Board of Supervisors County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue ...

i 

IE SOU R C E MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

March 24, 2009 

Board of Supervisors 

County of Ventura 

800 South Victoria Avenue 

Ventura, CA 93009 

SUBJECT: 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Planning Division 

Appeal Case No. APO8-0014 Regarding the Planning Commission's 

Decision to Reject Cornerstone Community Church's and the Children's 

Hunger Fund's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person's Act 

Argument Relating to Conditional Use Permit Case No. LUO7-O073 

1. GRANT the Appeal, in part, based on the grounds set forth in the letter from Kim 

Rodriguez to the Board of SuperVisors, dated March 10, 2009, overturn the 

Planning Commission's decision, in part, as to the church, and accept for 

processing Cornerstone Community Church's proposed church facility as part of 

its application for a Conditional Use Permit (Case No. LU07-0073). 

Kimberly L. Rodriguez 

Director 

2. DENY the Appeal, in part, on the grounds set forth below and in the letter from 

Kim Rodriguez to the Board of Supervisors, dated March 10, 2009, uphold the 

Planning Commission's decision, in part, as to the Children's Hunger Fund 

("CHF") facilities, and not accept for processing Cornerstone Community 

Church's proposed CHF facilities as part of its application for a Conditional Use 

Permit (Case No. LU07-0073). 

3. DESIGNATE the Resource Management Agency Planning Director and the Clerk 

of the Board (Hall of Administration, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA) as 

the custodians and the location of the record of proceedings. 

DISCUSSION: 

On December 9, 2008, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing at which it 

received a Planning Division staff presentation and public comment/testimony, including 

a presentation from the applicant/appellant ("Cornerstone"). Your Board voted to 

continue this matter in order to allow sufficient time for County Counsel to obtain 

outside, expert legal advice on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 

("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq., and its implications for: (1) Appeal Case 

No. AP08-0014 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. LU07-0073; and, (2) the County's 

Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance's ("NCZO") treatment of religious assemblies in the 

Open Space zone. This matter was originally continued to February 24, 2009, and 

800 South Victoria Avenue, L# 1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654-2481 

PrInted on Recycled P&per 

Fax (805) 654-2509 

@

Cornerstone Community Church Appeal Case No. APOS-OO14 

March 10, 2009 

Page 2 of 11 

continued again to March 10, 2009, in order to provide sufficient guidance and develop 

recommendations for your Board. On March 10, 2009, the Board of Supervisors 

continued this matter to the March 24, 2009, Board of Supervisors Hearing in response 

to a request by Mr. Jack Rubens, the attorney who represents Cornerstone. The Board 

of Supervisors granted this most recent continuance in order to allow the Planning 

Division, County Counsel, and outside Counsel sufficient time to review Cornerstone's 

arguments, which are discussed in Mr. Ruben's letter to the Board of Supervisors, dated 

March 9, 2009 (Exhibit "25"; "Mr. Rubens' letter"). 

BACKGROUND FACTS 

Prior to responding to the objections raised in Mr. Rubens' letter, it is important to recall 

some important facts about this project. This project involves three different principal 

land uses to be co-located on the same parcel of land that has an Open Space ("OS") 

land use and zoning designation. The three different principal uses are: (1) a new 

church/religious worship facility to be operated by the Cornerstone Community Church; 

(2) a new college affiliated with Cornerstone called the Eternity Bible College; and, (3) a 

facility operated by a non-profit relief organization called the Children's Hunger Fund 

("CHF"). Each of these three different principal uses is subject to the County's NCZO. 

These three different principal uses are included as part of one County Conditional Use 

Permit ("CUP") application, and have been analyzed in accordance with normal NCZO 

processes and procedures. 

