HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0311 CC SPC ITEM 05AITEM _
A•
CITY OF MOORPARK, CAT TFORNIA
C zy C0UIiCi1 ,Mee_a ,
AGENDA REPORT
--
CITY OF MOORPARK
AC,�_j : Con-i:int uej iQ
19q
TO: The Honorable City Council BY: �-�-
FROM: Nelson Miller Director of Community Develo P meoO^
DATE: March 6, 1998 (City Council Meeting of March 11, 1998)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, to amend the Land Use and
Circulation Elements; Zone Change No. 97 -5, to establish Zone Districts and
controlling development standards; and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
No. 95 -1, which includes Land Use and Zoning maps, a streetscape
beautification program, pedestrian and traffic circulation improvements, design
guidelines, development standards, and implementation programs to guide
future development (Continued from February 5, 1998)
DISCUSSION
This item was advertised for public hearing before the City Council for the meeting of November
5, 1997, and continued to January 28, 1998, with the public hearing open. Testimony was received
at the meeting of January 28, 1998, and the public hearing was continued to February 5, 1998, but
subsequently continued to March 11, 1998.
City Council identified that they wanted to focus discussion on the recommendations of the
Downtown Citizen's Advisory Committee and implementation for this meeting and have another
meeting to discuss zoning issues. Attached is the staff report from the meeting of November 5,
1997. The Discussion section, starting on page 4 of the staff report outlines the issues identified by
the Downtown Citizen's Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission recommendations
relating to each issue. Planning Commission also made recommendations relating to the Design
Guidelines, land uses, bikeways, and the Secondary Planning Area, east of Spring Road. The
Secondary Planning Area, south of the railroad tracks, was recommended to be designated Old Town
Commercial.
Other issues identified for consideration include potential higher residential densities in the
Downtown area, the amount of Commercial Office zoning and potential absorption rates, and non-
conforming uses which will result from the rezoning of commercial properties.
A:',DNTNS P #3. RPT
General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1
March 11, 1998
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Receive public testimony;
2. Discuss issues identified in staff report and Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report
and provide direction to staff regarding any additional revisions to the Downtown Specific
Plan;
3. Continue the hearing to a specific date certain.
A \DNINSPO3. RPT
0
CTIY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA REPORT City Council Mating
CITY OF MOORPARK of (3 -199
ACTION: Con -L i n uge-J 4-!r:�
FC6MACITU 5. 199 +? )2_m .
TO: The Honorable City Council By..
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development/
DATE: January 22, 1998 (For the City Council Meeting of January 28, 1998)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, to Amend the Land Use Element
to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements; Zone Change No. 97 -5, to
establish Zone Districts and controlling development standards; and the
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1, which includes Land Use and
Zoning maps, a streetscape beautification program, pedestrian and traffic
circulation improvements, design guidelines, development standards, and
implementation programs to guide future development (Continued from
November 5,1997)
This item was advertised for public hearing before the City Council for the meeting of November
5, 1997, and continued to January 28, 1998, with the public hearing open. Testimony was not
received at the meeting of November 5, 1997.
Attached is the staff report from the meeting of November 5, 1997. The Discussion section, starting
on page 4 of the staff report outlines the issues identified by the Downtown Citizen's Advisory
Committee and the Planning Commission recommendations relating to each issue. Planning
Commission also made recommendations relating to the Design Guidelines, land uses, bikeways,
and the Secondary Planning Area, east of Spring Road. The Secondary Planning Area, south of the
railroad tracks, was recommended to be designated Old Town Commercial.
Other issues identified for consideration include potential higher residential densities in the
Downtown area, the amount of Commercial Office zoning and potential absorption rates, and non-
conforming uses which will result from the rezoning of commercial properties.
