliminate front & side setbacks to enable rowhomes like this Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#207 why set a minimum? Below 1ft it's just a patio?Noted #208 I think we should add White Vinyl Fencing to the allowable materials. Noted #209 Potential inconsistency / Duplicate requirement via sec 6.6.2.2.D Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
#210 Firecode section D105.2 requires 15ft driveways, This means you can't have a properly-line driveway. Is that intended?
Noted
#211 Maybe screening with landscaping? 10 feet is a lot to loose from a parking lot.

Requirement will be revised to
allow landscape or wall screening
in lieu of 10' buffer
#211 Shouldn't we encourage as much off-street parking as possible? Making it harder to fit more cars seems like it would be more harmful to residential neighbors Requirement will be revised to
allow landscape or wall screening
in lieu of 10' buffer
#212
This seems odd and inconsistent with other home who's garage is allowed to be visible. We should encourage creative ways to add more parking in the downtown specific plan.

Noted
#213
Would be nice to allow rowhomes with a tandem tuck under parking, but this not being visible from the street seems odd. Everyone else's garage is visible from the street.

Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
57 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
#214 To enable rowhomes we must eliminate front setbacks Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#215
This comment and many like it by the same person throughout the plan reference row homes and how to allow them. Does this plan allow (or not allow) row homes? Explain why or why not and the rationales used when making that decision. I am just trying to understand and am not even sure what I think about it (yet).

Rowhomes/townhomes are not
prohibited on individual parcels
that are large enough to
accommodate this housing type.

Rowhome/townhomes
development across contiguous
parcels may require lot
consolidation with different
owners.
#216 Potential Inconsistency, Should remove 6.6.7.6.B requirement if you have this requirement in 6.6.7.7.E
Noted. 6.6.7.7. E addresses all
other street facing garage doors
outside of tuck-under parking.
#217
I thought the city had a more defined definition of Chain Store. With this definition 2 stores makes it a chain? This seems more restrictive than it was when the ordinance was put in place.

Definitions will updated to be
consistent with the code.
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting Complemented keeping daylight as a focus within/between buildings. Noted 4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
live/work good – avoid it transitioning to live/live with tinted ground floor windows, no businesses and no activation
Noted. Designated work spaces
are prohibited from being
converted into living quarters.
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Evaluate roofline guidelines and relationship between individual facades versus long rooflines (we had some public polling regarding this as well…) Roofline requirement will be
revised to apply only to buildings
with more than 100' in frontage.
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Charles/spring corner and need for clarity regarding how a development would address multiple zones
See 6.2.11 for how cross district
development will occur
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting Evaluate how chain store regs may (or may not) relate to hotels. Chain store regulations do not apply to hotels
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Magnolia park relocation option to enable closure of high street to further east. (need to discuss)
The City is not contemplating
removing public parks
58 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Chain store may not have been included directly per adopted ordinance (number of stores in definition). Ensure what we have is consistent with what the CC had approved
Definitions will updated to be
consistent with the code.
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Pictures in document show residential uses on first floor. Commercial is desired on first floor (no or very limited residential) to create the Disneyland mainstreet vibe Noted. Pictures with ground floor
residential are intended to
illustrate frontage types that may
apply to other zones.
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
comments re water tower. Noted
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Ensure no pepper trees are encouraged on tree plan aside from replacement of failing specimens on high street
Language will be added to clarify
the intended character of street
trees on Moorpark Ave
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
No residential uses desired for chamber of commerce site @ southeast corner of Moorpark ave and High
Vision will be revised to
emphasize entertainment uses.

MFA Letter
First, parking. In a recent survey of our patrons with over 700 respondents, one of the largest requests we heard was for more parking; a request our front-of-house staff are all too familiar with in person. While this data may come as a contradiction to the belief of the committee regarding downtown parking, we may be able to elucidate the dichotomy. We are of the opinion that the 2019 parking survey being relied upon for this determination is not only outdated, but is being incorrectly applied to make this determination, and used what we believe to be flawed methodology from the outset to make its conclusions.

Most importantly, we are talking about a seven-year-old study (conducted before the pandemic) being used to estimate downtown's parking needs over the next 24 years.

Downtown's needs and priorities have shifted since 2019, our thoughts on parking should too. Next, the study was commissioned in conjunction with the Depot Project for a specific purpose: to determine the state of downtown parking prior to the Depot Project's construction. The findings of that study approved the project and subsequently eliminated the largest parking lot on High Street's western edge. It can no longer address the factors affecting parking on High Street, as those factors have demonstrably changed as a result of this exact study, making it obsolete moving forward. Finally, the method with which it counted parking was flawed from the outset. Counting Charles Street as available on-street parking for downtown was disingenuous to the homeowners and residents it would impact. We have always wanted to respect our residential neighbors downtown and would hope future tenants would as well. While we are encouraged by seeing the proposed permit parking zone in residential areas on the DTSP, it nevertheless highlights the lack of parking spaces. Compounded onto this - and potentially more worrisome - each existing off-street lot touching High Street has a future designation to be transformed into something else, or to have dual use if the post office lot brings back a Sunday farmer's market. As excited as we are for the growth and to move away from the concept of surface lots, to do so without a plan to replace them in some fashion concerns us on behalf of our patrons and the future patrons of a revitalized downtown (GP LU-13.3).

The City will conduct new
analysis of parking supply and
demand as part of a Parking
Utilization and Management Plan
for Downtown following the
adoption of this Specific Plan.

New quantitative analysis will be
needed to update the findings of
the 2019 parking study and
confirm the impact of the High
Street Depot project on parking
resources in the Downtown once
the project is occupied.
59 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting Former kahoots storage building may eventually be new building Noted 4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Info shared re metrolink train service reduction Noted
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting Desire to preserve birkenshaw house
Noted. Multiple entities have had
conversations with the
Birkenshaw family over the years
about potential reuse of their
home and property. At this time,
the family has not committed to
any specific course of action. This
Plan introduces some potential
outcomes for re-use of the home
and property, but is not intended
to imply that a specific course of
action has been confirmed.
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Review gateway sign as NEC LA Ave/Moorpark against CIP projects, may need to push back depending on improved street radius.

Noted. Potential gateway
components, design, and
location will be confirmed
through public process in
implementation of plan.

Image will be replaced
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Farmers market – don’t exclude businesses (post office) discuss w/ them or leave openness in plan. May benefit from being on high street.

Noted. Text will be revised to
suggest alternative Farmer's
Market locations.
60 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
MFA Letter
Next, the Civic Center Master Plan Site. Moorpark citizens responded rather emphatically to reject large chain retailers littering the storefronts of High Street, hoping to attract small businesses and local entrepreneurs instead. However, the enterprises sought by Moorpark residents are the same ones reluctant to take chances on unproven corridors with high rental costs. As many of these business owners are already undertaking considerable risks opening a new store or location, adding unnecessary probabilities seems foolhardy. Our new city library along West High Street will be a welcome addition to our citizens as well as a good step toward transforming downtown. But if hours of operation are similar to the current library, the deserted nature of evenings and weekend afternoons will be perpetuated along the Western Corridor. As excited as we are about its arrival, it will not alone be able to transform this side of High Street into the lively environment envisioned by the DTSP and, by extension, will not be able to attract the private business and commercial interests necessary to fully complete its revitalization. When looked at in the context of neighboring the post office, these concerns are only compounded as they employ similar hours of operation. These points are not intended to undercut the necessity of a new library, or the benefits it will provide the community. Rather, the incongruity of hoping a city utility will spur economic growth is an unrealistic expectation of a library. Our concern is the city not going further with its intentions for the remaining parcels within the Master Plan site.

The announcement of City Hall staying at its new home presents the natural question of what becomes of the space originally designated to mirror the library, as well as old City Hall and the rest of the master plan site. Without City Hall, the site lacks the hallmarks a civic center usually provides: a gathering place. Furthermore - while not required for civic centers - with no plan for entertainment, retail, or dining in the vicinity, the master plan essentially condemns this area to operate as a ghost town in the evenings and on weekends similar to Poindexter industrial park. Perhaps unintentionally, the DTSP in its current form creates a downtown void in the form of scattered greenery and leftover surface lots masquerading as intentional planning, fragmenting the western corridor rather than unifying it.

Per section 5.1, the plan
recommends updating the Civic
Center Master Plan to reflect the
relocation of City Hall and explore
potential uses for this area.
61 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
MFA Letter

2. Designate the two parcels of the Civic Center District (DTSP 6.4.8) south of the railroad tracks for a museum in conjunction with the above proposals. Moorpark and the greater Rancho Simi area we have been a part of since the time of the conquistadores is filled with a rich history. The unique shale deposits found at Happy Camp gave researchers a way to uncover forgotten Chumash trading routes and the extent of their regional influence. During the Mexican American War, the California Brigade led by Lieutenant Fremont spent the night in the area, before continuing to capture Los Angeles and signing the Treaty of Cahuenga, effectively ending the war.

The townspeople named the town Freemont Ville in his honor, before officially becoming Moorpark in 1905. Santa Susanna Field Laboratory (warts and all) field tested every single rocket engine made in the U.S. from the end of WWII until Desert Storm, making it and our county a pivotal part of the space program. When the Saint Francis Dam broke in the middle of the night, destroying much of Somis and nearly destroying the town of Bardsdale off the map - the second deadliest natural disaster in California's history - the citizenry of Moorpark sprang into action, rescuing neighbors clinging to trees, retrieving the deceased and bringing them into their businesses along High Street for family members to identify loved ones, and taking shifts to guard the disaster zone from looters. As fascinating as each of these stories are, most in Moorpark have never heard them before. There are countless stories of triumph, sacrifice, courage and intrigue just waiting to be retold, but without a place to learn about our history, these stories risk being forgotten.

Per section 5.1, the plan
recommends updating the Civic
Center Master Plan to reflect the
relocation of City Hall and explore
potential uses for this area.

MFA Letter
Designate the remaining parcels of the Civic Center District (DTSP 6.4.8) north of the railroad tracks for a regional Civic Center/theatre and parking structure (GP ED-5.2).

A state-of-the-art regional theatre represents the brightest opportunity to revitalize downtown as the anchor tenant of a lively 'new arts district (GP ED-5.3). The live event industry has changed drastically since the pandemic. Outside of the largest concerts of the summer billed as "can't missn opportunities, people are no longer as willing to be packed into venues like sardines. Research indicates audiences still crave live entertainment but are turned off by the near-extortive prices and commercialized experiences many have become familiar with. Patrons are willing to pay more for bespoke experiences evoking a more intimate or personalized encounter. This research is born out in real world examples, dozens of smaller music venues (99-450 seats) across the greater L.A. area - venues that lived on the margins and depended on full houses to cover costs - have shuttered since 2019. In preparation for the 2025 Super Bowl, the Superdome in New Orleans removed roughly 4,300 seats from its stadium in favor of reducing congestion in the concourses, expanding their range of fan amenities, and offering new premium seating options. Locally, the 1,800 seat Kavli Theatre at the T.O. Civic Arts Plaza has thankfully not seen a reduction in attendance lately, but they have seen fewer and fewer local bookings. Speaking of local groups needing a professional performance space - some of whom have been tenants at the Kavli for years - are finding the large seating capacity (and associated rental fees) more of a burden than an asset.

Per section 5.1, the plan
recommends updating the Civic
Center Master Plan to reflect the
relocation of City Hall and explore
potential uses for this area.
62 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan - Public Review Draft Comment Matrix 04/29/26
Comment
Number
Comment Response to Public Comment
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
consider pedestrian enhancements to the metrolink crossing to encourage use/safety (may be part of quiet zone)
Text will be added to plan
regarding enhanced pedestrian
crossing at Metrolink tracks.
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting Work to garner additional input
Outreach efforts will continue
through Planning Commission
and City Council.

MFA Letter

1. Designate High Street as, "No Through Traffic". The rush hour traffic currently plaguing High Street adds no economic benefit to the street (no one is pulling over to stop at the creamery because the lefthand light two blocks up is slow). Rather, it detracts from the enjoyment of the street and makes parking more of a hassle.

Designating the street for "No Through Traffic" will help alleviate this issue by forcing navigation applications to route drivers north on Spring Road to make their left onto Moorpark Ave rather than west on High Street. It will still route end destinations on High Street to use it, so businesses would not see an impact on their stores. While it obviously will not stop everyone from continuing to turn down High Street (especially locals and those accustomed to it by now) it will have a tangible effect in reducing congestion, particularly when it comes to commercial vehicle traffic.

Comment noted and shared with
relevant City staff.
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting Use moorpark photos/evaluate photos selected
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Address all spelling, street name, people name, etc typographical errors in doc – better QA/QC
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting Typos
Comment will be addressed in
revised Plan
4/15/26 CEDC
Meeting
Ensure code standards do not retroactively apply in a way that impairs development/use of existing properties
Review nonconforming/applicability to
ensure existing properties that
may not conform are required to
follow plan only when expanding
or intensifying development.
63 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 This page is intentionally left blank.
1-0
001
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 1 Printed 04/17/2026 ATTACHMENT 2 64
#001
Posted by Dorothy on 04/01/2026 at 7:50pm [Comment ID: 141] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
Subject: Substance Over Style: A Critique of the 2026 Downtown Specific Plan Draft The 2026 Draft of the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan feels more aligned with a marketing or promotional campaign than a practical, actionable blueprint for a walkable urban center. While the proposal pushes an appealing agrarian-themed aesthetic, it appears to overlook critical logistical, financial, and logistical realities, including the potential strain on other city departments required to bring this image to life.

The city appears dangerously focused on branding, appearance, and perception rather than ensuring the long-term sustainability and utility of these developments.

While a strong, appealing aesthetic is beneficial for civic pride, it should not be a substitute for the substance of city planning. The current plan risks delivering an artificial, shallow environment that focuses more on how downtown looks in photographs than how it functions for its residents.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 2 Printed 04/17/2026 65 Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan
Public Review Draft: March 2026
002
003
004
005
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 3 Printed 04/17/2026 66 #002
Posted by Wendy on 03/30/2026 at 6:26am [Comment ID: 135] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
@
#003
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/14/2026 at 5:32pm [Comment ID: 185] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
not sure why it asked for my info yet since I am just looking at the doc for the first time. Just finished seeing the april 1 meeting replay. Will start to look next and may comment.
#004
Posted by Chris 2 on 03/27/2026 at 12:27pm [Comment ID: 129] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would be better to show a current photo with the lights installed on these. #005
Posted by JOHN 1 on 03/31/2026 at 11:38am [Comment ID: 136] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
This effort obviously is the result of a massive, well-intentioned amount of time, skill, and thought. Very impressive!
However, this "downtown" development effort seems to have become a growing landslide that is sapping most the attention and funding in Moorpark.

This updated Plan has a lot of detailed rules for building and esthetics but I did not see where major funding is addressed. In order to entice solid businesses, there needs to be good access (roads), ample parking, and a critical mass population size. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 4 Printed 04/17/2026 67 City Council
Chris Enegren, Mayor
Renee Delgago, District 1, Mayor Pro Tem
Chris Barrett, District 2
Tom Means, District 3
Dr. Antonio Castro, District 4
Planning Commission
Leanne Alva
Mark Di Cecco
Kevin Hamalainen
Kipp Landis
Mike Winters
City Of Moorpark, California
PJ Gagajena, City Manager
Jonathan Royas, Assistant City Manager
Doug Spondello, Community Development
Director
Prepared by:

Note:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funded By:

This project is funded by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG)
With:

DAI - Di Cecco Architecture, Inc.

William Fulton Group
This document is intended to be
viewed as a two-page spread with a
single cover and back page.

UPDATED: DEcEmbEr 2021 WWW.ScAG.cA.GOV

LOGOBRAND LOGO
LOGO
Download For Designer
Download For Non-Designer

ONE-COLOR
DON’T USE
SCAG
A MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 006
007
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 5 Printed 04/17/2026 68 #006
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 11:49am [Comment ID: 19] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
spelled delgado
#007
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 11:50am [Comment ID: 20] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Castro is Mayor Pro Tem
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 6 Printed 04/17/2026 69 ADOPTION & AMENDMENT HISTORY
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN B 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 7 Printed 04/17/2026 70 C Contents

INTRODUCTION
This Chapter defines what a specific plan is, what it does and introduces the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan project area. The Chapter also provides the policy and economic context of this plan as well as an overview of the previous 1998 Downtown Specific Plan. 1 DOWNTOWN TODAY
This Chapter provides an overview of key elements that make up Downtown Moorpark and form its character. This Chapter reviews existing urban form, cultural resources, land ownership, recent development projects, development opportunity areas, parking, and mobility.
2 CRAFTING THE VISION
This Chapter provides an overview of community outreach and engagement conducted throughout the planning process.
3 C MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 8 Printed 04/17/2026 71 THE VISION
This Chapter introduces a vision of how growth and development will occur in Downtown Moorpark over the next 20-plus years. The vision is depicted through a series of urban design concept diagrams that outline the land use framework for the downtown area. The vision was developed through a robust analysis of existing conditions and input from community outreach efforts.
4 DEVELOPMENT CODE
This Chapter provides the regulatory framework required to implement the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan. The development and design standards in this Chapter have been crafted with respect to the processes, existing conditions, outreach, vision, and catalytic projects described in Chapters 1 through 5 of the DTSP. These standards are intended to enhance the existing character of downtown Moorpark while respecting its history and cultural resources, and is the primary regulatory tool that will be used to carry out the vision for the Plan Area, as described in Chapter 4 of the DTSP.
6 ENACTING THE VISION
This Chapter outlines projects and initiatives that act as implementation tools for the vision laid out in Chapter 4.
5 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN D 008
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 9 Printed 04/17/2026 72 #008
Posted by Chad 1 on 04/01/2026 at 6:43pm [Comment ID: 140] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
test Comment
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 10 Printed 04/17/2026 73 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 This page is intentionally left blank.
1-0
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 11 Printed 04/17/2026 74 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 1-1 Introduction
This Chapter defines what a specific plan is, what
it does and introduces the Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan project area. The Chapter also
provides the policy and economic context of this
plan as well as an overview of the previous 1998
Downtown Specific Plan.

1.1: What is a Specific Plan?

1.2: Specific Plan Area

1.3: Policy Context
1 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 12 Printed 04/17/2026 75 1-2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1: What is a Specific Plan?
While the General Plan is the primary guide for growth and development citywide, a Specific Plan focuses on the unique characteristics of a special area by customizing the planning process and land use regulations to that area. California Government Code allows cities and counties to prepare Specific Plans to develop policies, programs, regulations, and guidelines to implement the jurisdiction’s adopted General Plan (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450–65457).

As prescribed by law, a Specific Plan includes text and diagrams that generally describe:
• The distribution, location, and extent of all land uses. • The standards and criteria by which new development will proceed. • The proposed distribution, location, extent, and intensity of major components of public infrastructure, such as transportation and utility systems. • A program of implementation measures, such as financing measures, policies, regulations, and public works projects.

The Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
The Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) has been designed to implement the City’s General Plan 2050. The DTSP is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the City of Moorpark General Plan, as amended to date. The goals, objectives, and planning principles in the General Plan are implemented through the development plan and development standards of the DTSP. General Plan goals and policies relevant to this Specific Plan are identified in Section 1.3.

The DTSP is intended to provide the public, project applicants, City staff, and decision makers with information on the overall intent for Downtown Moorpark, and development and design standards to facilitate implementation of the DTSP.

Design review plans, detailed site plans, grading permits and building permits, or any other action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to this area shall be consistent with this Specific Plan.

Consistent with State law, the DTSP has been adopted by ordinance effectively becoming the zoning regulation for Downtown Moorpark—as authorized by Section

17.16.070 of the Moorpark Municipal Code (MMC) —subject to the standards and regulations in this plan for the express purpose of establishing land use regulations and standards. All other applicable chapters, articles, and sections of the MMC shall apply unless expressly waived or superseded by this plan.

This Specific Plan replaces the 1998 Downtown Specific Plan (1998 Plan). This Specific Plan was adopted by Ordinance # / Resolution # on [XXXX XX, 2026].

A Specific Plan is a regulatory tool that local
governments use to guide development in a focused
area of the community.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 13 Printed 04/17/2026 76 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 1-3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Moorpark Station

HIGH ST

MOORPARK AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE

SPRING RD
Walnut Canyon
Magnet School
Chaparral Middle
School
Post Oce
Moorpark Town
Center
Poindexter Park
Flory Academy of
Sciences &
Technology School
Magnolia Park
Police Services
The Alley
Castro Human
Services Center
High Street
Arts Center
High Street Depot
New Civic Center
Hitch Ranch
Everett Street
Terraces
Mixed-Use
Building
High Street Depot
New Civic Center
Hitch Ranch
Everett Street
Terraces
Mixed-Use
Building
Vendra Gardens

HIGH ST

MOORPARK AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE

SPRING RD
Figure 1-1: Aerial Downtown Moorpark Specific Plan Boundary Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Pending and Proposed Projects
Metrolink Ventura County Line
009
010
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 14 Printed 04/17/2026 77 #009
Posted by Chris 2 on 03/27/2026 at 12:38pm [Comment ID: 131] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Why would you exclude the post office and the lot behind it from the plan? #010
Posted by Chris 2 on 03/27/2026 at 12:40pm [Comment ID: 132] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This center has been attracting wineries. Would it not make sense to include this area in the plan?
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 15 Printed 04/17/2026 78 1-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.2: Specific Plan Area
The Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan is in the center of the City of Moorpark with High Street at its core. Also included in the DTSP Area (Plan Area) are other parts of Old Town Moorpark, including the residential neighborhood north of High Street, the railroad right-of-way running parallel and south of High Street, and the strip of land along Moorpark Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue.

The Plan Area features two distinct
corridors. The first is the High Street
corridor, and the second is the
Moorpark Avenue corridor. The Plan
Area also includes properties east of
Spring Road, both north and south
of the railroad tracks, fronting both
High Street and Moorpark Avenue.

The geographic setting of the Plan
Area is shown in Figure 1-1 and
Figure 1-2.

This DTSP modifies the boundary
of the Plan Area from the 1998
Specific Plan. Figure 1-2, Moorpark
Downtown Specific Plan Boundary,
shows the adjustments made to
the boundary. The changes include
removing the light industrial uses (C)
as well as some residential properties
at the Spring Street and Princeton
Street intersection (B) and along Flory
Avenue (A). These adjustments were
made so that the Plan Area would align
more closely with the Downtown
character. The residential areas are
unlikely to change. Furthermore,
the character of Princeton Avenue
east of Spring Road is that of an
arterial thoroughfare with high traffic
speeds. Princeton Avenue features a
landscaped berm to the north and
light industrial uses to the south.

These characteristics do not match
the pedestrian oriented downtown
environment.
1998 Specific Plan
Following two decades of intense growth and
change in the 1980s and 1990s, Moorpark adopted
a Specific Plan for Downtown on October 7, 1998.

Recognizing that the retention and possible resurgence
of the High Street corridor’s unique and historic role as a civic and community focus could be preserved and
strengthened, the Specific Plan furthered the vision for the overall revitalization of the Downtown and implemented
design standards, guidelines, and a strategy for business attraction and development of the City owned parcels in the downtown. Based upon numerous interviews with
City residents and businesses, a downtown merchant
survey, a public opinion survey sent to 800 residences
and businesses, parking counts, an up-to-date land
use survey, and other field studies, a vision statement was established to summarize the special qualities of
Downtown Moorpark.
1998 Specific Plan Vision
“The vision for Old Town Moorpark is that of rural
small town America. The High Street area is particularly important because it retains the country charm and
agrarian qualities that are the roots of Moorpark’s history.

Important features include a family town with friendly
people who care for each other. It is a pedestrian-oriented area where people walk, shop, and feel safe on the street at night. It is a unique mix of offices and businesses, and the cultural and civic hub to the City. Both High Street and Moorpark Avenue are surrounded by mixed housing
types that are homes to people of multiple classes and
cultures. Identifiably different than other commercial
areas of the City, the goal is to not have corporate business uses overwhelm the area at the expense of the small town character. In recognizing the value and irreplaceability of the down town’s cultural heritage and social and
economic wellbeing, high quality, new development,
reflecting the small town charm is essential. Revitalization and image building of Old Town Moorpark will contribute to a memorable City identity, welcoming residents and
visitors to downtown Moorpark.”
011 012
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 16 Printed 04/17/2026 79 #011
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/14/2026 at 5:37pm [Comment ID: 186] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
It is Princeton Ave. not Princeton St.!
#012
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:16pm [Comment ID: 39] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 17 Printed 04/17/2026 80 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 1-5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
23 118
118

REGIONAL MAP
Downtown Moorpark Specific Plan Boundary
Moorpark City Boundary
Metrolink Communter Rail Line (Ventura County Line) & Station Figure 1-2: Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary

REGIONAL MAP
Downtown Moorpark Specific Plan Boundary
Moorpark City Boundary
Metrolink Communter Rail Line (Ventura County Line) & St City of Moorpark
Ventura County
Moorpark City Boundary
Moorpark Downtown Specific
Plan Boundary
Metrolink Ventura County Line

REGIONAL MAP
Downtown Moorpark Specific Plan Boundary
Moorpark City Boundary
Metrolink Communter Rail Line (Ventura County Line) & St 1/2
mile radius
1/4 mile radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

CHARLES
ST
Civic Center
Master Plan
Ralphs
Birkenshaw
House
Post Office High Street Depot
New
Library
Civic Center
Master Plan
Flory Academy
of Sciences and
Technology
Human
Services
Center
Police
Services
Magnolia
Park
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
1998 Downtown Specific Plan Boundary Areas
removed from 2026 Update
Residential area unlikely to change
Residential area unlikely to change
Light Industrial Area not compatible with
pedestrian oriented downtown environment
Metrolink Ventura County Line
A
A
B
C
B
C
013
014
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 18 Printed 04/17/2026 81 #013
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/14/2026 at 5:38pm [Comment ID: 187] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
So if you are not including this are in DTSP then where is the planning for this area documented (other than in the updated GP)?
#014
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 11:15am [Comment ID: 226] - Link Compatibility, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
What do you have in mind to help this small strip of commercial/industrial that IS at the edge of the DTSP?
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 19 Printed 04/17/2026 82 1-6 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.3: Policy Context

1.3.1: General Plan
The DTSP is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the City of Moorpark General Plan by implementing the goals and policies of General Plan 2050. Goals and policies found in General Plan 2050 that this Specific Plan fulfills include the following:

Land Use 19, Downtown: Revitalize The Downtown
Commercial Core (Moorpark Avenue Area, Walnut Street,
Bard Street, Magnolia Avenue, And High Street)
• LU 19.1 Core community district: Support the continued development of the area along High Street as a distinct place identified as the symbolic and functional downtown of Moorpark.
• LU 19.2 Complementary development: Promote the
development of new commercial and office uses, housing, park or recreational facilities, public parking, and a potential multimodal transportation center in the commercial core. • LU 19.3 Relationship to transit station: Locate and design development to capitalize on and reflect its adjacency
to the Metrolink station, including developing direct
pedestrian connections.
• LU 19.4 Visual character: Strengthen the visual character of the downtown commercial core in order to attract a
variety of commercial and mixed-use (commercial and
housing) projects and promote the economic viability of downtown Moorpark.
• LU 19.5 Tree canopy: Maintain and expand the tree canopy in the downtown area to provide shade, improve air and
water quality, reduce the heat island effect, and create habitat for birds and pollinators.
• LU 19.6 Cooling elements: Encourage the use of trees and architectural elements that provide shade, cooling stations, and seating areas for pedestrian corridors.
• LU 19.7 Pedestrian-oriented development: Require that buildings are located along and oriented to the street
frontage of High Street to maintain an active pedestrian environment.
• LU 19.8 Historic buildings: Preserve where possible historic structures and ensure that where new development
occurs, it complements the physical qualities and distinct features of existing historic resources.
• LU 19.9 Parking: Consider creative programs to provide sufficient parking for commercial and mixed-use
developments on High Street.