Based upon the letter from Kim Rodriguez to the Board of Supervisors, dated March 10, 

2009, on the same above-referenced subject matter, the Planning Division recommends 

that the new church/religious worship facility be accepted for regular CUP application 

processing pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Preemption Clause in the NCZO 

and the equal terms provision of RLUIPA. Mr. Rubens' letter accepts and concurs with 

the Planning Division's proposed recommended action regarding the church/religious 

worship principal use. Furthermore, as stated in a letter from Kim Rodriguez to Mr. 

Richard D. Parkinson, dated July 3, 2008, the Eternity Bible College was previously 

accepted for regular CUP application processing pursuant to the terms and conditions 

of the NCZO (§81 05-4), which allows colleges and universities in the OS zone by the 

means of a Planning Commission-approved CUP. 

The CUP application history of the CHF facilities, however, is very different. First, in its 

revised application, dated April 25, 2008, the CHF sought a Planning Director's 

determination that the proposed facilities (i.e., 62,915 square feet of warehouses and 

28,800 square feet of learning and administrative space for a total of 91,715 square 

feet) were equivalent to either "Community Centers for Farm Workers and Nonprofit 

Farm Organizations Over 20,000 sq. ft. to 100,000 sq. ft." or a "Principal Structure 

Related to Agriculture," both of which are conditionally permitted uses in the OS zone. 

The Planning Director denied this request for an equivalency determination (NCZO, 

§8105-2 and §8105-2.1) because the CHF facilities were neither a "farm organization" 

nor related to agriculture as those terms are used in the NCZO. The CHF's use of 

these proposed facilities to store, sort, package, and distribute donated food, personal

Cornerstone Community Church Appeal Case No. APOS-o014 

March 10, 2009 


care products, school supplies, and toys (i.e., Food Paks, Gift Paks, and Hygiene Paks), 

although commendable, does not serve or advance any of the purposes of the OS zone 

as defined in the General Plan, the NCZO, and state law (Government Code, §65560), 

Similarly, the CHF's use of these proposed facilities for administrative and educational 

purposes also does not qualify as either "Community Centers for Farm Workers and 

Nonprofit Farm Organizations Over 20,000 sq. ft. to 100,000 sq. ft," or a "Principal 

Structure Related to Agriculture." The CHF appealed this Planning Director decision to 

the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission upheld the Planning Directors 

decision and denied this request for an equivalency determination. This denial was not 

appealed to the Board of Supervisors and is now final. 

The CHF then argued in the alternative that the CHF facilities were subject to the same 

RLUIPA equal terms argument made by Cornerstone for its church/religious worship 

facilities because the CHF is a religiously motivated and based non-profit organization 

devoted to hunger relief around the world. The CHF has presented written materials 

and testimony explaining the CHF's religious mission and work with local churches 

(Dave Phillips, Oral Testimony at the October 9,2008, Planning Commission Hearing; 

Exhibit "6", Summary of Children's Hunger Fund Facilities and Operations; Exhibit "24", 

Letter from Richard D. Parkinson to Kim Rodriguez, dated March 5, 2009). 

RESPONSE TO THE CHF'S RECENT OBJECTIONS 

Mr. Rubens objects to the Planning Division's recommendation to your Board to deny 

the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to not accept for processing 

Cornerstone's application for a CUP with respect to the CHF facilities on three basic 

grounds: (1) the impact of the CHF facilities on the as zone is less than the impact of 

existing conditionally permitted facilities in the as zone; (2) the County's NCZO open 

space objectives are more important than the County's General Plan open space 

objectives; and, (3) ancillary storage use in the CHF facilities is a permitted use in the 

as zone. As explained below, the Planning Division rejects each one of these 

contentions and reaffirms its recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the 

Planning Commission's decision to not accept the CHF facilities for CUP processing. 