1. Open the public hearing and take public testimony;
2. Discuss issues identified in staff report and Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report
and provide direction to staff regarding any additional revisions to the Downtown Specific
Plan;
C. \OMCE \wrwwMwroocsccxrrs\DNTNSP#2.xrr
('a0001
-_ _
General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1
January 28, 1998
Page 2 _
3. Direct staff to prepare the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program;
4. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1 and the Downtown
Specific Plan No. 95 -1, subject to incorporation of required revisions;
5. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance approving Zone Change No. 97 -5; and
6. Continue the hearing to a specific date certain.
C:\OFFIMWPWMWPDOCSSCCRPTMNT NSP#2.RPT
wb-Oc a
71A•3(q;
rrEra 6 • C's
CTIY OF MOOItPARR. CALIFORNIA
a Council Meeting
of // 199,,,2
AGENDA REPORT ACTION -
CITY OF MOORPARK % IZK - . .
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community DevelopmenCW""
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Principal Planner
DATE: October 27, 1997 (CC Meeting of 11/5/97)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97 -1, TO AMEND THE LAND
USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS; ZONE CHANGE NO. 97 -5, TO
ESTABLISH ZONE DISTRICTS AND CONTROLLING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS; AND THE MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 95 -1,
WHICH INCLUDES LAND USE AND ZONING MAPS, A STREETSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM, PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
IMPROVEMENTS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
On October 13, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97-
5, and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1. Attachment A is the
Planning Commission's resolution, which includes a list of recommended
revisions to the draft Downtown Specific Plan.
The proposed Downtown Specific Plan Project consists of: (1) A General
Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 97 -1 to revise Section 5.2, Specific
Plan Designation, to include a description of the Downtown Specific Plan
and to revise Exhibit No. 3, Land Use Plan (City Area), to identify the
Downtown Specific Plan area; and revise the General Plan Circulation
Element Figure No, 3, Bikeway Element, to reflect the planned bikeway
linkages that would be consistent with recommended revisions to Specific
Plan Figure No. 15, to facilitate bikeway access to the Downtown; (2) A
Zone Change No. 97 -5 to revise Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark
Municipal Code to establish zone districts and controlling development
standards for the Downtown Specific Plan site, as identified in Section
2.0 of the Specific Plan, and to amend the City Zoning Map to identify
the Downtown Specific Plan area; and (3) Adoption of the Moorpark
Downtown Specific Plan (SP- 95 -1), which includes land use and zoning
DST CAI- m\sLVTTpticcdtnsp.►pt
000003
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 2 -
maps, a streetscape beautification program, pedestrian and traffic
circulation improvements, specific design guidelines and development
standards, and implementation programs to guide future development within
the Specific Plan area.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration is intended to be adopted for the
Downtown Specific Plan Project, including the General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, and Specific Plan. Based upon an Initial Study and analysis
of available information, there is substantial evidence that the
significant effects of the proposed project can be mitigated to a level
of insignificance with the adoption of mitigation measures.
processing Time Limits
The proposed adoption of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and
Zone Change require legislative, rather than adjudicatory actions by the
City Council; therefore, there is no time limit for adoption.
A Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Council
in March 1997.to review the preliminary draft of the Downtown Specific
Plan. The Committee had twelve members and included residents and
business owners. The Council requested the Committee to develop a report
with recommendations and suggestions regarding the plan, which would be
referred to the Planning Commission for consideration during the public
hearings on the Draft Specific Plan. The Downtown Citizens Advisory
Committee prepared a report which identified 18 issues that addressed
Specific Plan implementation, financing, land uses, design, and physical
improvements. The Advisory Committee issues are addressed in the
following Discussion section of this staff report and in Attachment B,
the Planning Commission staff report for the August 11, 1997 meeting.
The Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report was previously provided
to the City Council and the transmittal memorandum was dated July 8,
1997.
Based on the considerable amount of time and effort that the Downtown
Citizens Advisory Committee spent studying and developing a 1st of
issues and recommendations for the Downtown Specific Plan, the Planning
Commission focused its review on the issues and recommendations of that
DST CAI- mVtaffrptkcd".rpt
000004
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 3
Committee. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution (Attachment A)
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No.