Moorpark’s General
Plan 2050 and Zoning
code update were
adopted in 2023.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 20 Printed 04/17/2026 83 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 1-7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Economic Development 5, Downtown: A Thriving
Downtown That Is Cherished By Residents And That
Helps Define The Popular Image Of Moorpark.
• ED 5.1 Downtown revitalization plan: Collaborate with downtown businesses and the Chamber of Commerce
to create and implement a Downtown Revitalization
Plan, either as an augment to the Downtown Specific
Plan or as a stand-alone plan, that provides actionable planning for infrastructure, provides guidance for the
High Street Arts Center and special events, explores types of complementary businesses, and establishes a public
relations and marketing communications strategy.
• ED 5.2 Downtown infrastructure: Ensure that sufficient infrastructure is provided to support the types of uses planned for the Downtown area, including an actionable
plan for such upgrades.
• ED 5.3 Events and activities: Maintain and implement an annual calendar of events and activities to attract resident and visitors to the Downtown.
• ED 5.4 Business mix: Identify needed or desired
complementary businesses and a strategy to attract these businesses; update this strategy periodically.
• ED 5.5 Marketing: Establish a public relations and marketing communications strategy to publicize downtown and
attract visitors; update this strategy periodically.

Conservation and Open Space 3, Moorpark’s Unique
Historical, Cultural, Archaeological, And Paleontological Resources Are Preserved And Protected
• COS 3.3 Downtown historic resources: Protect Moorpark’s traditional downtown area so that physical changes that occur within it enhance its historic character.

Conservation and Open Space 7, Moorpark Practices
Sustainable And Low-Carbon Agriculture And Land Use
Activities.
• COS 7.1 Tree plantings: Protect and expand the urban forest through new tree plantings and effective and timely care of existing trees, emphasizing consistent tree canopies along corridors in areas such as along Moorpark Avenue
and Los Angeles Avenue and within the Downtown area.
015
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 21 Printed 04/17/2026 84 #015
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 10:54am [Comment ID: 220] - Link Development Standards, Economic, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Has there yet been any effort to start this downtown revitalization plan as suggested in GP 2050? Sounds like a good idea. What is timeline to do it, do you think? 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 22 Printed 04/17/2026 85 1-8 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.3.2: Zoning Code
The City of Moorpark Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning (Zoning Code), provides site specific development and use regulations that govern the size, shape, and intensity of development in the Downtown and the uses to which new development may
be committed. The provisions of the City Zoning Code apply to the properties in the Plan Area and supplement the regulations in the DTSP. The DTSP development and design standards are consistent with and support the City Zoning Code. In cases where the DTSP development standards and Zoning Code
standards conflict, the Specific Plan development standards shall apply.

1.3.3: Economic Development Strategic Plan
In 2024, Moorpark adopted its first Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) as one of the City’s first steps in implementing General Plan 2050. The Plan aims to create a resilient microeconomy that enhances the quality of life for all residents and positions the city as a distinctive destination within the region to live, work, dine, shop, learn, and do business. The Plan provides a five-year “roadmap” (2025- 2029) to assist the City in capitalizing on unique assets such as Downtown and High Street, which stands poised to play a central role in the city’s economic and cultural future.

Downtown Moorpark has always had great significance to the community as a whole as an old-fashioned “Main Street” that is a living symbol of the city’s quaint, small-town atmosphere.

But from an economic development perspective, Downtown
Moorpark represents one of the city’s most important
opportunities because it is a unique regional asset in eastern Ventura County. No other city in the region has a historic Main Street.

Two of the four goals in the Economic Development Strategic Plan are directly related to Downtown. Goal 1 calls for the City to “diversify dining, shopping, and entertainment choices,” with a focus on High Street. Goal 4 calls for the City to “promote the city’s unique small-town character regionally” and suggests a variety of Downtown-related steps to do so. The Downtown Specific Plan reinforces these important goals from the EDSP. 016
017
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 23 Printed 04/17/2026 86 #016
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 10:57am [Comment ID: 223] - Link Economic
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I would like to have a pdf copy of the economic dev. plan. #017
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 1:29pm [Comment ID: 21] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I don't think a new plan should use photos of things that no longer exist Reply by Daniel on 04/15/2026 at 5:24pm [Comment ID: 263] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would love to see current photos used.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 24 Printed 04/17/2026 87 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 1-9 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.3.4: SCAG and California Policy
The DTSP was developed through the Regional Early Action Planning Grant Program (REAP 2.0) under the Housing Infill on Public and Private Land (HIPP) Program, as administered by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

The REAP 2.0 program is a flexible program that seeks to accelerate infill housing development, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), increase housing supply at all affordability levels, affirmatively further fair housing, and implement adopted regional and local plans to achieve state goals.

SCAG received a final award allocation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development of
$231.5 million, of which $250,000 was provided to the City of Moorpark to fund the development of the DTSP. The DTSP was included in the REAP 2.0 funding because of Downtown Moorpark’s unique position to provide infill housing near a key transit stop (Moorpark Station) in Ventura County, thereby reducing VMT and increasing the local housing supply while implementing the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.

UPDATED: DEcEmbEr 2021 WW
LO
LOGO

ONE-COLOR
DON’T USE
SCAG
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 25 Printed 04/17/2026 88 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 This page is intentionally left blank.
2-0
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 26 Printed 04/17/2026 89 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 2-1 2 2.1: Character Areas

2.2: Cultural Resources

2.3: Recent Development

2.4: Development Opportunity

2.5: Parking

2.6: Mobility - Pedestrians and Bike

2.7: Mobility - Regional Transit
This Chapter provides an overview of key elements
that make up Downtown Moorpark and form its
character. This Chapter reviews existing urban
form, cultural resources, land ownership, recent
development projects, development opportunity
areas, parking, and mobility.

Downtown Today
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 27 Printed 04/17/2026 90 2-2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY

2.1: Character Areas
Downtown Moorpark can be organized into areas with distinct character and activities, or “character areas.” The character areas include High Street, Civic and Community-Serving Uses, North Residential, and Moorpark Avenue. These character areas are shown in Figure 2-1: Community Assets and described further below.

High Street
High Street serves as Downtown’s historic main street attraction. High Street runs east-west through the center of downtown Moorpark and is just north of the Metrolink route. Commercial and retail uses are concentrated along the north side of High Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road. Two public parking lots are on the south side of High Street, adjacent and connected to the Metrolink station. High Street hosts a well-attended Country Days parade and festival. Buildings are typically one or two stories in height and engage the street with minimal setbacks. The recently constructed High Street Depot mixeduse project is three stories high and features new ground-floor retail space poised to activate the south side of High Street.

Civic and Community Serving Uses
The Civic and Community-Serving character areas anchor the east and west ends of the DTSP area. The west civic area is west of Moorpark Avenue and north of High Street. This area features the old City Hall, the senior center, community meeting rooms, and a small park. A civic center master plan for this area was prepared in 2020 and includes a new library. The new library is under construction and is the only portion of the current civic center master plan expected to be implemented.

The east civic and community-serving character area is south of the Metrolink tracks and east of Spring Road. This area includes civic and community-serving uses such as the police services center, Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, California Highway Patrol, Ruben Castro Human Services Center, Moorpark Family Medical Clinic, and Catholic Charities Moorpark. These uses are housed in large, one- and twostory office buildings. At the south end of this eastern character area is a small open space lot and the Veteran’s Memorial. The east civic and community-serving character area is well utilized and unlikely to change.

North Residential
The North Residential area is located north of the High Street parcels between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road. The area consists of primarily single-story single-family and low-density multi-family residential buildings. A limited number of vacant lots are located north of Everrett Street. These vacant lots have topographical challenges that pose development constraints.

Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark Avenue runs north-south on the west side of the DTSP area. The east side of Moorpark Avenue is primarily single-story residential uses and one- and two-story commercial office. The west side of Moorpark Avenue has larger lots, with a small market, a commercial strip mall, and Moorpark Hay. A vacant warehouse sits at the northeast end of the character area. The Birkenshaw House, which is perceived as having historic significance by the public, is located at the south end of the character area. 018
019
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 28 Printed 04/17/2026 91 #018
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 11:00am [Comment ID: 225] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Senior Center is named "Active Adult Center" and that should be reflected in this document.
#019
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 11:18am [Comment ID: 227] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Has three been involvement with the Birkenshaw family in doing this update of the DTSP? I sure hope so, but I wonder. They need to be onboard. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 29 Printed 04/17/2026 92 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 2-3 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY
Figure 2-1: Community Assets
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Metrolink Ventura County Line
Parks
Civic Institutions
Cultural Institutions
Retail Clusters
Mixed Use
Historic Resources
1/2
mile radius
1/4 mile radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

NORTH RESIDENTIAL

HIGH STREET

CIVIC AND

COMMUNITY

SERVING

CIVIC AND

COMMUNITY

SERVING

MOORPARK AVE
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 30 Printed 04/17/2026 93 2-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY

2.2: Cultural Resources
Historic structures and landmarks with architectural merit play a key role in the character and history of an urban environment. Figure 2-2: Cultural Resources, highlights the unique features that define the character of Downtown Moorpark.

Existing points of historical interest in the Plan Area include:
• Wesley Chapel
• Pepper Trees along High Street
• High Street Arts Center
• Birkenshaw House
• Original Moorpark Southern Pacific Depot Site
• Moorpark Mercantile
• William’s Service Station
• Tanner’s Corner
• Whitaker Block
• Moorpark Women’s Fortnightly Clubhouse
• Munger/Cornett Home
Selected cultural resources are described further below.

Wesley Chapel
The Wesley Chapel was built in 1894. In 1906 it was moved to its present location on the northeast corner of Charles and Walnut Streets and became the Moorpark Methodist Church. The church was designated as County Landmark No. 55 in 1979 by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. This building still stands at 702 Walnut Street.

Pepper Trees along High Street
These are the California pepper trees remaining from more than 40 planted by John Nubee and John Barrett in 1904. The trees were designated as County Landmark No. 72 in 1981 by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.

High Street Arts Center
The theater at 45 E High Street was built in 1927, replacing an older wooden structure, and was called the El Rancho. The theater was used as a movie house in the 1950s, but continued to be used for school functions and other community events. From 1983 to 1999 it was home to the Magnificent Moorpark Melodrama and Vaudeville Company. In 2001, the theater was restored and renamed The Theater on High Street. In 2005, the City of Moorpark purchased the theater and rebranded it as the High Street Arts Center.

Birkenshaw House
The house was designed by Alfred F. Priest in 1919 and was originally built with 12 rooms, 2 bathrooms, a cement basement, oak floors, a solar water heater, a furnace, plumbing, and wiring. The home stands at 251 Moorpark Avenue. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 31 Printed 04/17/2026 94 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 2-5 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY
Figure 2-2: Cultural Resources
1/2
mile radius
1/4 mile radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

Moorpark Islamic Society)
High Street Pepper Trees located on
High Street planted by Poindexter
Theater on High Street (High Street
Arts Center)
William’s Service Station
(Current Use: High Sweet Creamery)
Moorpark Mercantile Location
(Current Use: Mayflower Market)
Tanner’s Corner (Current Use: Cesar
Carpets and First Impression Upholstery)
Whitaker Block (Built in 1922. Previous
Moorpark Hotel and Moorpark Post Office)
Moorpark Women’s Fortnightly Clubhouse
(Current Use: Private residence)
Munger/ Cornett Home
Birkenshaw House (Built in the 1920s)
Points of Historical Interest
Original Moorpark Southern
Pacific Depot Site (Demolished in
1964, Current Moorpark Chamber
of Commerce)
020
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 32 Printed 04/17/2026 95 #020
Posted by Erin on 04/08/2026 at 4:23pm [Comment ID: 151] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Is there any chance that this home and property can be restored and used as a museum or cultural center?
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 33 Printed 04/17/2026 96 2-6 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY
Project Acreage Development Status
A. Everett Street Terraces 2.43 ac 60 Multi-Family Condos Entitled B. High Street Depot 2.15 ac
79 Residential Units
13,542 Commercial SF Completed
C. Vistas at Moorpark 72 ac 205 Single-Family Homes
141 Townhomes Pending
D. Vendra (Essex) Garden
Apartments 11 ac 200 Residential Units Under Construction E. Aldersgate Senior Living 50 ac 390 Residential Units Entitled F. Arroyo Spring Apartments 8.25 ac 150 Residential Units - Affordable Apartments
Submitted/Under
Review
G. 347 Moorpark Ave Mixed
Use 0.42 ac
6 Residential Units
2,803 Commercial SF (2 Spaces) Pending
H. New Library - New Construction: 17,272 SF Under
Construction
I. District on High - Site Improvements to construct
outdoor bar and food venue Submitted
Hitch Ranch Specific Plan

2.7.8: (Not shown on map)
277 ac
755 Residential Units
6 ac public park, trails, open
space, infrastructure &
improvements
Entitled

2.3: Recent Development
A number of recent development projects are in and adjacent to the DTSP area.

These projects are shown in Figure 2-3 and summarized in the table below. Of note is the recently completed High Street Depot mixed-use project, which adds over 13,000 square feet of new ground-floor retail space and 79 residential units to downtown Moorpark and occupies half of the commercial corridor on High Street. As tenants move into residential and commercial spaces, the Downtown commercial corridor will become activated with the pedestrian activity associated with small downtown environments.

High Street Depot is a
recently completed mixeduse project, bringing over
13,000 commercial square
feet and 79 residential units
to downtown.

Table 2.3-1:Recent Development
High Street Depot
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 34 Printed 04/17/2026 97 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 2-7 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY
Figure 2-3: Recent Development
1/2
mile radius
1/4 mile radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

CHARLES
ST
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Metrolink Ventura County Line
Pending, Entitled, or Recently Completed Projects
E C C
D
A
H
B
F
G
I
Signage shown for conceptual purposes.

Formal sign permits will be prepared at a
later date. Rendering of New Library. Credit: LPA
Signage shown for conceptual purposes.

Formal sign permits will be prepared at a
later date.
021
022
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 35 Printed 04/17/2026 98 #021
Posted by Erin on 04/08/2026 at 4:24pm [Comment ID: 152] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
I continue to be concerned about the traffic at this intersection and that of Pointdexter and Moorpark Rd.
#022
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 11:27am [Comment ID: 229] - Link Development Standards, Economic, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Where is the info about the widening of Moorpark Ave and fixing the intersection of Poindexter, Moorpark, and 1st??? This is the most important infrastructure improvement that needs to get at least started, and of course ultimately done so we do not lose all the money waiting in the wings from the gravel mines that we will lose if we wait too long to start this and get a sufficient amount of it done. I have mentioned this before and it bears repeating. Maybe it is somehwere else in this plan and I have not seen it yet. I sure hope so,.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 36 Printed 04/17/2026 99 2-8 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY

2.4: Development Opportunity
To help guide a realistic and practical vision for Downtown Moorpark, the potential for development was analyzed for parcels in the DTSP area. This exercise identifies parcels and areas that are more suitable for development as well as parcels that are unlikely to change. To determine parcels that are most suited for development, parcels within the study area were analyzed in two steps:

1. Each parcel was given a development opportunity score. Development opportunity scores were determined by attributing points to each parcel as outlined in Table 2.4-1: Development Opportunity Score Criteria.

2. The development opportunity score map was further refined to capture additional opportunities, constraints, and highlight where the resulting development opportunity score may not align with the potential development based on subjective analysis. These revised opportunity scores are shown in Figure 2-4: Revised Development Opportunity Scores.

Development Opportunity Score Methodology
The criteria outlined in Table 2.4-1 were used to determine the development opportunity score for each parcel within the Plan Area. If the parcel met the criteria, it received points. The development opportunity score is the sum of all development opportunity criteria points the parcel received. The maximum development opportunity score is 10. A total score of 4 or below means the parcels is unlikely to redevelop. Sites that are identified as locally designated historic resources receive an automatic score of 0.

Sites that are unlikely to change are typically residential uses on small lots. These sites are in the residential neighborhood north of the High Street commercial corridor and along the east side of Moorpark Avenue south of High Street. Parcels that scored high are typically vacant lots with contiguous ownership or large, publicly owned lots. This plan intends to preserve existing residential uses and considers possibilities for areas with high development opportunity.

Criteria Points
Contiguous parcel with the same owner or City-owned property 2 Ratio of assessed value of improvements to assessed value of land is less than 1 2 Includes vacant uses 2
Includes existing office, commercial, or industrial uses 1 Has a lot size greater than 20,000 square feet 2
The building to lot coverage is less than 40% 2
Locally Designated Historic Resource Automatic 0
Parcels with recent development or other constraints based on subjective analysis Automatic 0 Maximum Development Opportunity Score 10
Table 2.4-1: Development Opportunity Score Criteria
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 37 Printed 04/17/2026 100
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 2-9 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY
1/2
mile radius
1/4 mile radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

CHARLES
ST
Figure 2-4: Revised Development Opportunity Scores
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Metrolink Ventura County Line
Publicly Owned Parcels
Development Opportunity Scores
8 - 10 (High)
5 - 7
0 - 4 (Low)
CHP/Sheriff’s
Department
Medical Facility
Veteran’s
Memorial
High Street Depot
Everett Street Terraces
(RHNA Site)
Topography Constraints
A large amount of land in the Downtown
Specific Plan Area is publicly-owned.

This puts the City in the driver seat
on what can happen there. However,
California’s Surplus Land Act (SLA) (Gov.

Code, §§ 54220-54234) establishes a
process for identifying and disposing
of surplus public property with the aim
of making local public land that is no
longer needed for government purposes
available for building affordable homes.

Civic Center
023
024
025
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 38 Printed 04/17/2026 101
#023
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:41pm [Comment ID: 104] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
Would be great to have a parking structure on each side of the tracks and off of Moorpark and off of Spring.
#024
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:41pm [Comment ID: 103] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
I would love to see a massive parking structure here
#025
Posted by Chris 4 on 04/14/2026 at 9:46am [Comment ID: 162] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Shouldn't this be 0 since it is the Birkenshaw House?
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 39 Printed 04/17/2026 102
2-10 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY

2.5: Parking
Parking is critical to support downtown businesses and provides convenience for local and regional visitors. There are a number of public parking lots located in Downtown Moorpark. Two public parking lots are located on the south side of High Street and connect to the Metrolink Station; a third public parking lot serves the post office as well as downtown visitors west of Moorpark Avenue at High Street; and public parking is available adjacent to the old City Hall. A large surface Metrolink parking lot intended for Metrolink riders is south of the Metrolink tracks.

Although this lot could accommodate a large number of visitors and is walking distance from the High Street commercial core, it is not well connected visually due to the Metrolink tracks and is underutilized. City-maintained public parking lots include approximately 590 off-street parking spaces. AB2097 applies to new private development within a 1/2 mile of a major transit stop and prohibits minimum parking requirements on most uses within the Plan Area, with the following exceptions:
• Event centers.
• Hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, and related uses. • Accessible (ADA) or electric vehicle (EV) parking requirements still apply.

Downtown Moorpark includes approximately 870 public
spaces. 590 spaces are located in City maintained public parking lots.
2019 DOWNTOWN MOORPARK PARKING STUDY BY WALKER CONSULTANTS 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 40 Printed 04/17/2026 103
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 2-11 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY
Figure 2-5: Parking
1/2
mile radius
1/4 mile radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

CHARLES
ST
Parking
On-Street Parking
Off-Street Parking
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Metrolink Ventura County Line
026
027
028
029
030
031 032
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 41 Printed 04/17/2026 104
#026
Posted by Chris 1 on 03/25/2026 at 11:40am [Comment ID: 126] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
This seems like a good spot for a traffic circle. Then move the entrance to the old civic center property off the circle. There could be fun public art potential or large tree in the center of the circle and it is consistent with the new traffic circles going in Hitch Ranch. When the civic center is revisioned, this would be a great place for a parking structure with easy walkable access to downtown. #027
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:43pm [Comment ID: 106] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would be great to have a parking structure on each side of the tracks and off of Moorpark and off of Spring.
#028
Posted by Krystal Shoemaker on 04/13/2026 at 2:00pm [Comment ID: 155] - Link Compatibility, Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I’d like to see enhanced pedestrian crossings that improve visibility and safety, including high-visibility markings and LED lighting that actively blinks when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. Similar to what has been done on High Street. This will be so important in ensuring safe access to the library and also for us families who walk to Walnut Canyon school.
#029
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:43pm [Comment ID: 105] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would be great to have a parking structure on each side of the tracks and off of Moorpark and off of Spring.

Reply by Jackson Piper on 04/13/2026 at 8:46pm [Comment ID: 161] - Link Development Standards, Land Use, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Parking structures tend to require a lot of space though - the one at Moorpark College is around 200x300 feet, and the one in Downtown Ventura, which is pretty compact, is about 200x200 feet. I am not sure if there is a good place for a structure within the Downtown Specific Plan Area - maybe further afield like in the industrial area off of Spring Street if one of those properties becomes available, or the construction yard off of Princeton if that becomes available?
#030
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 42 Printed 04/17/2026 105
Posted by Brian on 04/02/2026 at 10:20am [Comment ID: 147] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Need a curb cut here to allow bicycles coming west bound to get off the path #031
Posted by Chris 1 on 03/25/2026 at 11:44am [Comment ID: 127] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
If these homes convert to businesses like the plan mentions, what is the parking plan for these businesses? Can we do setbacks for angled street parking? This plan should address their parking somehow.
#032
Posted by Chris 2 on 03/27/2026 at 12:33pm [Comment ID: 130] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Would love to see a proper road connection here where everyone goes through the alley. Maybe if it was done with angled street parking it would also help with parking concerns for adding businesses to Moorpark Ave and any future use of the The Birkenshaw House.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 43 Printed 04/17/2026 106
2-12 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY

2.6: Active Transportation
As a locus of current and increased future activity for the City and those coming from afar, Downtown is an important connecting point and destination for travelers within Moorpark and the wider region. A vision for improved mobility should address movement of pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles within Downtown and strengthen connections to other areas of the City and the wider region to facilitate travel choices for those making their way Downtown.

Downtown’s High Street is an important pedestrian-oriented district with streetfronting businesses and pedestrian access to the train station. The city’s Moorpark train station along High Street within the Downtown area is served by both Metrolink’s Ventura County Line and Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner rail lines. First/last mile access to the Moorpark train station within the Downtown area is available via the adjacent multimodal facilities. Along High Street, bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided between Moorpark Avenue on the west and Spring Road on the east. North of High Street, bicycle lanes are provided along Spring Road. However, no bicycle lanes are provided along Moorpark Avenue and Walnut Canyon Road to the north, though both streets include pedestrian sidewalks.

Within Downtown, mobility improvements include:
• Bicycles: new class II bicycle lanes extending east and west from High Street • Pedestrians: enhanced pedestrian infrastructure such as decorative crosswalks, bulb-outs and a new mid-block crossing, as described in Section 4-5 • Parking: an integrated system for increasing and managing parking supply and wayfinding, as described in Section 4-7.
• Safety: public realm improvements such as new medians, gateway features and landscaping will serve as a natural suppressant of traffic speeds and improve safety for all road users
Outside of Downtown, the expansion of the bicycle network in other areas of the City, as described in the General Plan, will provide more alternatives for residents, students and employees to connect to Downtown and further afar, via the train station, without an automobile. Moorpark Transit and the VCTC bus lines that serve the City are important elements of the mobility network that increases travel choices for those seeking to connect to and from Downtown with other areas of the City and the wider region. General Plan policies CI 4.1 through 4.5 support the maintenance of and enhancement to this public transportation system.

Pedestrian and Bike
infrastructure is
consistent with the
General Plan.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 44 Printed 04/17/2026 107
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 2-13 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY
Figure 2-6: Active Transportation
1/2
mile radius
1/4 mile radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

CHARLES
ST
Pedestrian and Bike Infrastructure
Existing Class I Bike Lane
Proposed Class I Bike Lane
Existing Class II Bike Lane
Proposed Class II Bike Lane
Proposed Class III Bike Lane
Pedestrian Crossing
Moorpark Transit Bus Stop
VCTC East County & County Connector
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Metrolink Ventura County Line
033
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 45 Printed 04/17/2026 108
#033
Posted by chris on 03/23/2026 at 11:55am [Comment ID: 122] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
I would love to see the South Metrolink parking lot act as a Transit Center similar to how Thousand Oaks has: https://toaks.gov/transit
It would help facilitate easier transfers, consolidate to one location and remove the bus stops from High Street.

I can picture with the right setup, someone taking the Valley Express from Fillmore into Moorpark. Grabbing coffee at a high street business and then taking the train to their next destination.