A. Impact and Comparison of the CHF Facilities 

Mr. Rubens specifically contends that the Planning Division's analysis is flawed since it 

"...focuses solely and narrowly on whether or not non-agricultural distribution and 

storage uses are permitted or conditionally permitted in the as zone" (Mr. Rubens' 

letter, 2). Mr. Rubens then goes on to state: 

The relevant issue is...whether the Zoning Ordinance treats the CHF uses on 

less than equal terms with any non-religious uses that are permitted or 

conditionally permitted in the OS zone and that could have impacts that are 

equally or more harmful to the County's open space zoning objectives than the 

proposed religious uses associated with the CHF facilities. (Mr. Rubens' letter, 2- 

3)

Cornerstone Community Church Appeal Case No. APO8-0014 

March 10,2009 


In making this comparative impact argument, Mr. Rubens ignores certain steps in the 

federal case law analysis used to justify the applicability of RLUIPA's equal tenns 

argument. Mr. Rubens claims that the principal use of the CHF facilities consists of the 

training and learning center, and then identifies uses (e.g., colleges and universities, 

governmental buildings, and correctional institutions) that are conditionally pennitted in 

the as zone. He also contends that these other uses are equally or more hannful or 

impactful to the County's as zoning objectives when compared to the proposed CHF 

facilities. 

The Planning Division addresses each project for a CUP on the basis of substantive 

information about the project contained in the CUP application. Whenever there is a 

question or some ambiguity on the nature and land use intensity of a proposed project, 

the Planning Division works cooperatively with the applicant to understand exactly what 

it is that the applicant seeks to do, and directs the applicant, if necessary, in another 

direction to avoid any potential land use entitlement problems. In the case of the CUP 

application for the CHF facilities, it was no different. 

The Planning Division determined, based upon a careful review of the total square 

footage of the CHF facilities, the proposed intensity of use, and the primary organization 

operation and output, that the principal use of the CHF facilities would not be the 

learning center and administrative offices (as is argued by Mr. Rubens), but rather the 

storage, packaging, and distribution of charitable goods as evidenced by the amount of 

area that would be dedicated to these uses. The two warehouses that would be used 

for the storage, packaging, and distribution activities would be a total of 62,915 square 

feet in size or approximately two-thirds of the total building square footage, whereas the 

learning center and administrative offices would be only 28,800 square feet in size. 

These square footage numbers reinforce the fact that the primary operational aspect of 

the CHF is to serve children through the distribution of Food Paks, Gift Paks, and 

Hygiene Paks containing prepackaged goods and materials collected from corporate 

and individual donors. The Planning Division does not deny the fact that the CHF 

facilities contain an administrative office and training component, but the overwhelming 

evidence supports a determination that the CHF facilities are principally warehouse and 

distribution land uses. 

The Planning Division has further detemlined, based upon the CUP application for the 

CHF facilities and a review of the Planning Division's CUP files and pemlit database, 

that there is no currently existing, conditionally pemlitted land use (regardless of 

religious or non-religious orientation) in the OS zone that compares to the proposed 

principal use of the CHF facilities. As discussed in depth below, non-agricultural 

warehouse and distribution facilities are not similarly situated to agricultural warehouse 

and distribution facilities with respect to the County's adopted OS goals and policies. 

This basic fact is important because RLUIPA case law states that an equal temls 

argument can only be advanced where the challenged land use regulation treats a 

religious institution on less than equal temls with a non-religious institution that is 

similarly situated regarding the objectives of the challenged land use regulation. The

Cornerstone Community Church Appeal Case No. APO8-OO14 

March 10,2009 


NCZO does not treat the religious-based CHF any differently than a non-religious 

institution with regard to similarly situated warehouse and distribution facilities in the OS 

zone. 