97 -5, and the Downtown Specific Plan on October 13, 1997. The following
Discussion Section identifies the Citizens Advisory Committee's list of
issues that pertain to the Specific Plan document and Zone Change No. 97-
5, and the Planning Commission's recommendation for each issue. The
staff comments for each issue are included in Attachment B to this report
(the Planning Commission staff report). The following Discussion Section
also includes the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Specific
Plan design guidelines, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee
Report should be referenced for the Committee's design recommendations.
Section 5 of the Planning Commission's resolution (Attachment A)
identifies all of the Specific Plan revisions recommended by the Planning
Commission after review of the Advisory Committee's Report.
Other issues raised during the development of the Downtown Specific Plan,
that should be discussed by the City Council, include:
• Should existing industrial properties east of Spring Road, in the
identified Secondary Planning Area, be rezoned consistent with
Exhibit 6 (reference the secondary planning area discussion on pages
15, 18, and 30 in the Specific Plan)?
• Is there a need for higher residential densities in the Downtown
area to further support the commercial businesses and in close
proximity to the Metrolink Station?
• Is the amount of Commercial Office (C -O) Zone proposed for Moorpark
Avenue excessive (based on potential absorption and the limited uses
allowed in that zone)?
• The proposed residential, commercial, and industrial rezonings that
are proposed will result in legal non - conforming uses.
The issues identified above are addressed in the following discussion or
in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B).
DST CAI- m \staffrpticcdtnsp.rpt
000005
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 4 -
tr • .n ,r t r- • ! ! -.t •
Issues Identified by Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee
1. East Gateway
Advisory Committee:
• Must Resolve to Implement Plan
• Perception - Reality- "Stay Away"
• Consistent And Constant Enforcement
• Needs Firm Commitment
(a) Negotiated hours
(b) Established location on property for laborers _
(c) Cultural- ethnic sensitivity
(d) Assign resources officer as primary duty, assisted by bicycle
patrol
(e) Enforce City ordinance requiring cooperation of property owner
(f) Reinstall landscaping and irrigation, and enforce regular
maintenance to discourage loitering /standing in planter areas
(g) Consider relocation to City /RDA property as an alternative if
the above is not implemented
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission's opinion was that the East Gateway concerns
(day laborers) do not require an amendment to the Specific Plan, and
further identified that the concerns listed regarding the East
Gateway were issues for City Council consideration, and included
issues outside the scope of the Specific Plan.
2. Implementation Plan
Advisory Committee:
• Add Eastern Properties to Plan Boundary (See Moratorium Item,
Ordinance No. 224) (Exhibit -C (1)
• DCC to be Activated Again to Review and Recommend, When Available
• Design Review Committee, With Staff Support, To Be Formed To
Function in "Pre - Application" Stages of Project Proposals (Advisory
to Director, Planning Commission and City Council)
DST CAI- m \stafirpticedtrup.rpt
000tt�� nn t
006
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 5 "
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission agreed that the eastern properties should
be addressed in the Specific Plan and concurred with the zoning
shown on Figure 6 for the Secondary Planning Area. The Commission
did not recommend a Design Review Committee, because they thought
that another layer of review that lengthens the development approval
process is not needed. The Commission did recommend that the City
Council should encourage a group such as a Downtown Merchants
Association that would actively promote the Downtown in conjunction
with the Chamber of Commerce.
3. Financing Plan
Advisory Committee:
• Gisler Field Money To Be Designated For Housing Projects In Downtown
Specific Plan Area
• Designate Significant "Tax Increment" Money to Downtown Specific
Plan Area
• DCC To Be Activated Again To Review and Recommend, When Available
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission's recommendation was that the City Council
and Redevelopment Agency should devote money to ensure that the
Specific Plan is implemented.
4. Approval Authority
Advisory Committee:
• See Revised Resolution No. 95 -1135 - Once The City Council Has
Adopted The Specific Plan, Then The Director And Planning Commission
Can Implement (With The Design Review Committee Advisory Input) .