Having a designated hub for this helps facilitate this mobility. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 46 Printed 04/17/2026 109
2-14 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY

2.7: Regional Transit
Downtown Moorpark is centered around Moorpark Station. The Moorpark Station services the Metrolink Ventura County Line and the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner. The Metrolink Ventura County line connects to the south to Union Station in Los Angeles and to Ventura to the east. The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner provides a one-seat ride south past Union Station and Orange County and terminates in San Diego. The Surfliner also continues north to San Luis Obispo. The Moorpark Station provides the opportunity for transit-oriented development that incorporates higher density residential, mixed use, and reduced parking requirements. Regional connections via Metrolink and Amtrak provide opportunities for Moorpark residents to travel to and from work or school in other cities.
034
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 47 Printed 04/17/2026 110
#034
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:10pm [Comment ID: 30] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Ventura is to the west of Moorpark not east
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 48 Printed 04/17/2026 111
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 2-15 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN TODAY
Figure 2-7: Regional Transit
Updated May 2024 subject to change
North Hollywood
Wilshire/Western
Chatsworth
Santa Monica
Expo/
Crenshaw
Westchester/Veterans
7th/Metro
Norwalk
Long Beach
Redondo Beach
APU/Citrus
College Atlantic
San Diego
Solana
Beach
San Clemente Pier
Oceanside
Limited Service
Escondido
RiversideDowntown
RiversideLa Sierra
Irvine
Tustin
Buena Park
Santa Ana
Glendale
Burbank - Downtown
Anaheim
San Juan Capistrano
Fullerton
Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs
Laguna Niguel/
Mission Viejo
San Clemente
Orange
Oxnard
Camarillo
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Chatsworth
Ventura - Downtown / Beach
Ventura - East
Northridge
Van Nuys
Anaheim
Canyon
Corona -
North Main
Cal State L.A.

El Monte
Baldwin Park
Montclair
Burbank Airport -
South (VC Line)
CovinaClaremontUpland
San Bernardino - Depot
San Bernardino - Downtown
Commerce
Montebello/
Commerce
Jurupa Valley/
Industry
Ontario - East
Pedley
Pomona -
Downtown
Pomona - North
Corona
- West
Placentia
Future Station
Rancho Cucamonga
Fontana
Rialto
San Bernardino – Tippecanoe
Redlands – Esri
Redlands – Downtown
Redlands - University
Perris - South
Perris - Downtown
Moreno Valley / March Field
Riverside- Hunter Park / UCR
SNA
ONT
LAX
BUR

SAN BERNARDINO
CO.

RIVERSIDE
CO.

SAN DIEGO
CO.

LOS ANGELES
CO.

PACIFIC OCEAN

VENTURA
CO.

ORANGE
CO.

REGIONAL RAIL SYSTEM
metrolinktrains.com
E ective April 3, 2017
Antelope Valley Line
91/Perris Valley Line
Ventura County Line
San Bernardino Line
Riverside Line
Orange County Line
Inland Empire-Orange County Line
Station Served by
Multiple Lines
LAX FlyAway Bus
Amtrak Pacific Surfliner
ONT Connect Shuttle
Coaster
Oceanside to San Diego
Sprinter
Oceanside to Escondido
Metro Rail/Metro Bus
Arrow Service
Future Station
N

MAP NOT TO SCALE
L.A. Union Station
Lancaster
Santa Clarita
Newhall
Sylmar/
San Fernando Sun Valley
Burbank Airport -
North (AV Line)
Palmdale
Vincent Grade/Acton
Via Princessa
Vista Canyon
North Hollywood
Wilshire/Western
Chatsworth
Santa Monica
Expo/
Crenshaw
Westchester/Veterans
7th/Metro
Norwalk
Long Beach
Redondo Beach
Glendale
Burbank - Downtown
Norwalk/Sant
Oxnard
Camarillo
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Chatsworth
Ventura - Downtown / Bea
Ventura - East
Northridge
Van Nuys
Burbank Airport -
South (VC Line)
Comm
LAX
BUR

PACIFIC OCEAN
metrolinktrains.com
E ective April 3, 2017
Antelope Valley Line
91/Perris Valley Line
Ventura County Line
San Bernardino Line
Riverside Line
Orange County Line
Inland Empire-Orange County Line
Station Served by
Multiple Lines
LAX FlyAway Bus
Amtrak Pacific Surfliner
ONT Connect Shuttle
Coaster
Oceanside to San Diego
Sprinter
Oceanside to Escondido
Metro Rail/Metro Bus
Arrow Service
Future Station
N
L.A. Union
Sun Valley
Burbank Airport -
North (AV Line)
Moorpark
035
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 49 Printed 04/17/2026 112
#035
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 11:50am [Comment ID: 232] - Link Development Standards, Land Use, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Like that you show LA Metro rail and buslines too as these are also important to show regional possibilities.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 50 Printed 04/17/2026 113
MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 This page is intentionally left blank.
3-0
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 51 Printed 04/17/2026 114
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-1 3 This Chapter provides an overview of community
outreach and engagement conducted throughout
the planning process.

3.1: Community Outreach Overview

3.2: Outreach Summary - Community Workshop #1

3.3: Outreach Summary - Community Workshop #2 & Survey

3.4: Outreach Summary - Community Workshop #3 & Draft
Plan Roadshow
Crafting the Vision
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 52 Printed 04/17/2026 115

KIDS COSTUME PARADE & CONTEST

HALLOWEEN CRAFTS
CHANCE TO WIN PRIZES!

LIGHT REFRESHMENTS
Saturday, October 25, 2025
10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Boys & Girls Club of Moorpark
200 Casey Rd, Moorpark, CA
For more information on this project, please visit moorparkca.gov/DTSP Questions? Contact: [email protected] (805) 517-6251 Join us at our second workshop for the Downtown Specific Plan Update. Come out in your best Halloween costume, explore concepts for improvements, and help guide the future for Downtown Moorpark! Attendees are invited to come any time between 10:00 a.m to 12:30 p.m. to speak with project team members, engage in activities, and connect with other community members. This family friendly event will include kid-friendly Halloween themed activities. The kids costume contest will start at approximately 11:00 a.m. followed by prizes and giveaways!

FAMILY FRIENDLY

HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL
Join Us for Our Downtown Specific
Plan Update Workshop #2!
Moorpark Ave
Spring St
High St
Los Angeles Ave
Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Metrolink Route & Station
This project is funded by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG)
UPDATED: DEcEmbEr 2021 WWW.ScAG.cA.GOV

LOGOBRAND LOGO
LOGO
Download For Designer
Download For Non-Designer

ONE-COLOR
DON’T USE
SCAG
Meeting Location
Attn: Moorpark Residents
City of Moorpark
Community workshops and the online survey were promoted via Instagram, Facebook, mailers to property owners, and e-blasts to the City listserve. 3-2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 3: CRAFTING THE VISION
Community outreach and engagement were essential to
ensure the DTSP update reflects the values and concerns of residents, business owners, and community members of Downtown Moorpark and throughout the city. To gather input throughout the planning process, the project team conducted a variety of engagement activities. These included three open houses (two in-person, one virtual), a pop-up booth at Country Days Community Parade and Street Fair, an online survey, and digital outreach through the project website and social media. This section provides an overview and the results of these engagement activities.

3.1: Community Outreach Overview
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 53 Printed 04/17/2026 116
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-3 CHAPTER 3: CRAFTING THE VISION

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
Take Part in Shaping
Downtown Moorpark!
Workshop 1
Introduction and
Visioning
Workshop 2
Urban Design
Concepts
Workshop 3
Public Draft
Downtown
Specific Plan
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
OCTOBER 25, 2025
SPRING 2026
Come learn about the Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan Update and tell us your vision for
downtown Moorpark
Provide your input on possible uses, building
forms, parking, open space, and other public
amenities for Downtown Moorpark
Review the Public Draft Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan Update!
Old City Hall
Community
Center
Moorpark Boys &
Girls Club
OCTOBER 4, 2025

VISIT OUR BOOTH AT COUNTRY DAYS
COMMUNITY PARADE & STREET FAIR!
Historic High Street between Moorpark Avenue
and Spring Road
12:00 pm - 4:00 pm
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 54 Printed 04/17/2026 117
3-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 3: CRAFTING THE VISION
Parking (24)
Circulation (11)
Cultural & Historic Resources
(20) Aesthetics (13)
Walkability & Connectivity
(13) Activities (13)
Housing (8) Economic Vitality (8) Tourism (6)
Open Space (2) Other (9)
When
September 9, 2025
3:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Where
Moorpark Community Center
799 Moorpark Ave 49 Attendees
The City of Moorpark held its first community workshop for the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan at the Moorpark Community Center on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm. The purpose of the workshop was to introduce the Downtown Specific Plan project to the community, present and confirm initial findings and existing conditions, and solicit community feedback on their needs and wants for Downtown Moorpark over the next 20 years. The workshop was held in an open house format, allowing the 49 community members who attended to freely interact with informational boards during the workshop time. A summary of feedback received is provided here.

Attendees Live...
7 in the Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan Area 30 in the city of Moorpark, outside of Downtown 1 outside the city of Moorpark 7 in the Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan Area 7 in the city of Moorpark, outside of Downtown 3 outside the city of Moorpark
Attendees Work...

Topics of Open Ended Comments About Downtown

3.2: Outreach Summary - Community Workshop #1
Country Days Community Parade & Street Fair Pop-Up
The City of Moorpark set up a booth on High Street during the Country Days Parade and Street Fair on October 4, 2025. During the course of the event, 70 comments were received from community members, and the top 5 topics mentioned were:
•More Dining Locations and Stores
•Entertainment and Performance
Venues for All Ages
•Transportation Options
•Parking Access
•Public Space Amenities
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 55 Printed 04/17/2026 118
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-5 CHAPTER 3: CRAFTING THE VISION
Improve
parking
situation
High Street Arts Center
Features People Want to See in Downtown Moorpark
Parklet/
Outdoor Dining
Restaurants/
Nightlife Street Trees String Lights Mural
(16) (14) (12) (11) (11)
Pedestrian
Lighting 10
Bike
Parking 7
Gateway Signage
(Water Tower) 5
Gateway
Signage (Arch) 10
Utility Box
Wrap Art 7
Parklet/
Seating 5
Beach/
Seating 9
Streetlight
Post Banners 6
Artful Trash
Receptors 5
Decorative
Crosswalks 8
Art
Installation 6
Freestanding
Kiosk Signage 4
Historical
Plaques 8
Decorative
Ped. Lights 5
Gateway Signage
(Pedestrian Scale) 1
Other Suggestions for Downtown
Favorite Spot to Visit
Most Popular:
• Restaurants - Various (16)
• Civic Area - Library &
Senior Center (12)
• High Street Arts Center (8)
• Magnolia Park (4)
Live Music
Bring the
carshow
back to
High St!
Farmers
Market
Downtown
Trolly
Improve
intersections
(Spring St @
Charles St and
High St)
Safe ped
crossing
over rail
tracks
Tribute to
agricultural
history
Restaurant: Luna Llena Civic Area: Library
036
037 038
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 56 Printed 04/17/2026 119
#036
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 11:54am [Comment ID: 233] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
It is the "Active Adult Center!"
#037
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:45pm [Comment ID: 107] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Shucks my rowhome sticky didn't make the cut? :(
#038
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 1:31pm [Comment ID: 22] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Maybe a driverless version as we look towards the future. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 57 Printed 04/17/2026 120
3-6 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 3: CRAFTING THE VISION

3.3: Outreach Summary - Community Workshop #2 & Online Survey When
October 25, 2025
10:00am - 12:30pm
Where
Boys & Girls Club of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave 10 Attendees
The City of Moorpark held its second community workshop for the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan at the Boys and Girls Club of Moorpark on Saturday, October 25, 2025, from 10:00am to 12:30pm.

The purpose of the workshop was to get feedback from the community on the initial concepts for the Downtown Specific Plan project. The concepts were based on the thoughts and ideas from the first community workshop. The same information presented at the workshop was also made available in an online survey. The survey was open from November 17, 2025 to November 30, 2025. A total of 10 community members attended the workshop and 71 community members took the online survey. A total of 253 feedback comments were received. A summary of this feedback received is provided here.

Attendees Live...
6 in the Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan Area 64 in the city of Moorpark,
outside of Downtown 6 outside the city of
Moorpark
6 in Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan Area 18 in the city of Moorpark,
outside of Downtown 37 outside the city of
Moorpark
Attendees Work...
71 Surveys
Taken
Downtown Moorpark Should Look More Like....

Roofs &
Facades
Architectural
Character
Pedestrian
Experience
Mix of Both
29 28
30 Eclectic
14 23
17 19
14 13
Consistent
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 58 Printed 04/17/2026 121
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-7 CHAPTER 3: CRAFTING THE VISION
High Street
Public Realm
Parking
Residential
Neighborhood
East Gateway
West Gateway
Moorpark Ave
1/2 mile radius
1/4 mile radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

WICKS RD

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
1/2 mile radius
1/4 mile radius
P
P
P
P
P P
P P
Civic Center
Master Plan
Ralphs
Post Office High Street Depot
New
Library
Civic Center
Master Plan
Flory Academy
of Sciences and
Technology
Human
Services
Center
Police
Services
Magnolia
Park

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

WICKS RD

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
• 36 comments
• Concerns over
vehicular circulation
• General support for
public plaza
• Less support for
additional housing
• 48 comments
• Lots of support for
Farmers Market and
Food Hall
• Historic preservation
or community-use of
Birkenshaw House
• 29 comments
• Improved circulation
for vehicles, bicyclists,
and pedestrians
• Focus on architectural
form, like historic
character and massing
• 32 comments
• Parking is important
to community and
there is a need for
more parking
• General dislike of
digital signage
• 36 comments
• Desire for more
crossings, but
mixed opinions on
decorative crosswalks
• Strong support for
pepper tree lighting
• 28 comments
• Mixed opinions for
residential parking
permits
• Low density housing
• Concerns regarding
circulation
Key Themes
Pedestrian 28
Vehicular 26
More Housing
(Against)
Community Uses/
Historic
Preservation 14
Plaza/
Community Park/
Public Space 13
Arch/Gateway
Support 13
11 Consistent
Style 5
Parking 68 Restaurants &
Businesses 37 Landscaping/
Street Furniture/
Public Art 14 13
Circulation Land Use Public Realm Architecture
23 Building
Form
Historic
Character
Over 250 written comments were received through the community workshop and online survey. Comments generally focused circulation, land use, the public realm, and architectural style. The top 3 key themes for each category are shown below:
039
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 59 Printed 04/17/2026 122
#039
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:47pm [Comment ID: 108] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
People did not want housing? How is this possible? That means businesses in the DTSP will have to rely 100% on vehicle traffic... Where will the cars go? 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 60 Printed 04/17/2026 123
3-8 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 3: CRAFTING THE VISION

3.4: Outreach Summary - Community Workshop #3 & Draft Plan Roadshow
This section will be completed following public review of the Draft DTSP in Spring 2026
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 61 Printed 04/17/2026 124
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-9 CHAPTER 3: CRAFTING THE VISION
This section will be completed following public review of the Draft DTSP in Spring 2026
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 62 Printed 04/17/2026 125
MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 This page is intentionally left blank.
4-0
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 63 Printed 04/17/2026 126
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 4-1 4-1 4 This Chapter introduces a vision of how growth
and development will occur in Downtown
Moorpark over the next 20-plus years. The vision is
depicted through a series of urban design concept
diagrams that outline the land use framework for
the downtown area. The vision was developed
through a robust analysis of existing conditions
and input from community outreach efforts.

4.1: The Vision

4.2: East Gateway

4.3: West Gateway

4.4: Moorpark Avenue

4.5: High Street Public Realm

4.6: Residential Neighborhood

4.7: Parking
The Vision
040
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 64 Printed 04/17/2026 127
#040
Posted by Chris 1 on 03/25/2026 at 11:15am [Comment ID: 125] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
High Street is a natural place for events like Country Days, Holiday on High Street or the Moorpark Apricot Festival. I also think there is future opportunity to expand and add additional events if a Business Improvement District is ever formed. This section is notably absent from this plan. I would love to see the addition of bollards that could block vehicles from the roads as an enhancement to downtown as a part of this plan.

Reply by Daniel on 04/15/2026 at 5:37pm [Comment ID: 264] - Link Compatibility, Economic, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I agree. Bollards are needed. Events are critical to downtown. I would love to see more of them. I would also love to see them span more of the street. I was disappointed to hear that the Apricot Festival is not going past Bard.

Businesses like Freda's are working hard to have apricot things are are cut out of the event.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 65 Printed 04/17/2026 128
4-2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION

4.1: The Vision
The vision describes how growth and development may
occur in Downtown Moorpark over the next 20-plus
years. The vision is aspirational as new developments and public improvements create opportunities to enhance
Downtown’s character and encourage business success.

The urban design concept for Downtown Moorpark is to
create an attractive, diverse, and vibrant neighborhood that preserves the historical small-town character. High Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Street serves as a core downtown pedestrian retail area and includes
successful legacy businesses plus the recently completed High Street Depot mixed-use project. Pepper trees on High Street are uplit to create a welcoming downtown evening atmosphere. Civic uses anchor the east and west ends of High Street. While the east civic area is unlikely to change, and the west civic area is occupied by an underutilized old City Hall and construction of a new library and is poised for enhanced civic and community-serving uses. There are
infill development opportunities in the north residential area, primarily on vacant City-owned properties near
Charles Street and Spring Road. Infill development in
this area should maintain the existing character of the residential neighborhood. Moorpark Avenue features a
mix of residential and commercial business. Development on Moorpark Avenue is encouraged without the loss of
existing businesses. A legible wayfinding system directs visitors to key destinations and a “park once” strategy, which encourages visitors to park in one location and walk between multiple destinations. The “park once” strategy aims to increase foot traffic and promote downtown
businesses. Gateway signage could enhance and signify
entrances into Downtown and build upon Downtown
Moorpark’s identity.

The rendering illustrates this vision and a possible
pattern of future development in Downtown Moorpark.

It imagines new public infrastructure and development
at opportunity sites identified during the process of
preparing the Plan. This drawing does not require that
specific buildings be constructed on these opportunity
sites but rather suggests the possibilities the Plan creates for the City and downtown property owners. Nor does this drawing dictate a schedule of construction or particular phases of development. Instead, it aims to inspire property owners to participate in creating the desired future for Downtown Moorpark and to guide City leaders as they
consider both potential development proposals from the
private sector and investments of public funds to promote the Downtown. As these efforts are implemented
incrementally over a two-decade period, the final built results will likely differ in its details from this illustration.

New Library
Intersection Improvements
Water Tower / Landmark
Moorpark College/
Arts & Tech Center
Farmers Market
Metrolink Rail

WEST GATEWAY
Civic Uses:
• Senior Center
• Regional Theatre
• Small Park P
P
041
042
043 044
04 046
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 66 Printed 04/17/2026 129
#041
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:15pm [Comment ID: 32] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
#042
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:33pm [Comment ID: 50] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This sentence doesn't make sense
#043
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:01pm [Comment ID: 234] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This is not a complete sentence. something is missing.
#044
Posted by admin on 03/23/2026 at 10:31am [Comment ID: 119] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
123
#045
Posted by admin on 03/23/2026 at 10:31am [Comment ID: 118] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
123123
#046
Posted by admin on 03/23/2026 at 10:32am [Comment ID: 121] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
123123
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 67 Printed 04/17/2026 130
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 4-3 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
Charles Street
Spring Road
Gateway Arch
Welcoming
plazas
Mixed use with housing
on city parcels
Metrolink Rail
Moorpark Avenue

MOORPARK AVE
Identify Moorpark Avenue as
part of historic downtown and
encourage private enhancements
Gateway Signage
Convert median to landscaping
where street widens

EAST GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL

NEIGHBORHOOD

HIGH ST PUBLIC REALM
P
P
047
048
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 68 Printed 04/17/2026 131
#047
Posted by admin on 03/23/2026 at 10:32am [Comment ID: 120] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
123
#048
Posted by Daniel on 04/15/2026 at 5:39pm [Comment ID: 265] - Link Development Standards, Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This looks like it is in the Metrolink Parking Lot? We have a great walkway with art and just got that lot redone. Please do not take that out to put in a plaza. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 69 Printed 04/17/2026 132
4-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
New Housing
High Street Infill
Development
B
New Public Plaza to the signify
importance of Metro Link
entrance and linkage to south
parking lot.

Public Plaza
High Street
Magnolia
Park

4.2: East Gateway
A gateway arch element (E) spanning High Street near
the intersection of Spring Road greets visitors entering Downtown Moorpark from the east. New low-density
multifamily housing (A) provides housing on existing
City-owned properties on the north side of High Street.

Moving west, High Streets transitions to mixed use and
commercial infill development (B) to complement the
commercial character of High Street. On the south side
of High Street, a new public plaza (C) welcomes Metrolink passengers and emphasizes the importance of the
Metrolink entrance and linkage to the south MetroLink
parking lot across the tracks. A second parking lot (D) could be enhanced with paving, striping, and landscaping, and is a potential site for future housing.

A
Fire
Station
049
050
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 70 Printed 04/17/2026 133
#049
Posted by Daniel on 04/15/2026 at 5:40pm [Comment ID: 266] - Link Home, Land Use, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
No Housing Here. We need Parking for this side of High Street. #050
Posted by Shawna Gutierrez on 04/09/2026 at 7:39am [Comment ID: 154] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
The proposed High Street arch feels out of place. We’re not a tourist destination or built around a historic landmark, so it doesn’t feel like a natural fit for Moorpark.

Again it has that Hallmark-esque aesthetic.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 71 Printed 04/17/2026 134
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 4-5 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
Gateway Element:

Metal Arch
A gateway element identifies
the entrance to Downtown.

Parking Lot Redesign
Short term:

Improved parking lot
Long term:

Potential site for housing
D
Spring Road
Princeton Avenue
Charles Street
Metrolink Rail
Metrolink
Station
North
E
High Street
Depot
C
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 72 Printed 04/17/2026 135
#051
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 1:39pm [Comment ID: 26] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This seems like a prime lot for parking for this end of High Street. I would not put housing here.

Reply by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:49pm [Comment ID: 109] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I'd love to see a parking structure here!
#052
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 11:57am [Comment ID: 164] - Link Economic, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would love to see a boutique hotel that spans the city owned lots between Charles and High. With so many wedding venues locally, I would love to capture these visitors in downtown.
#053
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:00pm [Comment ID: 165] - Link Compatibility, Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Could we look at moving Magnolia Park and reopen this road for better circulation downtown?
#054
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 1:33pm [Comment ID: 23] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Why are we taking out the parking lot that was just finally redone? Reply by Chris 2 on 03/27/2026 at 12:46pm [Comment ID: 133] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
If we were to do a plaza, I would love to see a build in stage that could have live music on weekends, or entertainment at events. If there was a Car Show every Friday Night during the summer where street parking was reserved for classic cars, and you had a band playing, it would create a fun environment/attraction.
#055
Posted by Chris 4 on 04/14/2026 at 9:58am [Comment ID: 163] - Link Development Standards, Massing, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 73 Printed 04/17/2026 136
What is the Arch was a pedestrian walkway connecting two parts of a hotel/conference center that spanned the street. This would create great function and character while providing for a larger hotel without exceeding the three story limits.
#056
Posted by Chris 3 on 03/31/2026 at 3:23pm [Comment ID: 137] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
It might be fun to show the rendering of the arch done for the old downtown specific plan here. Here is a link to the photo:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=180691242464255&set=gm.188274914 5310605&type=3&sfns=mo
#057
Posted by Adam 1 on 04/02/2026 at 8:10am [Comment ID: 144] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Redeveloping this area without including a parking structure would effectively eliminate the commercial capability of the street as well as its drivability and overall enjoyment. Between the loss of the dirt lot now occupied by the Depot Project and this lot on the east end, High Street parking would be confined street parking only.

On busy days or high traffic times, vehicle traffic becomes a crawl and increasingly dangerous for pedestrians on two lane streets. Drivers looking for available parking are distracted, other drivers are focused on attempting to back out of a spot without fully being able to see the situation behind them. Add to the equation some commuting motorists frustrated at the stop and go traffic as they're just trying to get through, along with pedestrians popping out randomly from behind a car as they jay-walk to their vehicle and it becomes easy to see how a simple lack of planned parking for the highest expected volumes becomes a safety issue. #058
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 1:35pm [Comment ID: 24] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I assume this is not on the sidewalk, but kids park next to the train, road and parking lot sounds like a bad idea. And it if it is a public plaza to link them you would not want to fence a park or you are blocking, not linking. This seems like an odd photo choice for this space.
#059
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 1:37pm [Comment ID: 25] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
I think there are plenty of housing opportunities in town. This is High Street. Mixed use, fine, but sections of just housing is not the vision of downtown that I want to 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 74 Printed 04/17/2026 137
visit.

Reply by Daniel on 04/15/2026 at 5:42pm [Comment ID: 267] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
NOT JUST HOUSING!
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 75 Printed 04/17/2026 138
4-6 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
Sunday Farmers Market
Gateway Element:

Water Tower
Civic Center
Master Plan Area
Old City Hall
New Library
A
D
Post Office
Metrolink R

4.3: West Gateway
The West Gateway is centered at the intersection of
High Street and Moorpark Avenue. A gateway tower
element (A) at the post office parking lot signifies the intersection as an activity node. Every Sunday, residents and community members park at the either the Metrolink
parking lot south of the station platform or adjacent to the new library and walk to pick up groceries at the farmers market in the post office parking lot (D). South of the Metrolink tracks west of Moorpark Avenue, the existing
warehouse building (C) attracts visitors and is occupied by a market/food hall, small business incubator spaces, and/ or a Moorpark College arts and tech collaboration space.

The southeast corner of the intersection has a variety of activation possibilities, including an beer garden/outdoor restaurant venue or mixed-use housing (B).
060
061
062
063
064
065
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 76 Printed 04/17/2026 139
#060
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:15pm [Comment ID: 235] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Was there EVER a water tower in Moorpark in the past that is the supposed inspiration for this as a historic thing or did someone just decide to add it since they like the idea? Just curious. If it has a historic basis in Moorpark history, I would be more inclined to like it. I hope you can explain that so all of us know. If it does get built, people will want to know why it is there and what connection to past days in Moorpark.
#061
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:32pm [Comment ID: 48] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
"a" beer garden
#062
Posted by Adam on 04/01/2026 at 3:28pm [Comment ID: 138] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Redeveloping the old City Hall site as a new civic center has the potential to redefine Moorpark’s “commuter city” status, and give residents a reason to stick around downtown past 4:30pm. A project like this would also spur investment from private businesses as it would signal a confidence in the area’s resurgence.

Reply by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:05pm [Comment ID: 166] - Link Compatibility, Economic, Mixed-Use
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Not sure I understand this comment? What about moving City Hall back here would help with staying in downtown past 4:30? I would love something that adds services and entertainment to Moorpark and can act as more of a regional draw. I would keep city hall where it is.