Therefore, the CHF's comparative impacts argument fails because it skips over this key 

analytical step. Without such a similarly situated comparative land use, the CHF cannot 

directly perform an equal to, or lesser than, impacts analysis of the proposed CHF 

facilities in comparison to existing uses in the OS zone. As discussed in the letter from 

Kim Rodriguez to the Board of Supervisors, dated March 10, 2009, the NCZO allows for 

agricultural distribution/storage uses as principal uses in the Open Space zone only if 

they are consistent with, and promote, the agriculturally-related purposes of the OS 

zone. The NCZO does not allow non-agricultural distribution/storage facilities as 

principal uses in the OS zone, since they do not promote the purposes and objectives of 

the OS zone. The CHF or Cornerstone has the burden of identifying a non-religious or 

religious, non-agricultural distribution/storage facility, which has been conditionally 

permitted as a principal use in the OS zone. However neither the CHF nor Cornerstone 

has identified such a similarly situated comparative land use. Without such nonagricultural 

distribution/storage uses in the OS zone, the County has not treated any 

land use or facility more favorably when compared to the proposed CHF facilities. 

Mr. Rubens also contends that agricultural distribution/storage facilities are equally as 

harmful to the purposes and objectives of the as zone as the proposed CHF facilities. 

In making this argument, Mr. Rubens provides photographs of several types of 

agricultural development that exceed the scope and size of the proposed CHF facilities. 

Moreover, Mr. Rubens argues that wineries, accessory structures related to agriculture, 

and storage buildings for agricultural contractors are permitted in the as zone, which 

could have equal or greater impacts to the purposes and objectives of the as zone than 

the CHF facilities. However, all of the agricultural development shown in Mr. Rubens' 

photographs are located in Agricultural zones-not Open Space zones-and, as such, 

are irrelevant comparators to the proposed CHF facilities. Furthermore, agricultural 

distribution/storage facilities, wineries, accessory structures related to agriculture, and 

storage buildings for agricultural contractors facilitate agricultural uses which, as 

discussed below, are uniquely related to the purposes and objectives of the as zone. 

B. County Open Space Objectives 

In making his argument, Mr. Rubens states that the purposes and objectives of the OS 

zone stated in the NCZO (§8104-1.1}-not in the Ventura County General Plan-should 

exclusively be used when performing an RLUIPA analysis in the OS zone. Moreover, 

Mr. Ruben contends that due to the fact that agricultural uses are not explicitly stated in 

the purposes and objectives of the OS zone (NCZO, §8104-1.1), and the County has 

created a separate zone for Agricultural uses, agricultural uses are not uniquely related 

to the purposes and objectives of the OS zone. 

Mr. Rubens fails to acknowledge that the NCZO does in fact promote renewable 

resource uses, such as agricultural uses, in the OS zone. The NCZO states:


March 10, 2009 


The purpose of [the OS] zone is to provide for the conservation of renewable 

and nonrenewable natural resources, to preserve and enhance environmental 

quality and to provide for the retention of the maximum number of future land use 

options while aI/owing reasonable and compatible uses on open lands in the 

County which have not been altered to any great extent by human activities. 

(§8104-1.1; emphasis added) 

This purpose statement mirrors one of the Ventura County General Plan Open Space 

Goals, which states: 

Preserve for the benefit of all the County's residents the continued wise use of 

the County's renewable and nonrenewable resources by limiting the 

encroachment into such areas of uses which would unduly and prematurely 

hamper or preclude the use or appreciation of such resources. (Goals, Policies 

and Programs, 2008, Goal 3.2.1-5; emphasis added) 

The OS land use and zoning designation is designed to conserve, and allow the 

appropriate use of, a multitude of natural resources. Agricultural resources (e.g., forest 

lands and range lands) constitute one of the categories of natural resources that are 

intended to be conserved in the OS zone, by (in part) the allowance of reasonable and 

compatible uses on lands designated as such. The Government Code and the Ventura 

County General Plan both state that one of the purposes of the OS land use designation 

is to allow for the managed production of resources including, but not limited to, 

agricultural lands [Government Code §65560(b)(2); Ventura County General Plan, 

Goals, Policies and Programs, 2008, §3.2 and Policy 3.2.2-5(2)]. Pursuant to the 

General Plan's Zoning Compatibility Matrix, both the OS and Agricultural Exclusive 

zones are compatible with the General Plan's OS land use designation (Ventura County 

General Plan, Goals, Policies and Programs, 2008, Land Use Policy 3.1.2-2 and Figure 

3.2a). 