Reply by Adam 2 on 04/15/2026 at 7:36am [Comment ID: 188] - Link Land Use, Mixed-Use, Open-space
Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
I phrased that in a confusing way, I meant civic center as in a place for events, concerts, performances, etc.. I agree with you about city hall staying on Science Dr. and utilizing this space to liven downtown up in the evenings. Really make it a place people want to be
#063
Posted by Shawna Gutierrez on 04/09/2026 at 7:31am [Comment ID: 153] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
This feels a bit like a Hallmark-style addition rather than something grounded in 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 77 Printed 04/17/2026 140
Moorpark’s history. Since we haven’t had a water tower, it may be more meaningful to highlight elements that genuinely reflect our community’s heritage. #064
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:51pm [Comment ID: 110] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would love to see farmer's market hosted on High Street instead #065
Posted by Adam 1 on 04/02/2026 at 7:42am [Comment ID: 143] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
If the parking lot becomes a farmer's market on Sundays, where would potential attendees park?
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 78 Printed 04/17/2026 141
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 4-7 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
Beer Garden /
Outdoor Restaurant
Mixed Use Housing
Market / Food Hall
B
C Small Business
Incubator
Moorpark College Arts
& Tech Collaboration
Moorpark Avenue
Walnut St
High Street
Charles Street
High Street
Depot
High Street
Arts Center
or or
or
k Rail
North
066
067 068
069
070
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 79 Printed 04/17/2026 142
#066
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:17pm [Comment ID: 236] - Link Land Use, Mixed-Use, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Yes; beer garden or restaurant; not housing on this corner. #067
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:17pm [Comment ID: 237] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Seems like all reasonable options.
#068
Posted by Adam 1 on 04/02/2026 at 7:39am [Comment ID: 142] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
The post office and the post office parking lot are listed here in Chapter 4, but are specifically excluded in the DTSP outlines as shown in Figure 1-1 and 1-2 back in chapter 1. Just wondering where the specific boundaries for the DTSP are, how they were decided, and if they should be amended to include any outlying spaces.

Additionally, the business row west of the old Kahoots building (north side of Poindexter Ave.) seems to be omitted from the DTSP. Is there a specific reason, or should that be reconsidered?
#069
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:52pm [Comment ID: 111] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This would be a great event space for weddings, parties, etc...

Or it could be redeveloped into dense housing to where folks will walk out to high street and use the restaurants and bars on a daily basis. #070
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:07pm [Comment ID: 167] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Love this. Reminds me of the Anaheim Packing House.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 80 Printed 04/17/2026 143
4-8 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
1st Street
Potential opportunity
to consolidate existing
markets in a Packing House
Food Hall. Could allow for
redevelopment of existing
locations as mixed use.

Moorpark Ave Infill
Development
F

4.4: Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark Avenue is a north-south extension of downtown
and features a mix of residential and commercial uses.

Existing businesses (A) and residential uses (B) receive facade improvements and yard improvements. If existing markets consolidate into a Packing House Food Hall in the West
Gateway, properties could be infilled as mixed-use residential (F). The Birkenshaw property (E) is converted into a commercial destination, or, if relocated to the west gateway, the property could be redeveloped as housing. A modest gateway element welcomes visitors at the south end on City-owned property (D). At the south of end of Moorpark Avenue, a new landscape median slows down traffic and beautifies the street where the street widens (C).
071
072
073
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 81 Printed 04/17/2026 144
#071
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:23pm [Comment ID: 238] - Link Compatibility, Development Standards, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This is NOT city-Owned and anything done must be done in conjunction with the Birkenshaw family members, of which there are MANY. I already asked before if that family was consulted at all during the development of this revised DTSP. I hope they participated. If not, it could seem like city is trying to tell them what to do with their property without even consulting them. I hope that is NOT what has happened so far.
#072
Posted by Jackson Piper on 04/13/2026 at 7:45pm [Comment ID: 156] - Link Home, Mixed-Use, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: -3
For mixed use projects and residential w/ more than 10 percent affordable units, five or six stories is reasonable within walking distance of the Metrolink station (High Street and upper Moorpark Ave).
#073
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 1:49pm [Comment ID: 28] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I did not think that Moorpark allowed 4 stories? I personally love the old packing house historic feel. It is in keeping with the downtown heritage. I love the idea of turning that into a food hall, but don't love this building stock photo that does not match the character of anything around.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 82 Printed 04/17/2026 145
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 4-9 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
Moorpark Avenue
Opportunity to add landscape
median where street widens.

Gateway Element
C Street Improvements
Encourage private
enhancements such as facade
and yard improvements,
accessory dwelling units. Allow
home to business conversions.

Encourage Private
Enhancements
B
2nd Street
3rd Street
Facade renovations,
reduce parking
Requirements,
landscaping.

Enhance Existing
Businesses
A
North
Birkenshaw Property
E
Adaptive Re-Use of
Birkenshaw Property.

D
074 075
076
077 078
079
080
081
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 83 Printed 04/17/2026 146
#074
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:53pm [Comment ID: 112] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Who's going to pay for existing businesses facade renovations? #075
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 1:46pm [Comment ID: 27] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Please don't make anything on High Street look like this photo. It does not look like the vision at all. I agree with the concept of enhancing existing businesses, but this looks like something that needs enhancing!
#076
Posted by Isabelle on 03/20/2026 at 7:07pm [Comment ID: 74] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Maintain the historic house and build up the land into a garden-type hideaway and use it as a multi-purpose entertainment/ gathering place. Examples could include Malibu Cafe (but call it Moorpark Cafe) with outdoor dining with alcoves, and games with an outdoor fireplace. Another would be a best all-in-one reception venue like Hartley Botanica or Eden Gardens. Bottom line: Having different "public place atmospheres for sensory, emotional, and social environments shaped by design, lighting, sound, and activity. Common types include bustling urban centers, tranquil parks, energetic, cultural, and intimate spaces designed to foster interaction or relaxation."
Reply by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:55pm [Comment ID: 113] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I agree - this would be an incredible event space for families to host wedding, parties, etc... Would be great to see the city fast track any event/wedding venue permitting.
#077
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 2:12pm [Comment ID: 31] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I don't mind the idea of a gateway here, but this example photo is so far from the feel of the plan. The sign example should be more in keeping with the historical farm town that is being cultivated throughout the district.
#078
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:25pm [Comment ID: 240] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I am puzzled by this illustration for a gateway feature. I like the idea of a gateway 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 84 Printed 04/17/2026 147
feature here but not necessarily this ONE. Need more choices for what might go there.
#079
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:24pm [Comment ID: 239] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
See my other comments about this property in other locations where it is named. #080
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:08pm [Comment ID: 168] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Please show the actual building.
#081
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 2:09pm [Comment ID: 29] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This looks like the plan was not done by the City of Moorpark? This is not the Birkenshaw Property. This is not a cheap plan to put together and to have it look and feel like a template is disappointing.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 85 Printed 04/17/2026 148
4-10 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
A Gateway Element
Pepper Tree
Lighting
C
Decorative
Crosswalks
B
Existing
Open Space
Moorpark Avenue
High Street
Depot
High Street
Arts Center
Walnut Street
Brad Street

4.5: High Street Public Realm
The public realm of High Street is defined by the spaces between buildings, including public open space, sidewalks, plazas, and streets. High Street features a number of elements to create a comfortable, safe, and enjoyable pedestrian experience. Outdoor dining is accommodated on both private property and in public spaces. Signage is consistent throughout, forming a cohesive theme. The historic pepper trees (C) are uplit to add drama, emphasize their historic significance, and provide a cohesive element throughout High Street. Decorative crossings (B) at Moorpark Avenue and Spring Street slow traffic, increase pedestrian safety, and add color to downtown.

An additional midblock crossing (E) between Magnolia Street and Spring Street further enhances pedestrian connections and safety along the corridor. A new curb extension with parklet amenities such as seating and mammoth themed public art (F) commemorates mammoth fossils found in Moorpark and provides additional public gathering space. Gateway elements (A) at Moorpark Avenue and Spring Street signify the ends of the High Street commercial core.
082
083
084
085
086
087
088
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 86 Printed 04/17/2026 149
#082
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 2:16pm [Comment ID: 41] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
This looks like graffiti on an old cracked road. It seems out of touch with the other elements of this plan. I think decorative sidewalks that have a historic feel, or something more in keeping with the nature of MOORPARK are more appropriate. #083
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:33pm [Comment ID: 241] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Like decorative crosswalks
#084
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:17pm [Comment ID: 42] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Its Bard Street not Brad Street
#085
Posted by Chris 2 on 03/27/2026 at 12:51pm [Comment ID: 134] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
A fake water tower seems a bit manufactured. Was there ever a historic water tower in Moorpark? Why water tower? I think it is cool if there is a story or reason behind it that I am not aware of. A farm style windmill, might be more area appropriate? #086
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:15pm [Comment ID: 33] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
#087
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:16pm [Comment ID: 40] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
#088
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:15pm [Comment ID: 34] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 87 Printed 04/17/2026 150
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 4-11 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
Bulb-Outs
D
Gateway Element:

Arch
A
Magnolia
Park
High Street
Spring Street
Fire
Station
Magnolia Street
Curb Extension & E Mid-Block Crossing
Parklet
F
089
090
091
092
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 88 Printed 04/17/2026 151
#089
Posted by Chris 1 on 03/25/2026 at 11:08am [Comment ID: 124] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
When High Street Closes for events, this park blocks access for the fire department to get out preventing a full street closure. Would it be possible to add gates and a drive lane that could be open only when the street is closed to allow emergency vehicle access through the park?
Reply by John on 04/15/2026 at 12:58pm [Comment ID: 246] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This would have been super helpful for Holiday on High Street! #090
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 3:19pm [Comment ID: 54] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
there should be historic clocks throughout the street
#091
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:36pm [Comment ID: 242] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Interesting idea
#092
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:36pm [Comment ID: 243] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Like these....might need them in some other parts of city too that are not the DTSP 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 89 Printed 04/17/2026 152
4-12 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION

4.6: Residential Neighborhood
The extent of change envisioned in the neighborhood north of High Street is limited by topographic constraints, parcel sizes, ownership patterns and a desire to preserve the residential character of the area. To address concerns raised by residents, a permit parking district is proposed to manage visitor use of on-street parking. Aside from the City-owned lots at the east end of Charles Street, which could be combined together with adjoining City-owned lots on High Street to form a significant redevelopment opportunity, other City-owned parcels in
the area are expected to be used for housing at a scale consistent with the neighborhood’s existing character. Infill redevelopment of private parcels for residential uses could provide more housing opportunities via accessory dwelling units, duplexes or courtyard homes. Commercial uses on the west of Charles Street should also be maintained.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 90 Printed 04/17/2026 153
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 4-13 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
1/4 mile
radius

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST
FLINN

MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE
O
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST
City Owned Parcels
Vacant Parcels
Key Policies
Allow for small lot development
Small lot development will allow low density residential uses consistent with the existing character of Downtown Moorpark’s residential neighborhood.

Establish parking permit district
A parking permit district will allow only residents to park on specific residential streets. The parking permit district will preserve on-street parking for residents.
093
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 91 Printed 04/17/2026 154
#093
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 11:27am [Comment ID: 84] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This would be great for rowhomes.

Remove side and front setbacks please
Reply by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:59pm [Comment ID: 114] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Adopt SB 1123 standards in this area.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 92 Printed 04/17/2026 155
4-14 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
P
P
P P
P
Civic Center
Master Plan
Ralphs
Post Office
New
Library
Civic Center
Master Plan
F
o

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

POINDEXTER AVE
EV

CASEY RD
Existing parking lots
New public parking lots
Existing On-Street Parking
New residential parking permit
district
New Public Plaza
Existing Pedestrian connection
Parking Signage & Wayfinding
Digital Parking
Signage and
Wayfinding
Examples
P
P

4.7: Parking
The success of Downtown Moorpark’s businesses and pedestrian activity will rely on strategic implementation of parking signage and wayfinding. Signage and wayfinding at key intersections direct downtown visitors to existing parking on High Street, parking adjacent to the post office and new library, and the south Metrolink lot. Digital signage will provide visitors with parking expectations and convenience when arriving at public parking lots, informing them if parking is available when they arrive. The parking wayfinding strategy will encourage a “park once” destination as visitors park once and visit multiple destinations downtown. 094
095 096
097
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 93 Printed 04/17/2026 156
#094
Posted by Adam on 04/01/2026 at 6:32pm [Comment ID: 139] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Really think the city should consider a parking structure. Not only to handle parking for now, but into the future as well. Its existence can allow for zoning law changes with regard to parking requirements for new buildings in the area. Builders can pay a % cost as an alternative to parking spots on a new property, allowing for larger buildings and sidewalks
#095
Posted by Adam 1 on 04/02/2026 at 12:10pm [Comment ID: 150] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
The 2019 Parking Survey this is based on was flawed from the outset and needs to be redone. First an foremost, it overcounts existing parking spaces.

Furthermore, a bulk of spots is accounted for by the remaining Metrolink lot south of the tracks (the only remaining lot for the central and east portion of High Street if everything in the plan so far comes to fruition). While a decent amount of spaces and the ability to add more, it being on the south side of the tracks is a liability waiting to happen. Someone injuring themselves crossing the station platform going to/ from High St. could massively open the city up to liability. Now we're down by 564 parking spaces.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 94 Printed 04/17/2026 157
Lastly, lot 1A by old city hall is okay to include when considering a farmers market at the post office, but it is too far from High St. to be considered its parking. Starting from the corner of High St. and Walnut St. lot 1A is almost a quarter-mile walk with a 20'-25' change in elevation. Take that walk with a partner in heels, and tell me it not too far to walk.

In total, that is 644 parking spaces either mischaracterized as downtown parking, or to be eliminated altogether with new projects; over 70% of the spots.

I beg you to reconsider the findings of the 2019 parking survey. It was inherently flawed to begin with, and Moorpark's downtown parking needs have absolutely changed in the last 7 years. Most needs have changed since the pandemic, why pretend our data hasn't as well?
Reply by John on 04/15/2026 at 1:11pm [Comment ID: 249] - Link Development Standards, Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Agreed with this. We're about to have 700 more families from hitch ranch who will be driving in to town, would be nice to give them somewhere to park.

A structure or two on the outskirts of the downtown are would do wonders. #096
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:52pm [Comment ID: 244] - Link Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
While I agree with a lot of what Adam says in his parking comment, I do NOT agree that it is too far to walk from civic center (old city hall lot) parking lot to High St. Arts Center.
#097
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 12:55pm [Comment ID: 245] - Link Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I like this concept to "park once." I hope it is really doable. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 95 Printed 04/17/2026 158
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 4-15 CHAPTER 4: THE VISION
1/4 mile
radius
P
P
P
High Street Depot
Flory Academy
of Sciences and
Technology
Human
Services
Center
Police
Services
Magnolia
Park

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

VERETT ST

VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

CHARLES
ST
Phase 1 (short term)
Improve existing parking lot
Phase 2 (Long Term)
Potential housing with lot consolidation
of public and private properties.

New public plaza
A new public plaza welcomes
Metrolink commuters and visitors
arriving via the south Metrolink
parking lot.
098
099
100
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 96 Printed 04/17/2026 159
#098
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:15pm [Comment ID: 170] - Link Development Standards, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would love to see parking here to better access this end of High Street. #099
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:13pm [Comment ID: 169] - Link Development Standards, Land Use, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Is there a better parking situation for this street? Would love to maximize the parking.
#100
Posted by Chris 1 on 03/24/2026 at 5:47pm [Comment ID: 123] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I think we should consider angled street parking here on both sides of the street like Walnut has. This would bring additional parking and clean up the strange parking on the sidewalk situation at the Creamery.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 97 Printed 04/17/2026 160
This page is intentionally left blank.
5-0 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 98 Printed 04/17/2026 161
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 5-1 5 Enacting the Vision

5.1: Catalytic Projects and Initiatives

5.2: Economic Development
This Chapter outlines projects and initiatives that
can act as implementation tools for the vision
laid out in Chapter 4.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 99 Printed 04/17/2026 162
5-2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

5.1: Catalytic Projects and Initiatives
This illustrative plan identifies 16 catalytic projects and initiatives that will promote the vision for Downtown Moorpark. Many of these projects will be initiated by the City of Moorpark, potentially in partnership with other public agencies or private investors.

1. Old Library Parking Lot

2. Civic Center Master Plan

3. Vertical Gateway and Wayfinding Element

4. Sunday Farmers Market

5. Parking Improvements (plan-wide)

6. Chamber Of Commerce Site

7. High Street Pepper Trees

8. High Street Streetscape

9. High Street East Parking Lot

10. High Street And Magnolia Street Plaza

11. Metrolink Southern Parking Lot

12. High Street East Gateway

13. Moorpark Avenue Street Tree Program

14. Moorpark Avenue Street Improvement

15. Birkenshaw House

16. Moorpark Avenue South Gateway
Metrolink Rail
2 1
4 3
101
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 100 Printed 04/17/2026 163
#101
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 1:06pm [Comment ID: 248] - Link Compatibility, Development Standards, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I am in favor of a street tree program for Moorpark Ave. HOWEVER, I think it would be a big mistake to try to replicate the High St. Pepper trees there-- which should be ONLY for Historic High Street and not for other streets in the downtown. There should be other more native and/or drought tolerant trees used that are good for local bird wildife. Pepper trees (sadly, despite their acknowledged historic significance on High St.) are known to NOT be very good for wildlife so we need to choose other trees for Moorpark Ave that are more environmentally friendly. This can be studied more during future plannning activities.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 101 Printed 04/17/2026 164
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 5-3 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION
Metrolink Rail
Charles Street
Spring Road
Moorpark Avenue
7 8
12 9
10 11
6 15
14 13
16 102
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 102 Printed 04/17/2026 165
#102
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 2:19pm [Comment ID: 43] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Everyone cuts through the parking lot here. I think a road connecting to Park Lane and Moorpark Ave is necessary with any changes to this site. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 103 Printed 04/17/2026 166
5-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

2. CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
In 2023, the City approved a Civic Center
Master Plan that organized various public
facilities across the City-owned lands west of
Moorpark Avenue, including a new Library
and a new City Hall. However, given the City’s
present satisfaction with the current City
Hall facility on Science Drive, revisiting the
Civic Center Master Plan is warranted, and a
probable first implementation action of the
Downtown Specific Plan. Possible uses that
might be considered in an updated Civic
Center Master Plan include: Arts/Cultural
Facility including performing arts, both
market rate and affordable housing, and
additional parking to service the west end of
High Street.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST

1. OLD LIBRARY PARKING LOT

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
Within the 2023 Civic Center Master Plan area
on the site of the current Library, this Specific
Plan recommends building a new surface lot.

This can be designed as an expansion of the
parking lot slated to be built with the new
Library, and will serve to increase the parking
supply of Downtown Moorpark, especially
the western end of High Street where parking
demand is presently higher. This parking lot
should be considered an interim-use, should
an update of the Civic Center Master Plan
reaffirm this location for a public facility.
103
104
105
106
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 104 Printed 04/17/2026 167
#103
Posted by Adam 1 on 04/02/2026 at 8:49am [Comment ID: 145] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Surface parking lots are the saddest use of space a city bestow on a plot of land. At its core function, a surface parking lot is a temporary storage location for someone's vehicle while they experience something else (be it work, an appointment, grocery shopping or entertainment etc.), it is never the destination, merely the last stop before it. So at its most useful, a surface parking lot is full of empty vehicles, not exactly the most eye-catching of uses.

Reply by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:18pm [Comment ID: 171] - Link Development Standards, Massing, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Love the idea of parking under something!
Reply by John on 04/15/2026 at 1:03pm [Comment ID: 247] - Link Height, Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Wish we had a structure or two - Having a green roof above would be fun! The low height limit makes combined parking pretty tough, but maybe off-site parking via structures could be a good compromise?
#104
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 1:17pm [Comment ID: 250] - Link Compatibility, Mixed-Use, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 105 Printed 04/17/2026 168
I believe that there are (already) behind the scenes potential plans for a bigger performing arts center (hopefully at the civic center), not to replace-- but to augment the HSAC that would remain where it is on High St. We are never going to move the city hall back to downtown after all the that was done and spent to put it where it is now on
Science Drive, so a more vibrant performing arts center IS just what downtown Moorpark needs. So I do support much of what was said by I think it was Adam about this.
#105
Posted by Adam 1 on 04/02/2026 at 10:19am [Comment ID: 146] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: -1
A new performing arts space could be exactly the type of project to revitalize the downtown area now and into the future. As it exists currently, it would seem the DTSP lacks in a few crucial areas: Updating Moorpark for the future, a reason for private business to buy in, and a reason for people to be in Moorpark. These issues persist throughout the DTSP, but are compounded by the existing Civic Center Master Plan and could be (mostly) solved with a new one.

The venue cannot add more seats, it cannot add more days to the year, and it cannot book headliners or concerts because the venue is too small and inaccessible for a concert tour to add it to their schedule. Creating a new venue can bring exciting performances to the city, along with freeing up space at the original theatre for other types of content currently unable to grace the stage based on scheduling conflicts.

Next, the DTSP lacks a reason for private business to buy in. The plan as it stands has an "if you plan it, they will come" mentality to private investment in the area.

The business prospects in Moorpark remain the same today as they did when the town was founded in 1905, outside of the occasional local entrepreneur, there remains no good reason to invest in Moorpark with Los Angeles to our east and Ventura to the west. Even in the 1920's with the explosion of movie palaces all over the state, Moorpark only got its own theatre in 1930 because members of the town decided to pitch in a build it themselves (land was transferred by Roy Hoffelt at an extremely generous price, Moorpark Savings and loan gave them a very favorably rate, and John Flory sold building material at cost and had his construction company 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 106 Printed 04/17/2026 169
build it). As it stands today, the High Street Arts Center building is the only purpose-built entertainment venue in the city constructed without public funding. If Moorpark wants to revitalize its downtown it is going to have to put some capital into the game beyond a new library. The Lakes at Thousand Oaks and the rest of T.O.

Blvd. in Thousand Oaks would not be what it is today without the city's decision to construct their Civic Arts Plaza back in 1994. In fact, the building of the Civic Arts Plaza is the only reason Holiday Inn built the hotel behind what used to be Borders (now a Best Western). The building of a new performing arts center would spur both individual donations to help complete the project as well as private business investment as well. When developers see cities trying to swing big, they take notice and want to get in on the ground level; growth begets more growth.

Last, the DTSP lacks a reason for people to want to stay in Moorpark. With a general lack of entertainment options around the city - a little more than a dozen dine-in options, lucky-strike bowl, and the 285-seat theatre - Moorpark has little hope of shaking its reputation as a commuter town. You can count on one hand the number of institutions open past 9:00. Without a reason for people to be there in the first place, High Street is hoping vibes alone will draw people to the area. Master plans based on hope seem like foolish endeavors. Centering your downtown project on a new performance center has the potential to be the jewel of the county, goving residents of Moorpark and Ventura-County at large a reason to come to Moorpark once more and what we have to offer.
#106
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:25pm [Comment ID: 172] - Link Home, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
NO MORE HOUSING here. We need Services. Please use this property to bring people downtown. There is enough housing happening around this. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 107 Printed 04/17/2026 170
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 5-5 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

3. VERTICAL GATEWAY & WAYFINDING ELEMENT
To mark the west end of Downtown
Moorpark, a vertical gateway and
wayfinding element, such as a water tower,
is recommended at the southwest corner of
High Street and Moorpark Avenue, within
the boundary of the City-owned parking lot
site. This tower could be at least 4-stories
in height and clearly visible from both the
southern reaches of Moorpark Avenue and
the eastern end of High Street. The gateway
element could be painted with a Downtown
Moorpark mural/logo. The City could
explore leasing the interior space to cellular
transmission companies to raise revenue to
pay for the cost of building the tower.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST

4. SUNDAY FARMERS MARKET
The City-owned parking lot that serves the
Post Office at the southwest corner of High
Street and Moorpark Avenue should be the
site of a weekly Sunday Farmers’ Market.

The Post Office will not need the parking
on Sundays, and sufficient parking for
shoppers will be available to the north in
the future library parking lot.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
107 108
109
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 108 Printed 04/17/2026 171
#107
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 1:20pm [Comment ID: 252] - Link Development Standards, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Agree mostly. I already made a comment about water tower in another location that applies here as well. If there is not a historical reason to have one here, we should not do that. Think of another thing, other than that. I would be surprised if we ever really had a water tower here. but I windmill.....for farming, maybe yes. #108
Posted by Adam 1 on 04/02/2026 at 10:30am [Comment ID: 148] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Moorpark is not in the Midwest, you don't need a water tower to tell people what town you're driving past. Especially a fake one at that. This isn't Disneyland either, we don't need fake decorations to trick people into thinking this is a real city. There is also no historical analogous for its existence, there was never a big water tower like that in the downtown, theres no need, you would just put your water tank up on the hill behind it - like where the actual city water tank is - to greate the gravity-fed water pressure we're all used to. You only build a water tower is there's no elevation around you.

Plus, with it having no function at all, how many times a year are the police going to be called because someone has scaled the water tower or graffitied it? #109
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:27pm [Comment ID: 173] - Link Economic, Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
What if a section of the street closed weekly for a farmers market? That would put it in the center of all the businesses and keep the parking lot for parking? Reply by Adam 2 on 04/15/2026 at 7:45am [Comment ID: 189] - Link Mobility, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Going off this, installing retractable bollards into the crosswalks going across High Street at Moorpark Ave. and Spring Rd. would give the city the ability to block access safely and securely for this and country days 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 109 Printed 04/17/2026 172
5-6 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

5. PARKING IMPROVEMENTS
As Downtown Moorpark becomes more
attractive as a destination, the demand for
convenient parking will increase. Static
wayfinding signs are expected to be installed
in the immediate future and will be a helpful
aid to motorists unfamiliar with Downtown.

However, the City will eventually need to take
proactive steps to manage the supply of onand off-street parking. By installing sensors at each parking space in the public parking lots,
the City could augment the static wayfinding
signs with dynamic digital counters indicating
the number of available spaces at the various
lots. Such digital sign counters in other cities
have enabled visitors to make informed choices
when navigating streets in search of parking.

6. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SITE

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
The southeast corner of High Street and
Moorpark Avenue, presently leased to
Chamber of Commerce, is one of the more
significant opportunity sites in Downtown.

This location is recommended for food
service uses with outdoor dining. A fullservice restaurant with a large patio is one option, as is an outdoor market / beer
garden such as the kind popularized by
“Steelcraft.”
110
111
112
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 110 Printed 04/17/2026 173
#110
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:30pm [Comment ID: 174] - Link Compatibility, Development Standards, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Looks more industrial than I prefer. I think we could have a visitors center here and maybe a tasting room? Something with a draw/attraction. #111
Posted by Adam 1 on 04/02/2026 at 10:33am [Comment ID: 149] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Not sure how many people want to sit in a beer garden surrounded on three sides by train-tracks, High Street, and Highway 23 with dump truck constantly going over the track, making noise and kicking up dirt from their trucks. #112
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 1:29pm [Comment ID: 254] - Link Compatibility, Mixed-Use, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This is a good idea and there are ways to baffle sounds, if needed (to address concerns in another person's comment). You can use the sound of the train as an attraction like they used to do at the old Chuys just east of the 76 gas station near spring/princton. some of you might remember that. Don't assume that evetryone hates trains, because they do NOT. They are part of our history and a venue at that corner to honor that history could be very popular. For those who don't like trains or any noise, they don't have to patronize whatever goes there. But I think there will be plenty of people who would like this idea that is proposed. Give it a chance to see if it pans out!
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 111 Printed 04/17/2026 174
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 5-7 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

8. HIGH STREET EAST STREETSCAPE
To fully unify the downtown pedestrian
experience, the streetscape design recently
completed on High Street between Moorpark
Avenue and Magnolia Street should be
extended eastwards to Spring Street.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST

7. HIGH STREET PEPPER TREES
As one of Downtown Moorpark’s signature
and historic character defining features,
the Pepper Trees on High Street should be
celebrated. The Specific Plan recommends
installing “twinkle lights” within the tree
canopies.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
113
114
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 112 Printed 04/17/2026 175
#113
Posted by chris on 03/20/2026 at 2:22pm [Comment ID: 44] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I love the lights going across the road.

Reply by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 3:18pm [Comment ID: 53] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
me too
#114
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:15pm [Comment ID: 35] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 113 Printed 04/17/2026 176
5-8 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

10. HIGH STREET AND MAGNOLIA STREET PLAZA
At the northwest corner of High Street and
Magnolia Street, an expanded curb extension
should be installed. This expanded sidewalk
should be designed to create a small miniplaza, with shade trees, seating, and public art. The footprint of this mini-plaza could be
expanded further by redesigned the current
landscape in front the Fire Station. The
purpose of is to establish a public space midpoint on High Street with visibility from the Metrolink Station that can serve as a meeting
point for downtown visitors. To capitalize on
the reputation of the “Moorpark Mammoth”, a
climbable sculpture of a woolly mammoth is
recommended to anchor this public space.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST

9. HIGH STREET EAST PARKING LOT
To improve the perceived deficiency of
available parking, what is currently a dirt
lot located directly east of Kahoot’s Feed
& Pet Supply should be improved with
nominal infrastructure: paving, marked
parking stalls, lighting, and signage clearly
indicated this a public parking lot available
for downtown visitors. In the long-term, this
site might be re-evaluated as a potential
development site for residential mixed-use
or other downtown-related uses.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
115
116
117
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 114 Printed 04/17/2026 177
#115
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:33pm [Comment ID: 175] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I don't think we should put money into this as a parking lot if that is not the long term plan?
#116
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:35pm [Comment ID: 176] - Link Compatibility, Development Standards, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Is there space for this? Kids playing on the sidewalk, I assume we will need fencing? If it really could work, it sounds interesting, but would need to know more about how feasible it really is.
#117
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 1:32pm [Comment ID: 255] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
NOT a "wooly mammoth"!!!! It was a "southern mammoth" and if we have any mammoth, which is a GREAT idea, it needs to be done so it is the kind that was unearthed right here in Moorpark--NOT a "wooly" mammoth--which was not found here at all!
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 115 Printed 04/17/2026 178
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 5-9 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

11. METROLINK SOUTHERN PARKING LOT
To enhance its appeal, the parking lot south
of the railroad tracks should be improved
with additional lighting as well as shade trees
located amidst the parking stalls. Long term,
should further parking spaces be needed
in the future, this parking lot may expand
towards Moorpark Avenue.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST

12. HIGH STREET EAST GATEWAY
To mark the eastern entrance of Downtown,
a ceremonial archway over High Street
reading “Downtown Moorpark” should
installed approximately 250’-300’ west of
the Spring Street intersection. Such archway
features can be found in similar sized
downtowns, including Old Town Temecula
and Encinitas. In addition to the archway,
curb extensions and a traffic-calming island
should be constructed – the combination of
archway and curb elements will help slow
west-bound traffic entering downtown from
Princeton Avenue. DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
118
119 120
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 116 Printed 04/17/2026 179
#118
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:15pm [Comment ID: 36] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
#119
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 1:35pm [Comment ID: 256] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Both what the plan says AND what Chris says should be considered. There will be plenty of room to debate various options. Overall, it is a good thing that we should do--however it ends up.
#120
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:38pm [Comment ID: 177] - Link Massing, Mixed-Use, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I love an arch, but think it would be even cooler if we could have a hotel that had a pedestrian connection over High Street that also became that entry arch. Not sure how possible this is, but is would be more unique then "What everyone else has" and help a hotel get to the size needed without going too high. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 117 Printed 04/17/2026 180
5-10 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

14. MOORPARK AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT
Where Moorpark Avenue widens at the
mid-point between High Street and Los
Angeles Street, a landscaped median should
be installed.

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST

13. MOORPARK AVENUE STREET TREE PROGRAM

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
Considering that the right-of-way on
Moorpark Avenue is too narrow to
support street trees capable of shading
the sidewalks, a grant program should
be established and funded to encourage
property owners along Moorpark Avenue
to plant a consistent row of shade trees on
private property immediately adjacent to
the sidewalk. 121 122
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 118 Printed 04/17/2026 181
#121
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:39pm [Comment ID: 178] - Link Development Standards, Land Use, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
What about using the earth day trees to for this one year? Also, we would need to look at proposed setbacks to allow space for trees on this road. #122
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 1:36pm [Comment ID: 257] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Please see my comment about these trees that I made near a map that named this. I wont repeat it here.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 119 Printed 04/17/2026 182
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 5-11 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

16. MOORPARK AVENUE SOUTH GATEWAY

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
At the very south end of the Downtown
Specific Plan area the City owns the property
at the northeast corner of Moorpark and
Los Angeles Avenues. Formerly a singlefamily house, this site is presently leased to a Mexican-style restaurant. The curb-radius
at the intersection is very large, cutting
away much of the street setback area which
is largely occupied by parking. To enhance
the appearance of the southern gateway
to Downtown, the City should work in
partnership with the restaurant tenant, to
install a ground sign that follows the sweep of
the curb radius, bearing the name “Downtown
Moorpark” while also serving as shield to
outdoor dining.

15. BIRKENSHAW HOUSE

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST CHARLES ST CHARLES ST
The adaptive reuse of the Birkenshaw
House, one of the more significant
historic structures within the Plan Area,
is a critical place-making element within
the Specific Plan. Preserving this house
for a future use will reinforce the unique
history of Downtown Moorpark. Potential
uses may include a bed-and-breakfast
inn, a restaurant, a wine-tasting room,
and a community facility for a housing
development on the surrounding property.
123
124 125
126
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 120 Printed 04/17/2026 183
#123
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 1:01pm [Comment ID: 115] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Can you change this to a picture of the actual house?
#124
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 1:38pm [Comment ID: 258] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
See multiple comments from me where this was discussed elsewhere in this plan.....this is not owned by city and must involve the Birkenshaw family. #125
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:41pm [Comment ID: 179] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would love to see a venue like the Camarillo Ranch House #126
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:43pm [Comment ID: 180] - Link Development Standards, Land Use, Mobility
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Parking for this restaurant is hard. One of the reasons I rarely go here. With the future widening of LA Ave here to 6 lanes, is there space for this with the restaurant? 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 121 Printed 04/17/2026 184
5-12 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION

5.2: Economic Development
Downtown Moorpark has long been viewed by
Moorpark residents as a unique and valuable local
asset, especially because of its role as the venue for
community activities such as Country Days.

As the 2023 General Plan Update and the 2025-
2029 Economic Development Strategy Plan were
prepared, however, an additional insight emerged:

Downtown Moorpark is not only a unique local
asset; it is also a unique regional asset. No other
community in Eastern Ventura County has a historic
Main Street setting with such amenities as live
theater, locally owned restaurants and local other
businesses, a library, and a major transit station.

For this reason, Downtown represents a major
economic development opportunity. Strengthening
Downtown and providing more restaurants and
shopping opportunities will encourage Moorpark
residents to spend more of their money in the
City rather than seeking entertainment and related
amenities elsewhere. Downtown also provides
the City with an opportunity to strengthen its
local economy by attracting more visitors from
surrounding communities such as Thousand Oaks,
Westlake Village, Simi Valley, and perhaps the
Western San Fernando Valley.

This opportunity is important not only for the local
economy, but also the City’s own fiscal health. Both
the General Plan and the Economic Development
Strategic Plan estimated that Moorpark experiences
retail sales leakage of approximately $600 million
per year. Given that Moorpark neither wants to nor
is likely to attract auto dealers, big-box retailers,
large shopping malls, and other major sales-tax
generators that other cities have pursued, promoting
Downtown as a regional attraction is one of the
City’s most important economic development
opportunities and could help strengthen the city’s
sales-tax base.

Two of the Economic Development Strategic
Plan’s four goals have application to Downtown
Moorpark. This Specific Plan and associated actions
can help the City achieve both goals.

Goal 1 calls on the City to “diversify dining, shopping, and entertainment choices,” with a focus on High
Street. The EDSP specifically states that while the
current options “serve the community,” they “fall
short of fully reflecting local demand or attracting
nearby visitors.”
Some of Moorpark’s future dining, shopping, and
entertainment opportunities will be located outside
of Downtown. Many unique new opportunities
will be located in the city’s shopping centers, as
the addition of the Lucky Strike bowling facility in
The Village at Moorpark suggests. Nevertheless,
Downtown is the location with the most potential,
especially for local businesses. Downtown activity
currently revolves around the High Street Arts
Center and several locally owned restaurants, as
well as special events such as Country Days. This is
a strong foundation for a small Downtown.

Furthermore, Goal 1 of the EDSP specifically called
on the City to work with High Street business
owners to extend their hours. However, a number
of additional steps could be taken to strengthen
the Downtown, including actions included under
Goal 4 of the EDSP. These could include:
• More special events, including a regular Farmers
Market
• Additional promotional and marketing
connections between the Arts Center and
restaurants -- such as joint discounts -- to
encourage more people from surrounding
communities to extend their stay Downtown.
• Working with landowners to identify potential
additional Downtown locations for restaurants
and other new businesses.
• Working with regional tourism agencies
to promote the experience of shopping or
dining Downtown, including the promotion of
products locally made in Moorpark.

Goal 4 calls on the City to “promote the city’s
unique small-town character regionally”. The EDSP
specifically states that this goal “aims to enhance
Moorpark’s small-town charm—especially along
No other community in Eastern
Ventura County has a historic Main
Street setting with such amenities as
live theater, locally owned restaurants
and businesses, a library, and a major
transit station.
127
128
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 122 Printed 04/17/2026 185
#127
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:48pm [Comment ID: 182] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would love to see events addressed in this plan. I think we can have a plan to do them even better!
#128
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:55pm [Comment ID: 52] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Why would Moorpark not want to (and not be likely to) attract a major sales tax generator or auto dealer?
Reply by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:46pm [Comment ID: 181] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Great question. Not sure the opportunity is there, but to say there is no desire is an interesting statement.

Reply by Adam 2 on 04/15/2026 at 7:54am [Comment ID: 190] - Link Compatibility, Economic, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I think that is meant to reflect residents rejecting big name retail stores to go on High Street, but it is confusingly worded and pretty pessimistic to say. Can agree though that I would not want to see a car dealership go in. They're just big parking lots no one can use
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 123 Printed 04/17/2026 186
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 5-13 CHAPTER 5: ENACTING THE VISION
High Street—and promote it regionally as an
economic driver that supports the success of
locally owned, independent businesses.”
The EDSP calls on the City to undertake a series
of actions that will help Downtown such as those
described above, including working with regional
tourism bureaus to raise Moorpark’s profile and
potentially creating a year-round Farmers Market.

However, during the preparation of the EDSP, it
became clear that Downtown Moorpark – despite
its compelling and unique “place” characteristics –
lacks the basic “place management” components
common in other successful Downtowns. The
EDSP also calls on the City to explore the possibility
of creating a Business Improvement District as a
step toward better “place management”.

Especially in an older Downtown area with many
property owners and business owners, place
management entities and financing mechanisms
are considered essential for the Downtown to
thrive. Such entities and mechanisms allow
businesses, property owners, and other entities to
work together to promote, improve, and invest in
their district.

Successful place management often requires at
least three organizational entities:

1. A voluntary, membership-based Merchants
Association that allows business owners to band
together to help market and brand their district.

2. A Business Improvement District (BID)
or Property-Based Improvement District
(PBID), which assesses either businesses or
landowners to provide a wide range of services
including market and promotion, streetscape
improvement and maintenance, security
patrols, and similar activities.

3. A Tax-Increment District such as an Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) under
California law, which segregates increased
property tax revenue from the Downtown,
including revenue that otherwise might go to
the county, to pay for construction of public
infrastructure.

In many cases – although not always in California –
these three entities are managed “under the same
roof”.

At the present time:
• The Downtown merchants’ association is
dormant.
• No BID or PBID exists, though the EDSP
recommends exploring one.
• No EIFD has been created in Ventura County to
date.

The City and Downtown merchants and property
owners should act on all the ideas called out in
the EDSP and listed above, such as working with
regional tourism agencies and seeking a contractor
for a year-round Farmers Market. But the City
and the Downtown will not have the capacity to
move on these items unless they also initiate place
management, which is why the City and property
owners should not only pursue a BID or PBID but
also reactivate the Merchants Association and
consider the possibility of creating an EIFD.
129
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 124 Printed 04/17/2026 187
#129
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 12:52pm [Comment ID: 183] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would love to learn more about this.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 125 Printed 04/17/2026 188
This page is intentionally left blank.
6-0 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 126 Printed 04/17/2026 189
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-1 This Chapter provides the regulatory framework
required to implement the Moorpark Downtown
Specific Plan. The development and design
standards in this Chapter have been crafted with
respect to the processes, existing conditions,
outreach, vision, and catalytic projects
described in Chapters 1 through 5 of the DTSP.

These standards are intended to enhance the
existing character of downtown Moorpark while
respecting its history and cultural resources,
and are the primary regulatory tool that will be
used to carry out the vision for the Plan Area, as
described in Chapter 4 of the DTSP.

6.1: How to use this Code

6.2: Administration

6.3: Regulating Plan

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.5: Permitted Uses

6.6: Design Standards

6.7: Definitions
6 Development Code
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 127 Printed 04/17/2026 190
6-2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.1: How to use this Code
The Plan Area is divided into eight different districts and one overlay district. Each district has its own distinctive set of development standards and permitted uses.

Each district has specific permit requirements for land uses. Review Section 6.5 to determine the permit requirements for your project.

Find which district your project is in on the map in Figure 6-1:

Regulating Plan.

Determine the permit requirements for your project. Confirm if there are any additional regulations or standards in Section 6.5.

Review the Purpose and Intent for that particular district to identify whether your project complies with the intent of the Specific Plan for that district. Descriptions for each district are in Section 6.4.

Find Out What Downtown District Your Project Is In
Review Permit Requirements
Step 1
Step 2
This plan is intended to be used by residents,
developers, and City planners involved in the
development and future of Downtown Moorpark.
130
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 128 Printed 04/17/2026 191
#130
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 2:02pm [Comment ID: 260] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
There are a number of comments by some folks in here that reference state laws that would allow more in a number of different areas that this plan allows--pointing out, perhaps accurately (I do not know) that developers will choose the state law instead of our rules if we are not closer to state law in what we might allow....saying we could lose all local control. I would like to see staff and city attorney comment on this in as realistic a manner as possible so that our
CC decision makers have whatever ammunition and knowledge they need to have. to be able to hopefully maintain more local control, without having to allow everything that state law is trying to jam down every city's throat. This is a sticky wicket and requires careful analysis and thought!
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 129 Printed 04/17/2026 192
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-3 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
The DTSP features Development and Design Standards that apply to all properties within the Plan Area. The Development Standards supersede the standards in the Zoning Code of the MMC. When the Specific Plan is silent, the City’s zoning requirements will apply.

Depending on the location of the project and time of application, the application will be processed through the Moorpark Community Development Department. Please refer to Section 6.2 Administration to determine the application procedures.

Find your district in Section 6.4. Confirm your project fits the development and design standards in the accompanying table.

Review Development and Design Standards
Follow the Appropriate Application Process
Step 3
Step 4
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 130 Printed 04/17/2026 193
6-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.2: Administration

6.2.1: Introduction
This chapter describes the steps and actions to implement and administer the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The administration process described herein provides the mechanisms for the City of Moorpark to review and approve project applications within the Specific Plan area.

6.2.2: Authority
This Specific Plan serves as the zoning for the properties within the Specific Plan Area. It establishes the necessary plans, development standards, regulations, infrastructure requirements, design standards, and implementation programs on which subsequent project-related development activities are to be based. It is intended that local public works projects, design review plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, or any other action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to this area be consistent with this Specific Plan.

6.2.3: Responsibility and Enforcement
The City of Moorpark Community Development Department shall be responsible for administering the DTSP in accordance with the provisions of this document, all governing and applicable State and federal laws, the City of Moorpark General Plan, and the Moorpark Municipal Code (MMC).

6.2.4: Applicability
Proposed development plans, tentative tract or parcel maps, and any other development approval pertaining to land or property governed by this Specific Plan must be consistent with the Specific Plan. The standards set forth in this Specific Plan chapter apply to new construction and other development proposals. For developments spanning multiple lots, these standards apply to all lots, including any associated amenities, open space, or utilities. These standards do not apply to minor renovations and routine maintenance of existing developments. Proposed projects must also comply with all other applicable local and state ordinances and codes.

6.2.5: Review Process
Chapter 17.24 of the MMC sets forth development review requirements and processes for approval of projects.

6.2.6: Interpretation
The Community Development Director (Director) or his/her designee shall have the authority to interpret Specific Plan requirements if ambiguity occurs about the meaning or appropriate application of provisions within the Specific Plan. In so doing, the Director shall consider the following:
• The interpretation responds satisfactorily to the Specific Plan vision, intent, and purpose.
• The resultant project is consistent with the Moorpark General Plan. • The interpretations remain the final determination of the Director but may be appealed to the Planning Commission.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 131 Printed 04/17/2026 194
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-5 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
The Director has the discretion to refer an interpretation request to the Planning Commission as a scheduled matter not requiring public hearing, and the findings and interpretations of the Planning Commission shall be set forth in the recorded minutes. Thereafter, such interpretations shall govern. The Director shall maintain a permanent record of all Planning Commission interpretations of this Specific Plan.

6.2.7: Conflict
In the event of a conflict between the provisions and/or development standards of this Specific Plan and the provisions identified in the MMC, the DTSP shall prevail. For any other topical issue, development standard or design guideline, and/or regulation not addressed or otherwise specified in the DTSP, regulation and approval shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the MMC.

6.2.8: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Specific Plan, or any future amendments or additions, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court or competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Specific Plan, or any future amendments or additions.

6.2.9: Administrative Exceptions
Administrative Exceptions from the development, design, and operational standards of this Specific Plan shall follow the procedures listed in Section 17.44.040F of the MMC.

6.2.10: Non-Conforming Uses
Non-conforming uses and structures shall adhere to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 17.52 of the MMC.

6.2.11: Projects Crossing Zone Districts
Crossing within the DTSP boundaries. Individual development proposals within the Specific Plan area that incorporate at least two parcels with different DTSP zoning districts shall utilize the more permissive height and setback standards for the entire development proposal. The total density of the proposal shall not exceed the combined density as established by the individual parcels when calculated individually, however this total density may be distributed across the entire proposal site, regardless of the density restrictions of individual parcels.

Crossing the DTSP boundaries. Individual development proposals that include more than one parcel outside of the Specific Plan area shall be required to process a Specific Plan amendment to incorporate the non-Specific Plan parcel into the Specific Plan, or; shall be processed as separate applications, one within the Specific Plan and one outside of the Specific Plan subject to the Zoning Map and MMC. 131
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 132 Printed 04/17/2026 195
#131
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/14/2026 at 1:43pm [Comment ID: 184] - Link Compatibility, Development Standards, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Are there no approvals for this? This seems like it could have create potential issues when looking at a project that spans from High Street to Charles Street. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 133 Printed 04/17/2026 196
6-6 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.3: Regulating Plan

6.3.1: Purpose
This Section establishes the districts applied to property within the Specific Plan area by the Regulating Plan (Fig 6-1). The Regulating Plan divides the Plan area into separate zones in order to implement the Specific Plan’s urban design objectives for each part of the Plan area and to establish and maintain attractive distinctions between each zone.

The districts of the Regulating Plan allocate land uses, establish development standards for building placement, height and profile, as well as detail unique design standards related to façade modulation, frontage types, materials and colors among other topics.

6.3.2: Districts Established
The districts identified in Sections 6.4.1 (High Street Mixed Use), 6.4.2 (Moorpark Ave Mixed Use), 6.4.3 (Transit Adjacent), 6.4.4 (Single Family Residential R-1), 6.4.5 (Medium Density Residential R-2), 6.4.6 (Multifamily Residential R-3), 6.4.7 (Institutional), 6.4.8 (Civic Center), and 6.4.9 (Charles Street Overlay) are hereby established by this Specific Plan, and are applied to property within the Specific Plan area as shown on the Regulating Plan.

6.3.3: Development Standards
The full range of development standards applicable to each district within the Specific Plan is itemized via a table unique to each zone within Section 6.4. Within each district, the following development standards are specified:
• Permitted Uses
• Density and Height
• Site Placement
• Design Standards
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 134 Printed 04/17/2026 197
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-7 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Figure 6-1: Regulating Plan

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

CHARLES
ST
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Metrolink Ventura County Line
Downtown Specific Plan Districts
High Street Mixed Use (Section 6.4.1)
Moorpark Avenue Mixed Use (Section 6.4.2)
Transit Adjacent (Section 6.4.3)
R-1 (Section 6.4.4)
R-2 (Section 6.4.5)
R-3 (Section 6.4.6)
Institutional (Section 6.4.7)
Civic Center District (Section 6.4.8)
Charles Street Commerce Overlay (Section 6.4.9)
132
133
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 135 Printed 04/17/2026 198
#132
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 1:05pm [Comment ID: 117] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Why the inconsistency with mixed use on east of walnut street, but not west side? Should we make Bard mixed use and Walnut Canyon as well? #133
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 1:03pm [Comment ID: 116] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Why have any R-1 Zones in the DTSP? This is the Downtown Specific Plan? SB 9 and SB 1123 also remove R-1 so if Moorpark wants to maintain control, they can up zone to be the path of least resistance.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 136 Printed 04/17/2026 199
6-8 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.4.1: High Street Mixed Use

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this district is to provide for
a mix of commercial, office, and residential
uses along High Street. Buildings will
contain active ground-floor uses at or near
the sidewalk, with housing or office next to
or above.

Table 6.4-1: High Street Mixed Use Development and Design Standards Permitted Uses
a Allowable Land Uses See Section 6.5
Development Standards
Mixed Use Commercial
Density and Height
b Density - Max. dwelling units per gross acre 32 -
c Floor area ratio, maximum 2.0 2.0
d Maximum stories 3 3
e Building and structure height, maximum (ft.) 40 40
Site Placement
f Building frontage at build-to line (min - max %) 75 - 100% 75 - 100% g Front yard build-to line (min - max ft.) 0 - 5 0 - 5
h Street side build-to line (min - max ft.) 0 - 5 0 - 5 i Interior side yard min. setback (ft.) 0 0
j Rear yard interior min. setback (ft.) 10 0
k Open space (min) 100 sq. ft. per unit
+ 5% of lot size 5% of lot size
l Minimum landscaping requirement (% of lot) 5% 5%
Design Standards
m Modulation See Section 6.6.2
n Open Space See Section 6.6.3
o Permitted Frontage Types See Section 6.6.4
p Materials and Colors See Section 6.6.5
q Landscaping MMC Section 17.32.070 (Parking lot landscaping) r Walls, Fences, Utilities, etc. See Section 6.6.7
s Parking See Section 6.6.8
t Lighting Refer to MMC Chapter 17.30
u Signage Refer to MMC Chapter 17.40
v Public Art Refer to MMC Chapter 17.50
e
High St
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 137 Printed 04/17/2026 200
#134
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 8:48am [Comment ID: 191] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Behind instead of next to?
#135
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:37pm [Comment ID: 55] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This density seems very low for a downtown area, I would expect closer to 109/acre so we can support the local businesses on high street.

Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 8:50am [Comment ID: 192] - Link Height
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
That is crazy High! I thought 32 seemed high!
Reply by John on 04/15/2026 at 1:43pm [Comment ID: 259] - Link Development Standards, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Using unit/acre sounds massive, but using unit/sqft of land sounds a lot more reasonable and better fits in a downtown plan where there are almost no 1 acre lots.

Example: 1/400 sqft of land is standard density for multifamily. on a 5000 sqft lot thats 12 homes (4 per floor, 3 stories). That's the maximum, you don't need to build to the maximum.
#136
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:39pm [Comment ID: 56] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
2 FAR is low - this will result in small units that are less desirable #137
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:42pm [Comment ID: 57] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
5 stories would be better
#138
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:43pm [Comment ID: 58] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
I'd like to see 75ft here.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 138 Printed 04/17/2026 201
#139
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:43pm [Comment ID: 59] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
What about driveways on narrow lots?
#140
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:45pm [Comment ID: 60] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
High Street is the amenity space. We want residents using restaurants and parks as their common open space so High Street has a vibrant pedestrian scene that supports local businesses.
#141
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:28pm [Comment ID: 45] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Walls, Fences, Utilities, etc. are section 6.6.6 not 6.6.7 #142
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:28pm [Comment ID: 46] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Section 6.6.8 does not exist.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 139 Printed 04/17/2026 202
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-9 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this district is to provide for
neighborhood-serving goods and commercial
services and/or multifamily residential in a
mixed-use format (vertical or horizontal) along
Moorpark Avenue south of the railroad tracks.

This designation will be designed to be walkable,
with wide sidewalks, active street frontages, and
minimal setbacks from the back of the sidewalk,
while preserving the existing residential character
on the eastside of Moorpark Avenue.