However, the as land use and zoning designations are not designed to accommodate 

all intensities of agricultural uses. Indeed, one of the purposes of creating the 

Agriculture land use and zoning designations was to allow for more intensive types of 

agriculture than what is appropriate for OS-designated lands. The Ventura County 

General Plan states: "Because of the inherent importance of agriculture as a land use 

in and of itself, agriculture is not subsumed under the Open Space land use 

designation, but has been assigned a separate land use designation" (Goals, Policies 

and Programs, 2008, 56). Unlike OS-designated lands, Agricultural-designated lands 

have unique characteristics (e.g., the presence of prime soils, or designations as 

"Farmlands of Statewide Importance" or "Unique Farmlands" in the State's Important 

Farmland Inventory) that accommodate intensive agricultural activities (Ventura County 

General Plan, Goals, Policies and Programs, 2008, Policy 3.2.2-4(1 )]. In short, the 

policies and regulations of the Government Code, General Plan, and NCZO all state 

that one of the purposes of OS-designated lands is to support agricultural uses, albeit at 

a less intensive scale than what is allowed on Agriculture-designated lands.


March 10, 2009 


Mr. Rubens improperly downplays the fact that the purposes and objectives of the OS 

zone are derived from, and must be consistent with, the purposes and objectives of the 

OS land use designation. One of the purposes of the NCZO is to implement the 

General Plan (NCZO, §8101-1), as well as achieve consistency with the General Plan, 

as required by the Government Code [§65567 and §65860(a)]. The General Plan 

states that land uses are deemed consistent with the General Plan if they are permitted 

within a zoning designation that is consistent with the land use designation for a 

property, and the land use does not conflict with the policies of the General Plan 

(Ventura County General Plan, Goals, Policies and Programs, 2008, Land Use Policies 

3.1.2-2 and 3.1.2-3). In this case, the OS zoning designation is consistent with the OS 

land use designation and, as discussed above, the OS land use policy [Ventura County 

General Plan, Goals, Policies and Programs, 2008, Policy 3.2.2-5(2)] clearly promotes 

the types of agricultural uses, including agriculture-related structures, that are permitted 

on OS-designated lands (NCZO, §8105-4). In sum, when determining the purposes 

and objectives of the OS zone and, consequently, what uses are consistent with the OS 

zone, one must consider not only the NCZO, but also the General Plan OS land use 

policies from which the NCZO OS regulations are derived. 

c. Accessory Use 

Mr. Rubens contends that, based on the CHF's equal terms argument and the fact that 

principal structures related to agriculture, including distribution and storage structures, 

are allowed in the OS zone, the County must treat the CHF facilities as a permitted use, 

rather than as a conditionally permitted use (Mr. Rubens' letter, page 7). Mr. Rubens, 

however, neglects to state that only principal structures related to agriculture that are 

20,000 square feet or smaller in size are allowed as a permitted use in the OS zone, 

while principal structures related to agriculture that are over 20,000 square feet are 

allowed as a conditionally permitted use in the OS zone. As stated above, the 

warehousing and distribution component of the CHF facilities-which the Planning 

Division considers to be the primary use of the CHF facilities-would be 62,915 square 

feet in size. If principal structures related to agriculture were an appropriate 

comparative use to the CHF facilities-which, as discussed above, they are not-then 

the CHF facilities would be allowed as a conditionally permitted use pursuant to 

RLUIPA. However, once again, unlike the CHF facilities which are inconsistent with the 

purposes and objectives of the OS zone, principal structures related to agriculture are 

uniquely related to the purposes and objectives of the OS zone. 