Table 6.4-2: Moorpark Avenue Mixed Use Development and Design Standards Permitted Uses
a Allowable Land Uses See Section 6.5
Development Standards
Mixed Use Commercial Residential
Density and Height
b Density - Max. dwelling units per gross acre 24 - 24
c Floor area ratio, maximum 1.5 1.5 1.5
d Maximum stories 3 3 3
e Building and structure height, maximum (ft.) 40 40 40 Site Placement
f Building frontage at build-to line (min - max %) 70 - 100% 70 - 100% 70 - 100% g Front yard build-to line (min - max ft.) 10 - 25 10 - 25 10 - 20 h Street side build-to line (min - max ft.) 10 - 25 10 - 25 10 - 25 i Interior side yard min. setback (ft.) 0 0 0
j Rear yard interior min. setback (ft.) 10 0 10
k Open space (min) 100 sq. ft. per unit
+ 5% of lot size 5% of lot size 100 sq. ft. per unit+ 5% of lot size l Minimum landscaping requirement (% of lot) 15% 15% 15% Design Standards
m Modulation See Section 6.6.2
n Open Space See Section 6.6.3
o Permitted Frontage Types See Section 6.6.4
p Materials and Colors See Section 6.6.5
q Landscaping MMC Section 17.32.070 (Parking lot landscaping) r Walls, Fences, Utilities, etc. See Section 6.6.6
s Parking See Section 6.6.7
t Lighting Refer to MMC Chapter 17.30
u Signage Refer to MMC Chapter 17.40
v Public Art Refer to MMC Chapter 17.50

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.4.2: Moorpark Avenue Mixed Use
e
j
Moorpark Ave
143
144
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 140 Printed 04/17/2026 203
#143
Posted by Jackson Piper on 04/13/2026 at 8:07pm [Comment ID: 159] - Link Home, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
In all residential/mixed use districts, I would like to see density calculated differently for family-sized homes, studio to two bedroom smaller types of homes, and micro-units. So something like 24 family sized homes per acre, or 48 smaller homes per acre, or 72 micro-units, or the equivalent mix of the three.

Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 8:55am [Comment ID: 193] - Link Home, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I think your density suggestions are too high, but I like the concept here. It would help encourage people to build family spaces, not just units. #144
Posted by Jackson Piper on 04/13/2026 at 8:12pm [Comment ID: 160] - Link Home, Massing, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: -3
3 stories for mixed use and residential developments is definitely too low for the city's downtown, which should be planned to support a lot of new housing for residents that want to live near High Street, Moorpark Ave, or close to the Metrolink. 5 or 6 stories would be preferable.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 141 Printed 04/17/2026 204
6-10 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.4.3: Transit Adjacent

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this district is to provide for
flexible, transit-oriented uses immediately
south of the railroad tracks and the existing
station.

Table 6.4-3: Transit Adjacent Development and Design Standards Permitted Uses
a Allowable Land Uses See Section 6.5
Development Standards
Density and Height
b Density - Max. dwelling units per gross acre 32
c Floor area ratio, maximum 1
d Maximum stories 3
e Building and structure height, maximum (ft.) 40
Site Placement
f Building frontage at build-to line (min - max %) 50% - 100% g Spring street build-to line (min - max ft.) 5 - 10
h Rail side build-to line (min ft.) 15
i Interior side yard min. setback (ft.) 5
j South side min. setback (ft.) 15
k Open space (min) 100 sq. ft. per unit
+ 5% of lot size
l Minimum landscaping requirement (% of lot) n/a
Design Standards
m Modulation See Section 6.6.2
n Open Space See Section 6.6.3
o Permitted Frontage Types See Section 6.6.4
p Materials and Colors See Section 6.6.5
q Landscaping MMC Section 17.32.070 (Parking lot landscaping) r Walls, Fences, Utilities, etc. See Section 6.6.6
s Parking See Section 6.6.7
t Lighting Refer to MMC Chapter 17.30
u Signage Refer to MMC Chapter 17.40
v Public Art Refer to MMC Chapter 17.50
e j
Metrolink Right of Way
(Rail Side)
South Side
Spring Street
Interior Side
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 142 Printed 04/17/2026 205
#145
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:03am [Comment ID: 194] - Link Development Standards, Home, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I don't think this area should allow for any housing. This is our main parking for downtown and a commercial/industrial center. The access to the commercial/industrial area if it were to change to housing is not great. Can we make this zone limited to parking, and a transit center?
#146
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 6:18pm [Comment ID: 71] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Our DTSP must be the path of least resistance if we're going to maintain local control. We need to greatly increase what is possible here so developers choose the Moorpark zoning instead of Sacramento zoning.

AB 1763 and AB 2334 just two state laws that allow for unlimited density when building 100% affordable housing near transit and low VMT areas. If Moorpark zoning is more cumbersome that state law, developers may bypass Moorpark zoning for state laws causing us to lose control over what is built in our city. #147
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:16pm [Comment ID: 38] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
#148
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:49pm [Comment ID: 61] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Developers will use state housing laws and bypass Moorpark zoning if the density is this low. We'll lose control of what gets built.
#149
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:51pm [Comment ID: 62] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
FAR should be 3.0+
#150
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:05am [Comment ID: 195] - Link Compatibility, Home, Massing
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 143 Printed 04/17/2026 206
Three stories would dwarf the single story family homes adjacent. I feel like this would ruin the character of that neighborhood.
#151
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:15pm [Comment ID: 37] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Its Spring Road not Spring Street
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 144 Printed 04/17/2026 207
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-11 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this district is to provide for
and maintain areas that are appropriate for
single-family dwellings on individual lots
in areas adjacent to the High Street and
Moorpark Avenue Mixed Use zones.

Table 6.4-4: Single Family Residential (R-1) Development and Design Standards Permitted Uses
a Allowable Land Uses See Section 6.5
Development Standards
Density and Height
b Density - Max. dwelling units per gross acre 8
c Net lot area - minimum square feet 5,000
d Lot width - minimum (ft) 50
e Lot depth - minimum (ft) 60
f Building and structure height, maximum (ft.) 35
Site Placement
g Front yard setback (ft.) 20
h Street side setback (ft.) 10
i Interior side setback (ft.) 5
j Rear yard setback (ft.) 15
k Open space (min) n/a
l Lot coverage, maximum (% of lot) 50%
Design Standards
m Modulation See Section 6.6.2
n Open Space See Section 6.6.3
o Permitted Frontage Types See Section 6.6.4
p Materials and Colors See Section 6.6.5
q Landscaping MMC Section 17.32.070 (Parking lot landscaping) r Walls, Fences, Utilities, etc. See Section 6.6.6
s Parking See Section 6.6.7
t Lighting Refer to MMC Chapter 17.30
u Signage Refer to MMC Chapter 17.40

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.4.4: Single Family Residential (R-1)
l
h
f
i
e
d
Street
152
153
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 145 Printed 04/17/2026 208
#152
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 2:06pm [Comment ID: 261] - Link Development Standards, Home, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Does this plan OR the new 2050 General Plan update allow anyywhere where "tiny lots homes" can be allowed? So far I have not seen any here and I cannot remember what the new GP allows. If not, should there be someplace for that where it is allowed?
#153
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 6:19pm [Comment ID: 72] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Allow rowhomes.

Eliminate front and side setbacks.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 146 Printed 04/17/2026 209
6-12 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this district is to provide for
and maintain residential areas that allow for
a variety of housing typologies, including
single-family dwelling units, duplexes,
triplexes, and multifamily development on
a smaller scale.

Table 6.4-5: Medium Density Residential (R-2) Development and Design Standards Permitted Uses
a Allowable Land Uses See Section 6.5
Development Standards
Density and Height
b Density - Max. dwelling units per gross acre 24
c Net lot area - minimum square feet 5,000
d Lot width - minimum (ft) 50
e Lot depth - minimum (ft) 60
f Building and structure height, maximum (ft.) 35
Site Placement
g Front yard setback (ft.) 20
h Street side setback (ft.) 10
i Interior side setback (ft.) 5
j Rear yard setback (ft.) 15
k Open space (min) 100 square feet per unit
+ 5% of lot size
l Lot coverage, maximum (%) 50%
Design Standards
m Modulation See Section 6.6.2
n Open Space See Section 6.6.3
o Permitted Frontage Types See Section 6.6.4
p Materials and Colors See Section 6.6.5
q Landscaping MMC Section 17.32.070 (Parking lot landscaping) r Walls, Fences, Utilities, etc. See Section 6.6.6
s Parking See Section 6.6.7
t Lighting Refer to MMC Chapter 17.30
u Signage Refer to MMC Chapter 17.40
v Public Art Refer to MMC Chapter 17.50

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.4.5: Medium Density Residential (R-2)
d
e
m
f
i
Street
154
155
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 147 Printed 04/17/2026 210
#154
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:57pm [Comment ID: 67] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Eliminate side yard to enable rowhome developments
Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:09am [Comment ID: 196] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I could see this in this zone.
#155
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:55pm [Comment ID: 63] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This zoning allows 3 units, but lot coverage caps each unit to only allow only 800 sqft each?
Seems pretty small
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 148 Printed 04/17/2026 211
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-13 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this district is to provide for
and maintain a mix of attached multifamily
residential housing types at higher
densities.

Table 6.4-6: High Density Residential (R-3) Development and Design Standards Permitted Uses
a Allowable Land Uses See Section 6.5
Development Standards
Density and Height
b Density - Max. dwelling units per gross acre 32
c Net lot area - minimum square feet 5,000
d Lot width - minimum (ft) 50
e Lot depth - minimum (ft) 60
f Building and structure height, maximum (ft.) 35
Site Placement
g Front yard setback (ft.) 20
h Street side setback (ft.) 10
i Interior side setback (ft.) 5
j Rear yard setback (ft.) 15
k Open space (min) 100 square feet per unit
+ 5% of lot size
l Lot coverage, maximum (%) 60%
Design Standards
m Modulation See Section 6.6.2
n Open Space See Section 6.6.3
o Permitted Frontage Types See Section 6.6.4
p Materials and Colors See Section 6.6.5
q Landscaping MMC Section 17.32.070 (Parking lot landscaping) r Walls, Fences, Utilities, etc. See Section 6.6.6
s Parking See Section 6.6.7
t Lighting Refer to MMC Chapter 17.30
u Signage Refer to MMC Chapter 17.40
v Public Art Refer to MMC Chapter 17.50

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.4.6: Multifamily Residential (R-3)
h
d
e
m
Street
f
156
157
158
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 149 Printed 04/17/2026 212
#156
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:57pm [Comment ID: 65] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
eliminate front yards so we can activate the street, we want to see our neighbors and folks walking by in the downtown zone.
#157
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:57pm [Comment ID: 66] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Eliminate side yards to enable rowhome developments
#158
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 5:56pm [Comment ID: 64] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
60% lot coverage blocks the density in the R-3 "High Density Residential" zone 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 150 Printed 04/17/2026 213
6-14 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.4.7: Institutional (I)

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this district is to provide space for private or public entities to be utilized for the public benefit, such as governmental offices, civic centers, libraries, or other uses. Any development in this zone will be conducted on a by-permit basis.

6.4.8: Civic Center (CC)

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this district is to implement the City’s Civic Center Master Plan Project, which was approved in 2024. The Civic Center will be developed over the course of several phases, and will include the construction of a new library, the repurposing of existing structures, as well as the potential to construct up to 75 units of new housing.

Development in this zone will be conducted on a by-permit basis. 159
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 151 Printed 04/17/2026 214
#159
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:14am [Comment ID: 197] - Link Compatibility, Development Standards, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I believe the current city council has already given different direction on this to staff.

And this area is intended for public services uses, not housing. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 152 Printed 04/17/2026 215
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-15 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.4: Downtown Districts

6.4.9: Charles Street Commerce Overlay

PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this overlay is to maintain the overall design intent of the underlying zones along Charles Street between Moorpark Avenue and Walnut Street, While the base regulations of each respective District remains the same, a wider range of uses is permitted in a small town format. In addition to the uses permitted in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, the following uses are permitted to operate with a Conditional Use Permit within the existing structures of the Charles Street Commerce Overlay, regardless of the underlying District:
• Governmental uses including, but not limited to, city offices, community rooms, fire stations, human service centers,
libraries, police stations, & public utility facilities • Professional and administrative offices, including uses determined to be in compliance with MMC § 17.20.030
• Places of religious assembly
• Retail shops and personal service establishments, including uses determined to be in compliance with MMC § 17.20.030 • Social clubs
New construction within the Charles Street Commerce Overlay shall feature uses consistent with the underlying District. 160
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 153 Printed 04/17/2026 216
#160
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:31pm [Comment ID: 47] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
These tables don't exist in this document. Do you mean 6.4-1? 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 154 Printed 04/17/2026 217
6-16 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Table 6.5-1:Residential and Related Uses
R-1 R-2 R-3 Moorpark
Ave
High
Street Transit Civic Center
Dwellings, single-family AP AP AP
Accessory dwelling units AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
Dwellings, two units AP AP AP ZC ZC ZC RPD
Dwellings, multi-family
(3 - 10 units) AP AP AP ZC ZC ZC RPD
Dwellings, multi-family
(11+ units) RPD RPD RPD RPD RPD RPD RPD
Dwelling, caretaker AP AP AP AP AP AP RPD
Dwelling, employee
housing AP AP AP RPD
Residential care facility AP AP AP AP AP AP RPD
Transitional & supportive
housing AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
Low barrier navigation
centers ZC ZC ZC RPD
Bed and breakfast inns CUP CUP CUP AP AP
Home occupations when
conducted in an existing
residence and consistent
with the requirements of
MMC 17.28.020.B

P P P P P P RPD
Family day care homes
(small) as defined in the
MMC

AP AP AP AP AP AP RPD
Family day care homes
(large) as defined in the
MMC

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC RPD
Refer to the Moorpark Municipal Code for
specific standards for the following uses:
• Home Occupations - MMC 17.28.020.B
• Manufactured Housing - MMC 17.28.020.C
• Two Unit Developments - MMC 17.28.020.H
Notes:

P = Permitted
AP = Administrative Permit
ZC = Permitted by Zoning Clearance
CUP = Permitted by Conditional Use Permit
RPD = Permitted by Residential Planned
Development Permit

6.5: Permitted Uses

6.5.1: Land Use Tables
161 162
164 163
165
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 155 Printed 04/17/2026 218
#161
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:26am [Comment ID: 199] - Link Home, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
No Housing should be in this zone.
#162
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:26am [Comment ID: 200] - Link Compatibility, Home, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
No Housing should be in the is zone.
#163
Posted by Jackson Piper on 04/13/2026 at 7:58pm [Comment ID: 158] - Link Development Standards, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Multifamily dwellings of 11 or more units (including mixed use projects) should be made easier to develop within the Moorpark Ave, High Street, Transit, and Civic Center zones.
#164
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 6:00pm [Comment ID: 68] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
RPD requirement on every 11+ unit building may add unnecessary delays and risk non-compliance with Cal Gov Sec 65913.3 timelines.
#165
Posted by Roger on 03/25/2026 at 1:53pm [Comment ID: 128] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
hotels (or other uses) should be able to seek relief from development standards if approved by CC. need to include mechanism to allow for this.

Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:17am [Comment ID: 198] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would this be through a development agreement?
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 156 Printed 04/17/2026 219
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-17 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Table 6.5-2: Nonresidential Uses
Moorpark
Ave
High
Street Transit Institutional Civic Center
Charles St
Overlay
Alcoholic beverage sales for off-site
consumption, in conjunction with another
city-approved retail or service use other
than automobile service station or liquor
store
AP AP
Auditoriums, community centers,
dancehalls, banquet facilities, event
facilities, and indoor motion picture
theaters (service of food or alcohol may
require additional permits)

CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Automobile/light truck/motorcycle uses,
light service, repair and parts replacement CUP
Banks and other financial institutions ZC ZC ZC
Bars with or without entertainment
including, but not limited to, cocktail
lounges, cabarets

CUP CUP
Body piercing and/or tattoo CUP
Breweries, wineries/tasting rooms,
distilleries AP AP
Community care facilities CUP CUP
Colleges and universities CUP CUP CUP CUP
Hotels and motels CUP CUP CUP
Health clubs, gymnasiums, & fitness
centers/studios ZC ZC ZC
Gaming arcades ZC ZC
Governmental uses and facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Manufacturing, assembly, and product
fabrication, including uses in compliance
with MMC 17.20.030
AP
Massage establishments CUP AP
Parking lots and parking structures AP AP AP CUP
Private post offices, parcel services, copy
centers ZC ZC
Places of religious assembly CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Professional and administrative offices,
including uses in compliance with
MMC 17.20.030

CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Restaurants and eating establishments,
with or without entertainment, with or
without on-site consumption of alcoholic
beverages, and with or without outdoor
seating

AP AP CUP
Restaurants with outdoor dining in
compliance with MMC 17.28.135 AP AP CUP
Retail shops and personal service
establishments, including uses in
compliance with MMC 17.20.030

ZC ZC CUP CUP
Social clubs CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Veterinary offices and animal hospitals
Without boarding AP ZC ZC
166
167
168
169
170
171
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 157 Printed 04/17/2026 220
#166
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 6:06pm [Comment ID: 69] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Can this be AP so we make it super easy for new bars and entertainment on high street?
#167
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:31am [Comment ID: 201] - Link Compatibility, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
If something like a YMCA came here, this should be an allowable use. #168
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:33am [Comment ID: 202] - Link Economic, Land Use, Mobility
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
I think this needs to extend into the R-1 and R-2 as potential for the city owned lots to become parking.
#169
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:34am [Comment ID: 203] - Link Compatibility, Development Standards, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Your map shows the post office in this zone, yet it is not a permitted use? #170
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:35am [Comment ID: 204] - Link Economic, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
If a future theater had food, could we allow for this here? #171
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:36am [Comment ID: 205] - Link Compatibility, Mixed-Use, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
The YMCA in Westlake has a Cafe and outdoor patio.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 158 Printed 04/17/2026 221
6-18 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.5: Permitted Uses

6.5.2: Standards for Specific Uses

6.5.2.1.OUTDOOR DINING - GENERAL
All outdoor dining within the DTSP Area shall meet the following standards:

1. The proposed outdoor dining will not constitute a nuisance to adjacent properties, adjacent businesses, or adjacent outdoor uses, and will not result in noise, odors, vibration, dust, light, or smoke;

2. The outdoor dining area shall be maintained clean, tidy, and free of trash and food materials at all times;

3. The outdoor dining furniture shall be matching, maintained in good working order, free of rust, breaks, tears, etc.;

4. Should outdoor dining areas be enclosed by a fence, landscape planter or other device, the enclosure shall be made of durable and high-quality material, affixed or weighed down, and maintained in a clean and tidy manner free of signs;

5. Outdoor dining furniture shall not contain signs or other advertising materials;

6. Furniture associated with outdoor dining areas shall be locked together or moved indoors when the associated business is closed to avoid theft and nuisance issues;

7. The proposed outdoor dining area complies with all state and local regulations.

All outdoor dining areas shall maintain a minimum sidewalk clearance of 6 feet between any such outdoor eating area and light poles, trees, signposts, newsracks, utility poles, temporary farmers’ market booths, and similar sidewalk obstructions.

8. Live entertainment or music shall be permitted at any outdoor eating area.

9. Alcoholic beverages may be served in an outdoor eating area of an eating establishment provided the business operating the outdoor eating area has obtained an approval authorized by this Specific Plan and the municipal code to serve alcoholic beverages on-site and has obtained and maintains all approvals required by the ABC.

ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR DINING IN THE PUBLIC

RIGHT-OF-WAY
Outdoor dining within the public right-of-way shall meet the following additional standards:

1. Outdoor dining areas within the public right-of-way are subject to City Engineer approval and require a City Encroachment Permit. Outdoor dining areas shall not encroach into the areas near corners of sidewalks or where crosswalks are present. This area shall be defined as a 15 foot area, beginning at the crosswalk or curb cuts.
172
173
174
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 159 Printed 04/17/2026 222
#172
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:43am [Comment ID: 206] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Why do we need to dictate this. Just say the city is not responsible. I can tell you that they are not locking them up today, and that is at their own risk. Nothing the city needs to police.
#173
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 6:11pm [Comment ID: 70] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Confusing. No seating next to trees/light posts or 6 ft clearance to allow pedestrian traffic around the seating area?
#174
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:45am [Comment ID: 207] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Do you mean that you need to get a permit, or that it is just allowed? 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 160 Printed 04/17/2026 223
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-19 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.5.2.2.HOTELS
Hotels are an important component of a thriving downtown and often provide amenities which are available to the general public, including entertainment, restaurants, and meeting rooms.

A development agreement is required for all new hotels in the DTSP. All new hotels in the DTSP must also meet the minimum quality standard of facilities and service equal to the general requirements of an American Automobile Association three (3) diamond rating or higher, as established in the “AAA Hotel Requirements and Diamond Guidelines” and all subsequent amendments thereto, or equivalent rating system.

In addition, the ground floor of hotels shall be designed to enhance the use, mix and level of pedestrian activity in the area for which they are proposed. This can be accomplished with cafes and retail space along the street frontage. All new hotels in the DTSP shall provide features and amenities totaling 10 points, as identified in Table 6.5-3: Hotel Amenities.

Table 6.5-3: Hotel Amenities
Feature or Amenity Points
Hotel with minimum quality standard of facilities and service equal to the general requirements of an AAA four (4) diamond rating or higher* 10 Full-service restaurant, upscale and comparable to a AAA Three Diamond restaurant** 6
Full-service restaurant, comparable to a AAA Two Diamond restaurant**, with breakfast service 5
Full-service restaurant, comparable to a AAA Two Diamond restaurant**, without breakfast service 4
Tavern (bar or lounge), separate from restaurant 3
Separate spa facility open to the public 3
Live entertainment, subject to any required licenses and/or permits, and consistent with Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 17.53. 3 Outdoor pool 3
Publicly accessible open space equivalent to a minimum of 5% the lot area. 3 Additional regulations pertaining to hotels and motels in the Plan Area are included in Chapter 5.44 of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
175
176
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 161 Printed 04/17/2026 224
#175
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 6:36pm [Comment ID: 73] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Does this require a hotel to be enrolled in the AAA Diamond Program or just to follow the AAA Diamond Guidelines?
#176
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:51am [Comment ID: 208] - Link Economic, Massing, Mixed-Use
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
I love having these things, but something may have to give. If we are requiring a max of three stories, they may need to maximize the number of hotel rooms to make a project pencil. Maybe we encourage these, not require them? Reply by John on 04/15/2026 at 1:21pm [Comment ID: 253] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Encourage, but not require would be a great way to advocate for the things we'd like to see while remaining flexible
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 162 Printed 04/17/2026 225
6-20 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.5.2.3. LIVE/WORK UNITS
The DTSP encourages live/work units to promote pedestrian activity by creating additional downtown destinations, promoting entrepreneurial businesses in the downtown, and creating a day-time population to patronize downtown businesses such as restaurants. Live/work units differ from home occupations, where someone works out of their house or apartment, in that a live/work unit has a portion of the unit allocated for living and a separate portion in which to operate a business such as an office, gallery or studio that is accessible to the public like a commercial use. A typical example of a live/work unit includes an office or studio space on the ground floor with a small living space in an upstairs or back portion of the unit.

USES
Permitted uses in Live/Work units include:
• Art studios, graphic design studios, and galleries.
• Professional and administrative offices.
• Business services, such as, but not limited to accounting, bookkeeping, advertising and public relation agencies, commercial photography, word processing, website publishing, travel agencies, and party and event planning. • Financial services, including credit reporting and collection services, escrow services, financial planning and investment services, mortgage brokers and similar uses, but excluding check cashing and payday loan businesses. • Insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents and brokers, title services. • Personal services, including individual and family counseling, group counseling, academic counseling, one-on-one tutoring or other similar services. • Limited retail uses such as art galleries, interior design studios, specialty antiques or collectible dealers, tailor, dressmaker, specialty clothing, jewelry or millinery design studio, and other similar services.
• Beauticians and barbers, limited to one chair.
• Other uses that are determined by the Community Development Director to be similar to the uses listed above.

The following uses are prohibited in Live/Work units:
• Secondary living quarters (designated work space shall not be converted into living quarters).
• Secondary work space (designated living quarters shall not be converted into additional work space).
• Medical offices or practices.
• Food services for on-site consumption.
• Child day care facilities.
• Adult businesses.
• Motor vehicle maintenance or repair.
• Welding and/or machining.
• Dry cleaning.
• Other similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director as prohibited, other than those identified as permitted.
177
178
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 163 Printed 04/17/2026 226
#177
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:53am [Comment ID: 209] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Why one?
#178
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:55am [Comment ID: 210] - Link Compatibility, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Why? If they move out, could they not make it all the business space? I understand not going the other way, as we want to encourage businesses in the district. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 164 Printed 04/17/2026 227
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-21 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

STANDARDS FOR LIVE-WORK UNITS

1. Live-work units are intended to have a residential portion AND a commercial/ retail portion.

2. Each live-work unit shall be a minimum of 900 square feet in size.

3. Live-work units shall have at least one entry/exit that opens to a public sidewalk or pathway accessible to the public.

4. Client and customer visits are permitted.

5. Internal connection between living and working portions of the unit is required.

6. The residential portion shall be a minimum of 400 square feet in size.

7. No more than 40 percent of an individual live-work unit shall be used or arranged for residential purposes such as a sleeping area, kitchen, bathroom, and closet space.

8. Separate kitchen facilities, including a kitchen sink, cooking appliances and refrigerator shall be provided.

9. A separate bathroom/sanitation facilities, including a toilet, lavatory, shower, and/or bathtub shall be provided.

10. A business permit/business license is required.

11. Live-work businesses are subject to limited hours of operation from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm Sunday through Thursday and until 11:00 pm on Friday and Saturday nights.

12. Disabled access shall be provided in compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

NOISE

1. Live/work units shall be constructed so that interior noise levels do not exceed forty-five (45) db(A) CNEL in any habitable room.

2. Commercial uses shall be designed and operated so that neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic or late night activity.

No amplified music shall be audible to neighboring residents.

3. Common walls between residential and nonresidential uses shall be constructed to minimize the transmission of noise and vibration.

EXISTING STRUCTURES

1. A pre-existing structure that is converted to a live/work unit may deviate from the development standards included in this section through the administrative permit (AP) process.

2. Deviations shall be the minimum needed and only permitted when full implementation of the development standard is not feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director.
179
180
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 165 Printed 04/17/2026 228
#179
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 9:56am [Comment ID: 211] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Why this size?
#180
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 7:08pm [Comment ID: 75] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
400/900 = 44.44%
Minimum sizes conflict.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 166 Printed 04/17/2026 229
6-22 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.5.3: Prohibition on Chain Stores on High Street
The purpose of this section is to regulate the location and operation of chain stores in the Plan Area in order to maintain the small town, rural character, and the economic vitality of the city’s commercial center. The city has determined that the preservation of High Street’s unique architecture, streetscape, and other design elements will promote the long-term viability of the historic commercial center.

The city has also determined that preserving a balanced mix of local-, regional-, and national-based businesses as well as small- and medium-sized businesses will maintain and promote the long-term economic vitality of neighborhood and visitorserving businesses and the community as a whole. It is therefore the intention of the city that an over-concentration of chain stores not be allowed. All chain stores are prohibited in the High Street Mixed Use zone unless approved with a conditional use permit, subject to the findings contained in this section. Any chain store approved with a conditional use permit shall create a unique visual appearance that reflects and complements the distinctive historical character of High Street.