D. Conclusion 

In summary, a clear majority of the CHF facilities are dedicated to the storage, 

packaging, and distribution activities and, as such, constitute the principal use of the 

CHF facilities. Unlike the warehouse/distribution uses of the CHF facilities, all of the 

warehouse/distribution uses that are allowed in the OS zone (i.e., agricultural 

warehouse/distribution uses) are consistent with the purposes and objectives of the OS 

zone, which are derived from, and defined by, the Government Code and the General

~ 

Cornerstone Community Church Appeal Case No. APO8-OO14 

March 10, 2009 


Plan. Therefore, Cornerstone has not identified a nonreligious, comparative use that is 

similarly situated to the CHF facilities in terms of the purposes and objectives of the OS 

zone. The Planning Division, therefore, reaffirms its recommended action to deny the 

appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision regarding the CHF facilities as 

stated in the Board letter dated March 10, 2009, on this same subject matter. 

The County Counsel's Office has reviewed this letter. If you have any questions 

concerning this item, please contact Dan Klemann, M.A., Senior Planner, at (805) 654- 

3588 or via email at daniel.klemann@ventura.org, or me at (805) 654-2481 or via email 

at kim.rodriguez@ventura.org. 

L. i 

PLANNING DIVISION 

Attachments: 

Exhibit "1" 

Exhibit 82- - 

Exhibit 83- - 

Exhibit 848 - 

Exhibit 858 - 

Exhibit "68 

Exhibit 878 - 

Exhibit 8S8 - 

Exhibit -9- 

Exhibit -10-- 

Exhibit "11"- 

Exhibit 812-- 

Exhibit -138- 

Exhibit -14-- 

Exhibit -15.- 

Exhibit -16.- 

Exhibit -17. - 

-.. 

Planning Commission Staff Report for the October 9, 2008, Planning Commission 

Hearing 

Project Site Location Map 

Aerial Photograph of the Project Site 

Appeal Form and Appeal Summary for Appeal Case No. AP08-OO07 

Appeal Summary PowerPoint Document (Prepared and Submitted by Cornerstone 

Community Church) 

Summary of Children's Hunger Fund Facilities and Operations (Prepared and 

Submitted by Cornerstone Community Church) 

RLUIPA Summary (Prepared and Submitted by Cornerstone Community Church) 

Selected Figures of the Cornerstone Community Church Project Plans (Prepared and 


.Supplemental Materials. Excerpt from Cornerstone Community Church's Revised 

CUP Application, dated April 25, 2008 (Prepared and Submitted by Cornerstone 

Community Church) 

Appendix H of Cornerstone Community Church's Revised CUP Application, dated 

April 25, 2008 (Entitlement Documents for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, 

Compiled and Submitted by Cornerstone Community Church) 

Appendix I of Cornerstone Community Church's Revised CUP Application, dated April 

25, 2008 (Entitlement Documents for the Thomas Aquinas College, Compiled and 


Appendix J of Cornerstone Community Church's Revised CUP Application, dated April 

25, 2008 (Entitlement Documents for the Brandeis-Bardin Institute, Compiled and 


Appendix K of Cornerstone Community Church's Revised CUP Application, dated April 

25, 2008 (Entitlement Documents for the Thacher School, Compiled and Submitted by 

Cornerstone Community Church) 

Planning Division Staff PowerPoint Presentation for the October 9, 2008, Planning 