RESPONSIBILITY OF CHAIN STORE USE DETERMINATION.

1. Any application in the High Street Mixed Use) zone determined by the city to be a chain store on which the applicant has not identified the use as a chain store is incomplete and cannot be processed until the omission is corrected.

2. Any entitlement approved that is determined by the city to have been, at the time of application, a chain store that did not identify the use as such is subject to revocation in writing at any time.

3. In the event the city determines that a permit application or permit subject to this section is for a chain store, the permit applicant or holder bears the burden of proving to the city that the proposed or existing use does not constitute a chain store.
181
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 167 Printed 04/17/2026 230
#181
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:07am [Comment ID: 212] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Maybe I missed it, but you should add the cities definition of a chain store in here. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 168 Printed 04/17/2026 231
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-23 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) PROCESS

1. Approval of a conditional use permit is required for any chain stores proposed in the High Street Mixed Use zone;

2. The expansion of any existing chain store in the High Street Mixed Use zone shall require a conditional use permit if the chain store does not already have a conditional use permit;

3. The cumulative expansion of a permitted chain store by 500 or more square feet of floor area shall require a modification to the conditional use permit;

4. The chain store shall fully comply with all applicable regulations of the zoning code including adherence to the design guidelines established in the DTSP;

5. In addition to all of the findings required by Section 17.44.040(D) of the MMC, all of the following findings must be made prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit for a chain store:
• The chain store will not result in an over-concentration of chain stores in the High Street Mixed Use zone;
• The chain store will promote variety to assure a balanced mix of commercial uses available to serve both resident and visitor populations; • The chain store will contribute to an appropriate balance of local-, regional-, and national-based business establishments as well as small- and mediumsized business establishments in the zone; and • The proposed use, together with its design and improvement, is compatible with the existing architectural and aesthetic character of High Street and adheres to the design guidelines of the DTSP.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 169 Printed 04/17/2026 232
6-24 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.2: Modulation

6.6.2.1.CORNERS
Sites at prominent street intersections present unique opportunities to enhance the aesthetic quality of a gateway into the downtown by creating signature buildings, architectural features or open spaces. In addition to creating variation in building massing, an enhanced corner can create a sense of place within the public realm by incorporating key design features.

Design Standards
A. For buildings sited at corners, at
least two of the following shall be
provided:

1. Tower element at least 5 feet in
height

2. Diagonal/curved walls at corner

3. Entrance at corner

4. Wraparound balconies

5. Color and material variation from the
primary façade with an area at least of
20 feet by 20 feet.

B. Stepback Exemptions. Required
stepbacks are not required within 50
feet of a corner.

C. Exceptions. Corner requirements shall not apply to parcels under 0.5 acre in size or with a lot width 50 feet or less.

6.6: Design Standards

6.6.1: Introduction
The overarching design goal for the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan is to provide a development framework that maintains the district’s unique setting and character while promoting adaptive design features that integrate well-designed architecture; enhanced, viable public space; and accessible pedestrian and transit linkages.

A1
A3
A2
A4
182
183
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 170 Printed 04/17/2026 233
#182
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:10am [Comment ID: 213] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Since we do not allow 4 sorries, maybe we should show a different photo here? #183
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 7:18pm [Comment ID: 76] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Good call - Thank you
Reply by John on 03/20/2026 at 7:18pm [Comment ID: 77] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Exception = good
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 171 Printed 04/17/2026 234
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-25 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.2: Modulation

6.6.2.2.ROOFLINE ARTICULATION
Modulation of rooflines can add visual interest to the skyline, while reducing the scale of large building masses. Modulation can also minimize the “canyon” effect along streets while creating visual reference points and the appearance of distinct and separate buildings.

Design Standards
A. Projects shall not exceed the height
limits set in Section 6-4.

B. A visible and delineated roofline shall
be created to visually demarcate
where the building silhouette meets
the sky. Projects three stories in
height shall employ one or more of
the following design techniques:

1. Roofline Variation. Variation in roof
height and/or ridgeline of at least 5
feet for every 75 linear feet; or

2. Pitched Roof Variation. Use of
dormers, step downs, mansard,
sawtooth, butterfly, cross-gable,
and/or hipped roof lines; or

3. Unit Type. Use of loft-style units on the uppermost floor with ceilings at least 5 feet taller than the floor below; or

4. Unit Count. Provide up to 75 percent the number of units on the uppermost floor as compared to the floor below, with the effect of creating a smaller building mass on the uppermost floor.

C. Elevator and stair overruns shall not be counted as part of the roofline modulation unless it has been integrated into the overall architectural design, and features the same roofline treatments found on the rest of the structure.

D. Rooftop equipment shall be concealed from the public right-of-way. The point of view for determining visibility shall be 5 feet above grade at a distance of 200 feet.

B1 B3
184
185
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 172 Printed 04/17/2026 235
#184
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 7:21pm [Comment ID: 78] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
We should not require roofline articulation so new buildings can match the historic brick buildings do not have roofline articulation.
#185
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 7:22pm [Comment ID: 79] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
How does an applicant demonstrate compliance with this? 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 173 Printed 04/17/2026 236
6-26 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.2: Modulation

6.6.2.3.FACADE ARTICULATION
Façade articulation can reduce the apparent massing of buildings and create visual interest. Recesses and projections of a building facade, in combination with detailing, articulation, and fenestration pattern, create diversity and visual interest in the horizontal, particularly in its relationship to the pedestrian realm.

Design Standards
A. Major Modulations. A major
modulation in facade depth,
extending from grade to roof, shall
be provided along facades greater
than 150 feet in length. For such
facacdes, a major modulation shall
be provided for each 150 feet of
building frontage. Major modulations
shall be at least 10 feet deep and
25 feet in length. Required minor
modulations may be situated
adjacent to, but not within, a major
modulation, and shall feature a
different depth than the major
modulation.

B. Minor Modulations. A 5-foot change
in facade depth no shorter than 15
feet in length and 10 feet in height shall be provided for every 50 feet of building frontage.

1. The primary façade plane is defined as the vertical plane with the greatest surface area.

2. Façade area used to meet this standard may be recessed behind, or project out from, the primary façade plane and may be in one continuous section or a combination of sections across the façade. Modulation is not required to be continuous or open to the sky.

B1
186
187
188
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 174 Printed 04/17/2026 237
#186
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 7:30pm [Comment ID: 80] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This entire section should be removed. If we had a 50ft wide building like looked like M on High, that would be excellent.
#187
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:32pm [Comment ID: 49] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
facades not facacdes
#188
Posted by Jackson Piper on 04/13/2026 at 7:54pm [Comment ID: 157] - Link Development Standards, Economic, Home
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Unnecessary facade articulation can add to the construction cost. It might be better to allow for varied decorative elements that don't change the shape of buildings that much, or in the case of all-affordable or mostly affordable projects where the goal is minimizing construction cost to deliver lower cost housing, to waive these requirements altogether.

Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:13am [Comment ID: 214] - Link Economic, Home, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I don't think affordable housing is the goal for all these areas. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 175 Printed 04/17/2026 238
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-27 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.2: Modulation

6.6.2.4.LOBBIES & ENTRIES
Lobbies and entries provide visual clues to building entrances and create landmarks for pedestrians. They offer a unique means to create visual interest and modulation in a building facade.

Design Standards
A. Aesthetic Features. Exterior building
lobbies shall incorporate at least two
of the following aesthetic features:

1. Design element such as a
canopy, marquee, or building
identification sign that creates
visual prominence.

2. A material application that
creates continuity with the overall
building design but also creates a
distinct and identifiable aesthetic
quality.

3. A recess or projection to delineate
the building lobby from the
balance of the facade.

4. Paving materials incorporated to
differentiate the primary entrance
path that is distinct and unique from the adjacent paving materials. Paving materials may extend into the public right-of-way to the curb.

B. Access. For commercial uses, a building’s primary entrance, defined as the entrance which provides the most direct access to the building’s lobby, shall be located on a public street or a public open space that is visible and connected to a public street.

A2 A4 A3 A1
B
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 176 Printed 04/17/2026 239
6-28 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.2: Modulation

6.6.2.5.STEPBACKS
Stepbacks are upper levels of a building set back behind the primary facade before the total height of the building is achieved. Building stepbacks at upper levels allow for multiple roofline profiles, lessening the imposing appearance of building massing from the public right-of way.

Design Standards
A. Measurement. Street stepbacks are
measured from the primary facade
plane.

B. Depth. A minimum 5 foot stepback
for the third story of a structure shall
be applied to the following:

1. Along primary street frontage.

2. Along property lines that are
adjacent to non-mixed use
residential designated zoned
properties.

C. Allowable Uses. Uses allowed within
the stepback include:

1. Private Open Space

2. Outdoor Common Open Spaces

3. Green roofs and photovoltaic panels
D. Exceptions.

1. Stepback requirements shall not apply to parcels under 0.5 acre in size or with a lot width 50 feet or less.

2. Corner Elements (see Section 6.6.2.1) are allowed to interrupt required stepbacks.

B
A variety of open space and public realm amenities contribute to a dynamic and healthy environment for residents and visitors of downtown. This section provides options to meet open space requirements set forth in Section 6.4. Any combination of these open space and public realm options may utilized to satisfy open space requirements, so long as they meet the standards set forth in this section. Open Space and Public Realm options include:
• Publicly Accessible Open Space (Section 6.6.3.1)
• Private Open Space/Balconies (Section 6.6.3.2)
• Outdoor Common Spaces (Section 6.6.3.3)
• Indoor Common Spaces (Section 6.6.3.4)
• Pedestrian Passages (Section 6.6.3.5)

6.6.3: Open Space and Public Realm
189
190
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 177 Printed 04/17/2026 240
#189
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 7:38pm [Comment ID: 81] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This is inconsistent with historic down town high street. Historic brick buildings do not have step backs
#190
Posted by John on 03/20/2026 at 7:38pm [Comment ID: 82] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Stepback architecture is inconsistent with historic high st 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 178 Printed 04/17/2026 241
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-29 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Applicability
New mixed-use and/or commercial
projects over 50 units and/or 50,000
square feet are required to provide
publicly accessible open space. Publicly
accessible open space shall be equal to
10 percent of the overall development
parcel(s), inclusive of any easements,
but not including any dedications.

Design Standards
A. Dimensions. A minimum area of
400 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 20 feet in each
direction is required to qualify as
publicly accessible open space.

B. Access. A maximum of 60 percent
of the publicly accessible open space may be used as outdoor dining for a restaurant; a minimum of 40 percent of the publicly accessible open space shall be accessible to the general public.

C. At Grade. At least 60 percent of publicly accessible open space shall be at the level of an adjacent sidewalk.

D. Open to Sky. At least 60 percent of the open space must be open to the sky.

E. Hardscape. Decorative paving shall be applied, and no more than 25 percent of the open space shall be paved in standard concrete.

F. Seating. Seating shall be provided at a minimum of 1 seat per 300 square feet of required publicly accessible open space. Fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number; fractions at 0.5 shall be rounded up. Benches shall be calculated at 1 seat per 24 linear inches.

G. Landscape. A minimum of 25 percent of publicly accessible open space shall be planted area with a minimum dimension of 30 inches in length, width, and depth.

H. Trees. A minimum of one 24-inch box tree shall be planted per project or for every 750 square feet of publicly accessible open space, whichever is greater.

For projects with 2 or more trees, a minimum 50 percent of trees planted shall be shade trees.

6.6.3: Open Space and Public Realm

6.6.3.1.PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE
Open space in an urban environment is essential to quality of life and to offer respite from the urban environment. Courtyards, plazas, and paseos create opportunities for gathering, events, and social engagement and encourage a vibrant street life. A robust network of open space integrated with the public rights-of-way and other parks offers a variety of spaces to satisfy the needs and interests of a diverse urban population.

H
E
C
G
D
191
192
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 179 Printed 04/17/2026 242
#191
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 11:25am [Comment ID: 83] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
32/ac = most dense
50 units = 1.56 acre
10% of that would be 6800 sqft of required open space
High St Depot Village Green is ~5% of their lot area
Reply by John on 03/21/2026 at 11:33am [Comment ID: 85] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
10% seems high
#192
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 11:40am [Comment ID: 86] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
NOTE: This is not consistent with existing downtown project. For example, this rule would require 8 trees in the village green which currently have 0 onsite trees and 4 sidewalk trees.

The village green acts as an excellent spot for the community to host events and gathering activities (i.e. Holiday On High Street Christmas Tree). Forcing trees in that space would hurt the ability for a developer to meet the actual needs of the community
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 180 Printed 04/17/2026 243
6-30 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Design Standards
A. Dimensions. Private open space shall
have a minimum area of 40 square
feet with a minimum dimension of 5
feet in each direction.

B. Location. Private open space, if
provided, shall be outdoors.

C. Private open space, including
balconies, may be within a required
setback up to the property line.

No balconies shall overhang into
the public right-of-way or cross a
property line.

D. Balconies.

1. Materials of all balcony
components, including floors and
railings, shall be aesthetically compatible with the overall building design.

2. Balconies may qualify as private open space.

E. Ground-Floor Space. Porches (see Section 6.6.4.5) and Stoops/Dooryards (see Section 6.6.4.7) may qualify as private open space.

6.6.3: Open Space and Public Realm

6.6.3.2.PRIVATE OPEN SPACE/BALCONIES
Private open space creates opportunities for residents to enjoy the outdoors without needing to leave their individual dwelling unit. Unlike common spaces, private open spaces enable residents to personalize their experience with the outside world.

Private open spaces may include balconies, terraces, patios, porches and stoops, and may overlook the street, sideyards and internal courtyards.

B D A C
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 181 Printed 04/17/2026 244
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-31 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Design Standards
A. Dimensions. Outdoor common
open space, if provided, shall have
a minimum area of 400 square feet
with a minimum dimension of 15
feet in each direction.

B. Distribution. A minimum of 70
percent of common open space
shall be outdoors and open to the
sky.

C. Landscape. A minimum of 25
percent of common open space
shall be planted area with a
minimum dimension of 30 inches in
length, width, and depth.

D. Trees. A minimum of one 24-inch
box tree per project or for every
500 square feet of outdoor common open space, whichever is greater, shall be planted in the common open space. For projects with two or more trees, a minimum of 50 percent of trees planted shall be shade trees.

E. Hardscape. A maximum of 25 percent of common open space may be paved in standard concrete. Remaining areas shall use one of the following enhanced paving techniques: brick, natural stone, unit concrete pavers, textured and colored concrete, concrete with exposed or special aggregate.

6.6.3: Open Space and Public Realm

6.6.3.3.OUTDOOR COMMON SPACES
Outdoor common spaces provide recreational and relaxation opportunities for residents, employees or customers. Outdoor common spaces may include a wide range of amenities, such as swimming pools, dog runs, outdoor kitchens and barbecues, fire pits, lounge furniture and landscaping.

A B2 E B1 D C
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 182 Printed 04/17/2026 245
6-32 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Design Standards
A. Area. 30 percent of the required
common open space may be
indoors, up to a maximum of 3,000
square feet. Indoor common open
space shall not include spaces used
primarily for circulation.

B. Dimensions. A minimum area of
400 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 15 feet in each
direction is required to qualify as
indoor common open space.

C. Floor to Ceiling height. Indoor
common spaces shall have a
minimum floor to ceiling height of
10 feet.

D. Glazing. At least one wall of the indoor common space shall be a transparent building exterior.

6.6.3: Open Space and Public Realm

6.6.3.4.INDOOR COMMON SPACES
Indoor common spaces provide additional opportunities for recreation and gathering. Indoor common spaces also provide an escape from unfavorable weather conditions. Common spaces that are indoors may include a gym, recreation rooms, pool, and common living rooms.

D
C
B
193
194
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 183 Printed 04/17/2026 246
#193
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 11:45am [Comment ID: 87] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This means a project is more expensive and less likely to be financially viable if it chooses to provide a benefit to their residents. Let architects be architects who design cohesive experiences for residents and guests.
#194
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 11:47am [Comment ID: 88] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This limits the ability of interior conferences rooms or theater rooms from qualifying as common space.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 184 Printed 04/17/2026 247
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-33 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Design Standards
A. Accessibility. Pedestrian passages
shall be physically and visually
accessible from the public sidewalk
and must connect a public street
with a different public street, alley,
or adjacent pedestrian passage.

Vehicular access, loading, and
parking uses shall be prohibited
within a pedestrian passage.

B. Elevation. Pedestrian passages must
be ADA accessible and no more than
36 inches higher than the public
sidewalk. Security fences, walls, or
entry gates shall not block passage if
the paseo is publicly accessible.

C. Height. Trellises, decks, balconies,
light fixtures, decorations, and sunshades extending from a building and projecting into a pedestrian passage may project a maximum of 5 feet and must provide a minimum height clearance of 10 feet.

6.6.3: Open Space and Public Realm

6.6.3.5.PEDESTRIAN PASSAGES
Pedestrian passages are meant to provide an alternate path of travel for pedestrians in the Plan Area. Pedestrian passages may be utilized to provide connections across blocks, and between multiple lots. Pedestrian passages are distinct from pedestrian walkways, which are primarily meant to link different areas of a single site. If provided, pedestrian passages are to be open to the public 24/7 and act as an extension of the public sidewalk.

A B
C
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 185 Printed 04/17/2026 248
6-34 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.4: Frontage Types

6.6.4.1.GENERAL FRONTAGE STANDARDS
Downtown’s image and comfort is largely determined by proportions of the different streets, as defined by building facades and frontages, setbacks, parkways, and the public right of- way configuration. Collectively, these shape the pedestrian experience by creating a sense of enclosure and well-defined pedestrian zones.

The street and setback dimensions directly affect the quality of the pedestrian experience. Frontage standards help ensure that new developments are consistent with the City’s goals for building form, public realm, character, and quality within the Plan Area. All building frontages along in the Plan Area shall adhere to the standards outlines in Table 6.6-1.

Notes

1. Up to 15% of frontage may deviate frontage facade length requirements in order to provide public open space designed according to Section 6.6.3.1. Publicly Accessible Open Space

2. New public or private streets that may be added to the existing street grid are not subject to the setback and frontage standards.

Table 6.6-1: Permitted Frontage Types
R-1 R-2 R-3 Moorpark
Ave
High
Street
Transit
Adjacent Institutional Civic Center
% of Facade Length
required to be a defined
frontage type
40 60 60 70 80 70 60 80
Arcades X X X
Forecourt X X X X X
Porch/Yard X X X X X X X
Storefront X X X X
Stoop/Door Yard X X X X X X
Urban Porch/Terrace X X X X
Exceptions
New development may be exempt from frontage requirements if the primary frontage width is less than 60 feet.

6.6.4.2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Transparency

1. New façades that face the street or publicly accessible space are required to provide a minimum of 75% transparency along the frontage.

2. No dark-tinted or opaque glazing that results in less than 88% light transmission is permitted for wall opening (i.e., doors and windows) along the street level.

Mirrored or applied films that create mirrored windows and curtain walls are prohibited.

B. Ground Floor Commercial. On lots abutting High Street, ground floor commercial uses, such as retail, restaurants, or offices, are required to compose 10% or 1,500 gross square feet of the of ground floor per project site, whichever is less. 195
196
197
198
199 200
201
202
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 186 Printed 04/17/2026 249
#195
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 11:52am [Comment ID: 89] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Potential Inconsistency:

This is defined as 75-100% in Section 6.4.1.f
Publicly Accessible Open requirements could conflict (6.6.3.1 & 6.6.3.3) #196
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:47am [Comment ID: 215] - Link Compatibility, Mixed-Use, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Wouldn't this be like the village green? If another business wanted to do something like that what is the issue?
#197
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:48am [Comment ID: 216] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I know there are some legacy of these that exist, but I don't think this is constant with what we want on High Street.
#198
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:50am [Comment ID: 217] - Link Development Standards, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
If there are no setbacks on Moorpark Ave, then you will not get the trees you wanted in this plan.
#199
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:51am [Comment ID: 218] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Why not?
#200
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:54am [Comment ID: 219] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Maybe I am not understanding this. I think a visual of these would be helpful. I think some of these could be allowed, but my google image might be misleading me.

Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:58am [Comment ID: 224] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I guess I needed to get to the next page! Sorry.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 187 Printed 04/17/2026 250
#201
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 11:58am [Comment ID: 90] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
What about for live/work lofts or ground floor homes?
Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:54am [Comment ID: 221] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
No ground floor homes would fix that!
Reply by John on 04/15/2026 at 1:18pm [Comment ID: 251] - Link Compatibility, Home, Massing
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
North of High Street are all single story single family. 3 Story row homes would be epic there tho!
#202
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:00pm [Comment ID: 91] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Is there an exemption for 100% housing or small lots?
Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 10:55am [Comment ID: 222] - Link Compatibility, Land Use, Mixed-Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: -3
There should be no 100% housing on High Street
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 188 Printed 04/17/2026 251
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-35 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

DOROTHY AVE

RUTH AVE
2ND ST

FLINN AVE MINOR ST

SARAH AVE

SUSAN AVE

ROBERTS AVE

ESTHER AVE

SHERMAN AVE

WILLARD ST

HARRY ST

SPRING RD

SPRING RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD
WALNUT
CANYON
RD

MOORPARK AVE

WALNUT ST

BARD ST

MAGNOLIA ST

HIGH ST

POINDEXTER AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE
3RD ST
2ND ST
1ST ST

EVERETT ST

CASEY RD VALLEY RD

CHARLES ST

CHARLES
ST

CHARLES
ST
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
Metrolink Ventura County Line
Downtown Specific Plan Districts
High Street Mixed Use
Moorpark Avenue Mixed Use
Transit Adjacent
R-1
R-2
R-3
Institutional
Civic Center District
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 189 Printed 04/17/2026 252
6-36 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Design Standards
A. General.

1. Arcades shall be located entirely
on private property, but shall
be designed to function as an
extension of the public sidewalk.

2. Arcades shall be covered with a
roof, trellis, or ceiling.

3. The design of an arcade shall be
consistent along its entire length
and shall be integrated into the
design of the building as a whole.

4. Storefronts along the arcade
shall comply with all applicable
storefront design standards.

B. Depth. Arcades shall be accessible
to pedestrians and have a minimum
depth of 8 feet, and shall not be deeper than tall.

C. Height. The minimum interior height of an arcade shall be 10 feet above the finished grade. Arcades shall be no more than 2 stories high, or a maximum of 25 feet.

D. Length. Arcades shall be a minimum of 2 bays in length.

6.6.4: Frontage Types

6.6.4.3.ARCADES
Arcades are facades with a ground-floor colonnade that supports the upper stories of the building or, for one-story buildings, the roof. Arcades contain ground-floor shopfronts, making them ideal for retail or restaurant use, because the arcade shelters pedestrians from the sun and rain. Arcades function as an extension of the public sidewalk and are encouraged on the sunny sides of designated pedestrianoriented streets.

C
B
A2
A4
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 190 Printed 04/17/2026 253
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-37 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.4: Frontage Types

6.6.4.4. FORECOURT
The forecourt is a frontage type where a portion of the building façade is set back to allow for large private gardens, bio-retention areas, open spaces, or similar. A fence or wall at the property line may be used to further define the private space of of the forecourt versus the public sidewalk.

Design Standards
A. Applicability. At least two sides
of a forecourt shall be formed by
structures on the same lot as the
forecourt.

B. Access. The forecourt shall
provide access to at least two units
(nonresidential or residential).

C. Depth. Forecourts shall not be deeper
than 50 feet as measured from the
property line.

D. Finished Grade. The finished grade of
a forecourt shall not be greater than 3
feet above the sidewalk grade.

C
D
B
A
203
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 191 Printed 04/17/2026 254
#203
Posted by Broccoli Eater on 03/20/2026 at 2:35pm [Comment ID: 51] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
of of
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 192 Printed 04/17/2026 255
6-38 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Design Standards
A. Slopes. On sloping sites, front yards
may be raised above the level of the
adjacent sidewalk and supported by
a low retaining wall no higher than
2 feet at the property line with steps
or a ramp providing access between
the sidewalk and the yard.

B. Screening. The porch shall not be
screened or glazed and shall be no
less than 5 feet deep.

C. Encroachment. Porches may be
provided on buildings that are
set back from the primary and/or
side-street property lines and may
encroach up to 5 feet into the front
yard setback.

6.6.4: Frontage Types

6.6.4.5.PORCH/YARD
The porch is roofed, unenclosed room attached to the exterior of a building that provides a physical transition between the sidewalk and the building. Porch frontages are typically attached to residential structures. The front yard comprises the area between the building facade and the property line. Front yards may be visually continuous with adjacent yards with a common landscape, or enclosed by a low fence, wall, or hedge.

C
A
B
204
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 193 Printed 04/17/2026 256
#204
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:06pm [Comment ID: 92] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Would love to see front and side setbacks removed from the downtown zone so we can enable row homes or neighborhood porches
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 194 Printed 04/17/2026 257
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-39 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.4: Frontage Types

6.6.4.6. STOREFRONT
Storefronts are one of the most important features of an active urban environment because they generate activity and transparency between the pedestrian realm and businesses while creating a memorable experience. Storefronts consist of a large opening in a building facade that is enclosed with large transparent windows and doors that provide direct, at-grade access to ground-floor commercial/retail uses.

Design Standards
A. Architectural Features. The basic
required architectural elements of
storefronts include large windows
and doors with glass. Optional
elements include awnings, canopies,
signage, lighting, and cornices.

B. Minimum Transparency. All facades
that include storefronts shall
provide a minimum of 75 percent
transparency, including access and
structural supports.

C. Maximum Glass Tint. Storefront
glass shall be clear without reflective
coating or dark tinting. Lightly tinted
glazing less than 15%, low emissivity,
solar) is acceptable.

D. Minimum Height. All non-residential storefronts shall have a minimum floor-toceiling height of 10 feet.

E. Recess. Storefronts and entrances shall be recessed at least 18 inches from the building facade to create depth and contrast.

F. Treatments. All storefronts shall include at least two of the following features:

1. Marquee (horizontal or vertical)

2. Columns

3. Cornices

4. Transom windows

5. Ornamental light fixtures

6. Blade signs

7. Awnings or canopies (no higher than 12 feet above grade) F2
F5
F4
D
F3
A B C
G
205
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 195 Printed 04/17/2026 258
#205
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:08pm [Comment ID: 93] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Potentially inconsistent with section 6.6.4.2.A.2
less than 88% light vs less than 15% tint
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 196 Printed 04/17/2026 259
6-40 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.4: Frontage Types

6.6.4.7. STOOP / DOOR YARD
A stoop is a stair and landing leading directly from the sidewalk to a building entrance. The ground floor of the building is typically raised to provide increased privacy for the rooms facing the public street. Raised stoops are ideal frontage types for ground-floor housing that is near the street.