Commission Hearing 

Cornerstone Community Church Appeal Application, Case No. AP08-0014 

Letter from Jack H. Rubens to the Board of Supervisors, dated November 26, 2008 

Letter from Kevin T. Snider to the Board of Supervisors, dated December 2, 2008

Cornerstone Community Church Appeal Case No. APOS-OQ14 

March 10.2009 

Page90f11 

Exhibit "188- 

Exhibit 819-- 

Exhibit -20- - 

Exhibit -21-- 



Exhibit 8248- 

Exhibit -25"- 

Exhibit -An- 

Exhibit -8" - 

Exhibit -C"- 

Exhibit -0"- 

Exhibit -E" - 

Exhibit -F- - 

Exhibit 8G" - 

Exhibit 8H" - 

Exhibit 8'" - 

Exhibit. JD - 

Exhibit "K- - 

Exhibit "L - - 

Exhibit "M. - 

Exhibit -N. - 

Exhibit "0. - 

Exhibit "P- - 

Exhibit aQB - 

Exhibit aRB - 

Exhibit .5. - 

Exhibit -r - 

Exhibit .U. - 

Exhibit 'vw - 

Exhibit -W" - 

Exhibit. X- - 

Exhibit "Y" - 

Exhibit "Z- - 

Exhibit "AA-- 

Exhibit "BB- - 

Exhibit .CC. - 

Letter from David A. Bobardt on behalf of the City of Moorpark to the Board of 

Supervisors, dated November 26, 2008 

Letter from Jacqui V. Irwin on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks to the Honorable 

Peter C. Foy and the Members of the Ventura County 

Email from Geoffrey J. Sjostrom to Dan Klemann, dated December 8,2008 

Email from Geoffrey J. Sjostrom to Dan Klemann, dated December 9, 2008 

Letter from Beth N. Cooper to the Board of Supervisors, dated December 22, 2008 

Email (with attachments) from Rick Parkinson to the Board of Supervisors et ai, dated 

January 30, 2009 

Letter from Richard Parkinson to Kimberly L. Rodriguez, dated March 5, 2009 

Letter from Jack Rubens to the Board of Supervisors, dated March 9, 2009 

Letter from George W. Sjostrom to the Planning Commission, dated September 25, 

2008 

Email from Greg DelVecchio to Dan Klemann, dated October 4, 2008 

Email from Bill and Kate Faulkner to Dan Klemann, dated October 5,2008 

Letter from Linda Noble to the Planning Commission, dated October 2, 2008 

Email from Sue Perrin to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Sandy Schmidt to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 

2008 

Email from Shanda Weaver to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 

October 6, 2008 

Email from Kevin and Suzy Hoekendort to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter 

Foy, dated October 6,2008 

Email from Greg Burkhardt to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from R. Drew Jessel and Family to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter 

Foy, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Jennyfer Todd to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated October 6,2008 

Email from Edward O'Brien to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Steve Anderson to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Richard Todd to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated October 6,2008 

Email from Heidi Buonauro to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email Melinda FitzGerald to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Rick Buonauro to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Lane Whitcomb to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 

2008 

Email from Kathleen Gillespie to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Daren and Dawn Kesterson to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated 


Email from Andrea and David Roter to Peter Foy, dated October 6,2008 

Email from Morgan Harman to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Alonzo Garcia to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Mark Walters to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Daniel VanGent to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Jasmine Schoonover to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Todd Ross to Peter Foy, dated October 6,2008 

Email from Greg and Lisa Baker to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, 

dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Robert Leong to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 

October 6, 2008


March 10, 2009 


Exhibit MDD" - 

Exhibit "EE- - 

Exhibit .FF" - 

Exhibit MGG" - 

Exhibit "HH- - 

Exhibit MIIM - 

Exhibit M JJM - 

Exhibit .K~ - 

Exhibit -ll -- 

Exhibit -MM- - 

Exhibit -NN. - 

Exhibit -00. - 

Exhibit -pp- - 


Exhibit -RR- - 

Exhibit -5S. - 

Exhibit -Tr- 

Exhibit .UU. - 

Exhibit .W' - 

Exhibit .ww.- 

Exhibit "XX' - 

Exhibit "yy- - 

Exhibit "ZZ' - 

Exhibit -AAA-- 

Exhibit -BBB- - 

Exhibit -CCC- - 

Exhibit "ODD- - 

Exhibit 8EEE8 - 

Exhibit 8FFP - 

Exhibit "GGG" - 

Exhibit "HHH" - 

Exhibit "III" - 

Exhibit" JJJ" - 

Exhibit "KKK" - 

Exhibit "LLL"- 

Exhibit "MMM" - 

Exhibit "NNN" - 

Email from Bart Thielen to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Tracy L. Heminuk to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Lynette McNeil to Kim Rodriguez, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Mike Malarkey to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Vicky Leong to Kim Rodriguez, Peter Foy, and Dan Klemann, dated 