Design Standards
A. Access. Stoops shall correspond
directly to the building entry(s) they
provide access to.

B. Elevation. Stoops shall be elevated a
maximum of 5 feet above grade or
sidewalk.

C. Size. Stoop porches, not including
stairs, shall at least 4 feet wide and be
a minimum of 12 square feet.

D. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be
placed on the sides of the stoop,
either at grade or in raised planters.

Planter or stoop walls parallel to the
sidewalk and taller than 18 inches
shall have an irrigated, 18-inch
planting bed at their base.

E. Repetition. Stoops shall exist in “modules” no greater than 30 feet before another stoop frontage or different frontage type is employed.

B
D
E
A
206
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 197 Printed 04/17/2026 260
#206
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:11pm [Comment ID: 94] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
We need to eliminate front & side setbacks to enable rowhomes like this 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 198 Printed 04/17/2026 261
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-41 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.4: Frontage Types

6.6.4.8. URBAN PORCH / TERRACE
Urban porches and terraces is a frontage type defined by raised frontages, so the eye of the sitter is approximately at level with a walking passerby. This type is suitable for a variety of uses, such as restaurants, hotels, residential and institutional uses.

Design Standards
A. Size. Urban porches and terraces
shall be at least 25 feet in length and
12 feet in depth.

B. Elevation. The raised area shall be
between 1 to 5 feet in height as
measured from the sidewalk grade.

C. Encroachment. Urban porches and
terraces may extend to the property
line.

B
A
C
207
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 199 Printed 04/17/2026 262
#207
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:13pm [Comment ID: 95] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
why set a minimum? Below 1ft it's just a patio?
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 200 Printed 04/17/2026 263
6-42 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.5.1. MATERIALS
A variety of high-quality materials are encouraged to be utilized by new developments in the Plan Area. All new developments in the Plan Area shall adhere to materials listed in Table 6.6-1, for their roofs, building walls, and freestanding walls. The Director may approve materials not listed in Table 6.6-1 that they deem compatible with the intent of this section.

Table 6.6-1: Materials
Permitted Materials Prohibited Materials
Roofs
• Clay, slate, or concrete roof tiles
• Composite shingles
• Standing seam or corrugated metal
if not highly reflective
• Corrugated fiberglass
• Highly reflective materials
• Brightly colored glazed roof tiles
Building Walls
• Brick
• Stone
• Horizontal, vertical, or shingle
cementitious or wood siding
• High quality finish stucco
• Combinations of these materials
• Ceramic tile
• Vinyl siding
• Reflective or dark glass
• Thin synthetic brick
• Corrugated fiberglass
Freestanding Walls /
Fences
• Finished wood fencing
• Stucco over CMU block
• Wrought iron
• Brick
• Agricultural wire fence
• Chain link
• Non durable materials (e.g.
unfinished plywood)

1. Materials should reflect quality and accuracy with the architectural style of the building.

2. Transitions in materials should occur at perpendicular surfaces, offset in depth appropriate for the material.

3. Walls facing the street with siding or stucco finish shall have a water table of 24” minimum of brick or stone

6.6.5: Materials & Colors

6.6.5.2.COLORS
Buildings shall feature at least one primary color, to be utilized on a building’s facades, as well as at least one accent color, to be utilized on trim and other architectural details, in addition to roof color (assuming a pitched and visible roof). Individual buildings may feature a maximum of three primary colors and four accent colors, in addition to roof color. Development proposals composed of more than one building may exceed this limitation. Buildings may utilize different materials (e.g. red bricks and white stucco) to achieve a multichromatic effect.
208
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 201 Printed 04/17/2026 264
#208
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 11:22am [Comment ID: 228] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I think we should add White Vinyl Fencing to the allowable materials. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 202 Printed 04/17/2026 265
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-43 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.6: Walls, Fences, & Utilities

6.6.6.1.WALLS AND FENCES
Walls and fences should be used to reinforce the architectural styles of the buildings they are associated with, and shall be composed of the materials listed in Table 6.6-1.

A. The design of walls and fences, as well as the materials and colors used, shall match the colors and materials of the overall development.

B. Concrete capstones shall be used on stucco walls to help prevent water damage from rainfall and moisture.

6.6.6.2.UTILITIES
Utilities, while an integral part of modern buildings, shall be screened from view to minimize their overall visual impact on development.

A. No utilities shall protrude into the public right-of-way, including the portion dedicated as sidewalk.

B. Ground-mounted utility equipment shall be screened from the public view through at least one of the following standards:

1. Landscaping; or

2. Exterior architectural features or enclosures that utilize the same materials and colors that are a minimum of 3 feet in height; or

3. Fences that use the materials found in Table 6.6-1.

C. Rooftop elements, including roof access, mechanical equipment, air conditioning units, and other features needed for the function of the building, shall be entirely screened from the public view by meeting the following requirements. Mechanical equipment less than 2 feet in height, solar panels, wind generators, or green roof features are exempt from these requirements.

1. Roof-mounted equipment and screening of roofmounted
equipment shall be stepped back from top of parapet a minimum of 10 feet from the parapet or roof edge.

2. Roof-mounted equipment greater in height than the parapet wall shall be screened to a height equal to the height of the equipment

3. Screening materials shall match the building materials. 209
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 203 Printed 04/17/2026 266
#209
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:17pm [Comment ID: 96] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Potential inconsistency / Duplicate requirement via sec 6.6.2.2.D 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 204 Printed 04/17/2026 267
6-44 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.7: Parking Design Standards

6.6.7.1.SURFACE LOTS
Surface lots are paved areas that allow for the parking of vehicles. In Downtown Moorpark, surface lots will smaller in scale, and may be replaced by other parking types.

A. Parking Lot Frontage. Where parking lots occur along streets, a landscaped buffer shall be provided to minimize the view of parked cars from the street and shall be permanently maintained.

1. The landscaped buffer shall be at least 5 feet wide, measured from the property line adjoining the parking lot.

2. Within the landscaped buffer, trees shall be planted a minimum of 40 feet oncenter and within 15 feet of the property line.

3. The landscaped edge shall include a screening feature with a minimum height of 32 inches and a maximum height of 42 inches, such as a short wall, fence, hedge, or equivalent feature along the property line. Absent this feature, plant materials shall be of sufficient quantity and of a species to meet the minimum screening height requirement. The screening and landscape features shall not impact visibility at the driveway and corner locations.

B. Parking Lots Adjacent to Residential Lots. Where parking lots are located adjacent to single-family residential or duplex properties, a landscaped buffer at least 10 feet wide is required along rear and side property lines to screen parking lots from views from the adjacent residential lots.

C. Parking Lot Pathways. All surface parking lots shall contain at least one ADAaccessible paved pedestrian pathway that connects the parking area to the entryway of the primary building or the public sidewalk.

D. Wheel Stops. Continuous six-inch concrete curbs shall be provided as wheel stops where parking adjoins landscaping.
210
211
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 205 Printed 04/17/2026 268
#210
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:22pm [Comment ID: 97] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Firecode section D105.2 requires 15ft driveways, This means you can't have a properly-line driveway. Is that intended?
#211
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:25pm [Comment ID: 98] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Shouldn't we encourage as much off-street parking as possible? Making it harder to fit more cars seems like it would be more harmful to residential neighbors Reply by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 11:30am [Comment ID: 230] - Link Compatibility, Land Use, Open-space
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Maybe screening with landscaping? 10 feet is a lot to loose from a parking lot. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 206 Printed 04/17/2026 269
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-45 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.7: Parking Design Standards

6.6.7.2.PARKING STRUCTURES
Parking structures may be individual buildings, or may serve as a podium for other uses above, typically residential units.

A. Ramps within a parking structure must be screened by spandrels or architectural treatments that create a level appearance from the exterior.

B. Pedestrian and vehicular entrances must be distinctly marked with signage and differentiated by color or material treatment that contrasts with the primary façade.

C. The parking structure must provide design details to reduce a monolithic appearance for all street-facing façades. This must include, at minimum, two of the following methods:

1. Façades incorporating alternating projections and recesses, at least 2 feet in depth and 2 feet in length, applied every 80 feet horizontally, or for every level above the ground level.

2. Vehicular and pedestrian entrances utilizing the architectural elements of the adjacent buildings served by the parking structure.

3. Elevators and covered stairwells which project at least 5 feet from the edge of the ground level of the parking structure.

4. Active uses on the ground floor or floors above the structure, such as commercial, office, or residential uses

5. Setting back upper floors of the parking structure, if active uses are provided on the ground level, by a minimum of 5 feet.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 207 Printed 04/17/2026 270
6-46 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.7.3.AUTO COURTS
Auto Courts provide vehicular access to multiple residences via a common driveway fronted with garages. Front doors to residences are not permitted on auto courts.

A. Auto courts shall not exceed 150 feet in length and shall have a minimum width of 26 feet.

B. Primary pedestrian entrances are not permitted on auto courts C. Auto courts shall have no through street access.

6.6.7.4.COMMON COURTS
Common courts provide both vehicular and pedestrian access to multiple residences.

Front doors to residences and garages open to common courts.

A. Common courts shall not exceed 150 feet in length and shall have a minimum width of 26 feet.

B. Common courts shall feature enhanced paving, such as patterned and/or colored pavers, brick, decorative colored concrete, stamped concrete, or permeable materials.

C. A minimum of 5 percent of the common court shall be landscaped.

6.6.7.5.CARPORTS
Carports are covered parking spots in a shared format, typically utilized by multifamily residential complexes.

A. Carport structures shall utilize the same colors, architectural finishes, and roofing materials as the main building(s) in the project.

B. Flat aluminum carport structures are prohibited.

C. Carports shall meet setback and building separation requirements.

6.6.7: Parking Design Standards
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 208 Printed 04/17/2026 271
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-47 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.6.7.6.TUCK UNDER PARKING
Tuck-under parking are covered parking spots utilized on parcels with grade changes, allowing shared parking areas to be sited underneath their associated structures.

A. If tuck-under parking is provided, the first floor of the residential units shall not be more than 5 feet above the finished street/sidewalk grade level.

B. Tuck-under parking shall not be visible from the street.

6.6.7.7.GARAGES, INDIVIDUAL
Individual parking garages are typically associated with single-family homes, and may either be attached or detached to the primary residential building.

A. Width. Garage doors may occupy no more than 40 percent of a building’s street frontage and shall be recessed a minimum of 18 inches from a street-facing wall plane.

B. Depth. All garages facing a public street shall be set back at least 20 feet from the property line.

C. Alleys. Alley or lane accessed parking and/or garages shall be set back from the paved travel way a sufficient distance to accommodate the turning radius of a typical vehicle as established by the city engineer.

D. Side-Loading. For single-family detached dwelling units on corner lots, sideloaded garages shall be on the interior side rather than the corner side of lots, except when garages are located at the rear of corner lots. In these cases, a garage may be located on the corner side if set back at least five feet behind the corner side street façade of the dwelling and features a minimum driveway length of 20 feet.

E. Articulation. Street-facing garage doors serving individual units that are attached to the structure must incorporate two or more of the following so that the garage doors are visually subservient and complementary to other building elements:

1. Enhanced materials, such as faux wood or opaque glass.

2. Decorative features on garage doors composed of steel or aluminum.

3. Garage door windows or architectural detailing consistent with the main dwelling.

4. Arbor or other similar projecting feature above the garage doors.

6.6.7: Parking Design Standards
212 213
214 215
216
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 209 Printed 04/17/2026 272
#212
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:31pm [Comment ID: 100] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This seems odd and inconsistent with other home who's garage is allowed to be visible. We should encourage creative ways to add more parking in the downtown specific plan.
#213
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:30pm [Comment ID: 99] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would be nice to allow rowhomes with a tandem tuck under parking, but this not being visible from the street seems odd. Everyone else's garage is visible from the street.
#214
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:34pm [Comment ID: 101] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
To enable rowhomes we must eliminate front setbacks
#215
Posted by Roseann Mikos on 04/15/2026 at 2:47pm [Comment ID: 262] - Link Development Standards, Home, Land Use
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This comment and many like it by the same person throughout the plan reference row homes and how to allow them. Does this plan allow (or not allow) row homes? Explain why or why not and the rationales used when making that decision. I am just trying to understand and am not even sure what I think about it (yet). #216
Posted by John on 03/21/2026 at 12:35pm [Comment ID: 102] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Potential Inconsistency, Should remove 6.6.7.6.B requirement if you have this requirement in 6.6.7.7.E
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 210 Printed 04/17/2026 273
6-48 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE

6.7: Definitions
Abut / Abutting - To physically touch, border upon, or share a common property line; lots touching only at corners are not considered abutting. “Adjoining” and “contiguous” have the same meaning. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Access- A location or route that provides safe and adequate pedestrian or vehicular ingress and egress to a property or use. (MMC § 17.08.010) Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - A residential dwelling unit providing complete independent living facilities and located on the same lot as a primary residence, consistent with state law. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Junior (JADU) - A residential unit not exceeding 500 square feet located entirely within a single-family residence and meeting state law requirements. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Accessory Structure - A detached structure subordinate and incidental to the principal building or use on the same lot, excluding accessory dwelling units. (MMC§

17.08.010)
Accessory Use - A use that is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of land or buildings on the same lot. (MMC§ 17.08.010)
Active Frontage - A building frontage designed to encourage pedestrian activity through entrances, windows, and active ground-floor uses oriented toward the public realm.

Activity Node - A designated location of concentrated development intensity and pedestrian activity, often near major intersections or transit. (MMC § 17.08.010) Activity Space - An outdoor gathering or dining area allowed to deviate from frontage requirements to support pedestrian-oriented uses. (MMC § 17.08.010) Agriculture - The cultivation of crops and raising of animals for food, fiber, fuel, or ornamental purposes. (MMC§ 17.08.010)
Alcohol / Alcoholic Beverage / Alcoholic Beverage Sales - Ethyl alcohol and beverages containing alcohol, including their retail sale for on-site or off-site consumption. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Alley - A secondary access way not exceeding 30 feet in width. (MMC § 17.08.010) Amusement and Recreational Facilities - Facilities primarily designed for recreational activities, including entertainment venues and similar uses. (MMC§

17.08.010)
Animal Boarding - Commercial facilities providing temporary or long-term housing of animals.

Animal Shelter or Rescue - A facility operated by a public agency or nonprofit for temporary or permanent care of animals. (MMC § 17.08.010) Architectural Expression - The overall visual character of a building conveyed through form, materials, and design elements.

Arcade - A commercial amusement establishment containing multiple electronic or mechanical gaming devices. (MMC § 17.08.010) Alternatively, a covered pedestrian walkway located at the ground floor of a building and open to the street or public space, typically formed by a series of columns or arches that support upper floors while providing weather-protected circulation.

Articulation - Variation in building form, massing, depth, or façade elements used to break up large building surfaces and create visual interest, pedestrian scale, and architectural rhythm along a frontage.

Auto Court - A small vehicular circulation and parking area located within a development and generally accessed from a driveway or alley, often serving residential units or small commercial uses and designed to minimize visual dominance from the street.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 211 Printed 04/17/2026 274
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-49 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Banquet or Event Facility - A facility used for gatherings such as meetings, weddings, or catered events. (MMC§ 17.08.010)
Bed and Breakfast Inn - A dwelling with resident operators offering a limited number of rooms and meals to overnight guests. (MMC § 17.08.010) Bicycle Infrastructure - Facilities that support bicycle travel, including lanes, parking, and paths.

Boarding House - A dwelling where multiple rooms are rented under separate agreements.

Build-to Line - A required building placement line along a street frontage.

Building - Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals, chattel or property of any kind. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Building Envelope - The three-dimensional space within which a building must be constructed.

Building Height - The vertical distance from grade to the highest permitted point of a structure.

Business Services - Professional or administrative service uses such as data processing, drafting, or employment agencies. (MMC § 17.08.010) Caretaker - An on-site employee responsible for security or maintenance without a possessory property interest. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Character Area (District) - A defined subarea with distinct design and development expectations.

Chain Store - A retail establishment sharing standardized branding or operational features with multiple locations. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Common Court - A shared open space or courtyard within a development that provides access, light, air, and gathering space for multiple units or uses, and may accommodate pedestrian circulation, landscaping, or limited parking depending on design.

Communications Facilities - Structures used for transmitting or receiving electronic communications. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Community Care Facility - A licensed residential facility providing nonmedical care services. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Community Center - A noncommercial meeting space for cultural, recreational, or social activities. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Complete Street - A street designed for safe use by pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and vehicles.

Conference / Convention Center - A facility designed for large assemblies, meetings, or events. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Day Care Facility / Educational Day Care - Licensed facilities providing supervision or structured activities for children. (MMC § 17.08.010) Density - The number of residential units permitted per specified land area.

Development Project - Any activity which requires approval by the city resulting in the issuance of grading, building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical permits, or certificates of occupancy to construct or change the use of a building, or property for residential, commercial, mixed, and/or industrial use. (MMC § 17.08.010) Dwelling Unit - One or more rooms providing complete independent living facilities. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Dwelling, Caretaker - a dwelling unit used by a caretaker, and his or her family, employed and working on the premises. (MMC § 17.08.010) 217
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 212 Printed 04/17/2026 275
#217
Posted by Chris 2 on 04/15/2026 at 11:50am [Comment ID: 231] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I thought the city had a more defined definition of Chain Store. With this definition 2 stores makes it a chain? This seems more restrictive than it was when the ordinance was put in place.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 213 Printed 04/17/2026 276
6-50 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Dwelling, Employee - A residential structure providing accommodations for six or fewer farmworkers pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17008. Facilities serving six or fewer employees shall be allowed by right in all zones allowing residential uses subject to the same development standards, permits and fees applicable to a residence in the same zone consistent with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Emergency Shelter - Temporary housing with minimal supportive services for persons experiencing homelessness. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Expansion - An increase in building size, capacity, or intensity of use. The following are not considered to be expansion: the addition of unenclosed porches, patio covers and the like; one enclosed addition of not more than 30 square feet to a dwelling; and the addition of detached accessory structures not for human habitation as accessory to a dwelling. (MMC § 17.08.010) Façade - The exterior face of a building oriented toward a street or public space.

Façade Modulation - Variation in façade planes to break up long wall surfaces.

Family Day Care Home - A residential facility providing care for children in a home setting.

Fence - an unroofed vertical structure which is intended primarily to serve as a visual screen or as a physical enclosure around a building or yard area for security, containment or privacy, or to indicate a boundary. This definition includes hedges, thick growths of shrubs, and walls used as screens, but does not include windbreaks for the protection of orchards or crops, or city-approved enclosures for the containment of wild animals. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Fence, See-Through - a chain link fence or any other type of fence that permits at least 50% open visibility throughout the fence.(MMC § 17.08.010) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - The ratio of total building floor area to lot area. (MMC §

17.08.010)
Forecourt - A small open space or landscaped area between a building frontage and the sidewalk or street, typically used for outdoor seating, landscaping, pedestrian gathering, or entry emphasis while maintaining a strong street presence.

Garage - A fully enclosed structure or portion of a building designed for the storage of motor vehicles and related equipment, which may be attached or detached from the primary building.

Garden, Community - Land cultivated collectively by multiple users for noncommercial purposes. (MMC § 17.08.010)
General Plan Consistency - Conformance with adopted general plan policies and standards. Consistency exists when the standards and criteria of the city general plan are met or exceeded. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Government Building / Government Use - Facilities operated by public agencies.

Grade - The finished ground level adjacent to a structure.

Green Infrastructure - Landscape and site features that manage stormwater and support environmental performance.

Ground-Floor Activation - Design strategies placing active uses at street level to promote pedestrian activity.

Gymnasium - An indoor athletic or recreational facility. (MMC § 17.08.010) 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 214 Printed 04/17/2026 277
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-51 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Height - The vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of a flat roof or mansard roof, or, in the case of a pitched or hip roof, to the “averaged midpoint,” which is arrived at by the drawing of two imaginary lines between the finished main ridgeline peak and the top of the two exterior finished walls running parallel to the main ridgeline, adding together the vertical heights of the midpoints of these two imaginary lines, and dividing the result by two. The height of an A-frame structure is the vertical distance from the grade or other datum point to the peak of the roof. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Home Occupation - A business use conducted within a dwelling that remains secondary to residential use.

Hotel - A building offering overnight lodging to guests for compensation.

Human Scale - Design proportions that relate to pedestrian perception.

Inclusionary Unit - A dwelling unit required to be offered at affordable cost to eligible households. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Infill Development - Development on vacant or underutilized urban parcels.

Institutional / Public Uses - Facilities providing civic or community services.

Land Use Designation - A mapped classification indicating permitted uses and development intensity.

Live/Work Unit - A combined residential and commercial space, with commercial typically on the ground floor and a separate living area above or behind, such as an artist studio or small office.

Lot - An area of land having fixed boundaries. (MMC § 17.08.010) Lot Coverage - The percentage of a lot occupied by building footprints.(MMC §

17.08.010)
Lot Line - Property boundary lines including front, rear, and side lines.

Low Impact Development (LID) - Design techniques that mimic natural hydrology to manage stormwater.

Manufactured Home - A factory-built dwelling constructed on a permanent chassis.

Massing - The overall volume and shape of a building.

Mechanical Equipment - Building systems such as HVAC, plumbing, and electrical equipment. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Ministerial Approval - Administrative approval based solely on objective standards.

Mixed-Use Development - Development combining residential, commercial, or other uses.

Mixed use, horizontal - Development that allows for a combination of different uses within the same building or side-by-side on the same property or adjacent property, such as a commercial business adjacent to a residential use. (MMC §

17.08.010)
Mixed use, vertical - Development that allows for a combination of different uses within the same building, such as a commercial business occupying lower floors while the upper floors are reserved for housing. (MMC § 17.08.010) Mobility Network - An integrated system of transportation routes and facilities.

Nonconforming Structure - A structure lawfully established but not compliant with current standards.

Nonconforming Use - A lawfully established use no longer permitted under current zoning.

Objective Design Standards - Measurable design requirements allowing consistent ministerial review.

Open Space / Plaza - Outdoor areas accessible to the public for gathering or recreation.
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 215 Printed 04/17/2026 278
6-52 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Opportunity Site - A parcel identified for redevelopment or increased intensity.

Outdoor Storage - Storage of materials outside an enclosed building.

Parcel - Synonymous with lot. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Park - Land available for public recreation or natural open space, at least 75% of which is landscaped or otherwise left in a natural state, and which does not involve off-road motor vehicle uses of any kind. (MMC § 17.08.010) Parking Court - A shared off-street parking area located within the interior of a block or development and typically screened from primary streets by buildings or landscaping, serving multiple units or tenants.

Parking Lot - An off-street facility with multiple parking spaces.

Pedestrian Realm
The environment experienced by pedestrians.

Phasing - Sequencing of development over time.

Plan Area - The extent of the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan.

Porch - A covered platform or entry feature attached to the front or side of a building and raised above grade, providing a semi-private transitional space between the interior and the public realm.

Public Realm - Publicly accessible outdoor spaces such as streets and plazas.

Reasonable Accommodation - A modification to zoning standards necessary to provide equal housing opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Residential Development - A project creating new or modified dwelling units.

Retail Establishment - A business selling goods or services directly to consumers. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Roof Structures - Mechanical or functional structures located on roofs.

Roofline Variation - Changes in roof form to reduce perceived building scale.

Setback - The required minimum distance between a structure and a property line. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Shade Coverage - Provision of shade through trees or structures in pedestrian areas.

Sight Triangle - A visual/sight distance triangular area on a corner of a lot or along a driveway, two of the sides of such triangle being formed by extending two imaginary lines from the corner of the lot or the edge of the driveway adjacent to the street intersection at least 15 feet back to the two points along the sides of the lot parallel to the two intersecting streets or property line, the third (3rd) side then being formed by the connection of such points. Triangular area at intersections are kept clear to maintain visibility. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Site - One or more lots developed as a single project.

Specific Plan - A planning document establishing land use, development standards, and implementation measures for a defined area, such as the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan.

Stepback - An upper-story setback used to reduce building mass. (MMC § 17.08.010) Stoop - A small raised platform and set of steps leading from the sidewalk directly to a building entrance, typically shallow in depth and used to elevate residential units slightly above street level while maintaining close street interaction.

Storefront - A ground-floor frontage type characterized by transparent glazing, frequent entrances, and direct pedestrian access from the sidewalk, designed to support active commercial uses and strong engagement with the public realm.

Story - The portion of a building between floors.

Street Wall - A continuous building façade defining the street edge.

Streetscape - The physical design elements within a street environment. 031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 216 Printed 04/17/2026 279
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: MARCH 2026 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 6-53 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT CODE
Structure - Anything constructed or erected requiring a fixed location on or in the ground. “Structure” does not include fences, or walls used as fences, less than six feet in height, or plant materials. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Supportive Housing - Permanent housing linked with supportive services.

Tandem Parking - Parking spaces arranged one behind another.

Temporary Use - A short-term use allowed for a limited duration, including, but not limited to, is not limited to, carnivals, Christmas tree sales, circuses, festivals, sidewalk sales, special events, outdoor sales, grand opening events, brush clearance by animals, construction trailers, or similar uses when in compliance with Chapter 17.44 of the MMC.

Terrace - A raised extension of the public realm, typically serving residential or nonresidential uses, such as front doors or outdoor dining.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) - Compact development near transit designed to encourage transit use.

Transparency - The proportion of a building façade composed of windows or openings.

Traffic Calming - Design measures intended to reduce vehicle speeds.

Urban Porch - A raised terrace in an urban setting.

Urgent Care - A medical facility providing walk-in services for minor conditions. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Use - The purpose for which land or a structure is designed or occupied. (MMC §

17.08.010)
Utility Structures - Infrastructure used for utility distribution or transmission. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Veterinary Office or Hospital - A facility providing medical care for animals.

Wall - A vertical structure used to enclose or divide spaces.

Warehouse or Storage - The storage of materials within an enclosed building. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Window / Clerestory Window - Openings in a building wall allowing light or ventilation; clerestory windows are high-level openings near rooflines.

Wireless Communications Facility - An antenna structure and related equipment used to provide wireless service. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Yard - An open space on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed except as permitted. (MMC § 17.08.010)
Zoning Clearance - An administrative confirmation that a proposed use or structure complies with zoning regulations. (MMC § 17.08.010)
031126_DTSP_PublicReviewDraft_Opt.pdf Page 217 Printed 04/17/2026 280

Community & Economic Development CommitteeMay 6, 2026

Community & Economic Development Committee
May 6, 2026