Email from Glen and Janet Harrison to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Laura Buchan to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Randy Sanada, Jr., to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 

2008 

Email from Sabrina Rife to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Bob and Pam Gross to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Karin Kritscher to Dan Klemann, dated October 7, 2008 

Email from Sharlene Aiken to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Rick and Faith Fennell to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Bran Nave to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated October 

6, 2008 

Email from Ken and Roni Snow to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Susan Mako to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Chris and Julie Perez to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, 


Email from Nicola Ross to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Keith Pytlinski to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Gabriela Buery to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Sheryl Johnson to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Greg and Melanie Gissinger to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Erin Donalson to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Ryan Glatt to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from John Puopolo to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Wendi Leeds to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Penni Bertonneau to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 


Email from Cheryl Neher to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Chadd and Chanda Touchette to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter 

Foy, dated October 6,2008 

Email from Pamela Smylie to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Kristi Hayes to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Sara Bolding to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Kathy Hampton to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Matt Hampton to Dan Klemann, dated October 6, 2008 

Email from Karen and Gary Milhous to Peter Foy and Dan Klemann, dated October 7, 

2008 

Email from Norman and Brendan Chew to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated 


Email from Stephen C. Seckar to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, dated 

October 7, 2008


March 10, 2009 


Exhibit -000- - Email from Bill Margulies to Dan Klemann, dated October 7, 2008 

Exhibit -PPP- - Email from Unknown Individual to Kim Rodriguez, Peter Foy, and Dan Klemann, dated 


Exhibit -OQO- - Email from Dennis Guglielmetti to Dan Klemann, dated October 7, 2008 

Exhibit -RRR- - Email from Richard J. Messina to Dan Klemann, dated October 7,2008 

Exhibit -SSS- - Email from Tom and Yvonne Wilber to Kim Rodriguez, dated October 6,2008 

Exhibit -TTT- - Email from Sarah Moore to Kim Rodriguez, dated October 6, 2008 

Exhibit -UUU- - Email from Michael D. Weyandt to Kim Rodriguez, dated October 6, 2008 

Exhibit -VW- - Email from Esly Felipe Aliaga to Kim Rodriguez, dated October 6, 2008 

Exhibit -www- - Email from Russ and Anita Guevin to Kim Rodriguez, Dan Klemann, and Peter Foy, 


Exhibit -XXX- - Email from Jan Woodfill to Dan Klemann, dated October 7, 2008 

Exhibit -yyyw - Email from Bob and Kathy Likes to Kim Rodriguez, dated October 7, 2008 

Exhibit -ZZZ- - Letter from David A. Bobardt on behalf of the City of Moorpark to the Ventura County 

Planning Commission, dated October 7, 2008 

Exhibit -AAAA- - Email from David Satterlee to Dan Klemann, dated October 7,2008 

Exhibit -BBBB- - Email from Brandon and Nicole Kemmer to Kim Rodriguez and Dan Klemann, dated 


Exhibit -CCCC- - Email from Wendy Berg to Dan Klemann, dated October 7, 2008 

Exhibit -DDDD- - Email from Kevin Gale to Dan Klemann, dated October 8, 2008 

Exhibit -EEEE- - Email from Nancy Ip to Dan Klemann, dated October 10, 2008 

Exhibit -FFFF- - Aerial Photos Submitted by Planning Commissioner Rodriguez

Board of Supervisors County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?