City Council Must Approve Any Amendments To The Specific Plan, And
The Appeals Process Can Be Employed By. Anyone (Recommend 4
Hours \$344.00 Appeal Fee) - Exhibit -C(2)
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission's opinion was that it is a City Council
decision regarding what projects will be considered by the Planning
Commission and the fee to be charged for an appeal.
DST C:\ 1- mlttaffrpt\ccdt W.rpt O1 007
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 6
5. Fees
Advisory Committee:
• 50% Reduction In Deposit Fees (And Commit To Process Within Deposit
Fee), For Downtown Specific Plan Area. This Recognizes That The
Process Is More Efficient Due To Established Detail and Guidelines
In Specific Plan
• The Recommended Approval Levels Revision Also Reduces Process Time,
and Staff Time
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission's opinion was that the City Council should
determine the appropriate fees for the Downtown Specific Plan area.
The Planning Commission did express a willingness to work with -staff-
to recommend the appropriate entitlement fees.
6. Old Town Commercial Zone Uses List
Advisory Committee:
• Any Deletions Should Be Deleted From "C -1," "C -2" and CPD Zones in
Downtown Specific Plan Area, or All Zoning Should Be C -OT
• See Uses Deleted (Table -5) Exhibit -C(4)
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission recommended numerous revisions to Table 4,
including some of the revisions recommended by the Citizens Advisory
Committee, and a revised Table 4 (incorporating the Commission's
recommendations) is included with the Planning Commission's
Resolution (Attaebment A) . The Planning Commission concurred with
RRM Design Group that the zoning for High Street should be C -OT and
that Moorpark Avenue should have different zoning and design
guidelines.
7. Police Resourbe Center
Advisory Committee:
• Relocate To Downtown -High Street Area, As Soon As Possible
DST CA1- m\staffrpftcdMV.rpt
000GG8
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 2.7, 1997
Page 7
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission concurred with the Citizens Advisory
Committee that the Police Resource Center should be relocated to the
Downtown High Street area.
8. Medians
Advisory Committee:
• High Street - No
• Moorpark Avenue - Yes!, As Proposed
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission concurred with the Citizens Advisory
Committee that the raised median shown for High Street should be
deleted, and that other pedestrian friendly measures could be
incorporated for High Street, such as are discussed on page 138 of
Specific Plan. The Planning Commission also concurred that the
future raised median shown for Moorpark Avenue should be retained.
The Commission did recommend that the discussion for Moorpark Avenue
improvements be revised to clarify which improvements would be
appropriate if the roadway is under the City jurisdiction versus
Caltrans as a designated State Highway (reference Planning
Commission resolution included as Attachment A to this report).
9. R -2 Zone
Advisory Committee:
• Recommend for Flory Avenue and 1st, 2nd, And 3rd Streets (Alley
Access Areas). No "RPD" Zoning (CUP for 2nd Unit)
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission did not concur with the recommendation for
R -2 zoning. The Commission recommended that the west side of Flory
Avenue should be rezoned from R -2 to R -1, for consistency with the
other R -1 zoned residential development in that area, and did not
recommend revising the zoning to allow second dwelling units on
single - family lots less than 10,000 square feet, based on the City
Council's prior action to require larger lot sizes for second
dwelling units in the Downtown area (refer to Attachment B for
DST C: \!- mistafirpt\ccdmsp.rpt
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 8
further discussion). The rezoning to R -1 will result in existing
second dwelling units on Flory Avenue becoming legal non - conforming.
10. Filming
Advisory Committee:
Significantly Increase Fees and Designate Money To Downtown Specific
Plan Area (Less Staff Costs)
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission recommended that the City's film permit fee
be kept low enough so as to encourage filming, and that the Chamber
of Commerce or similar group should market the Downtown area to the-
filming industry.
11. Plastic Signs
Advisory Committee:
• Recommend No Internally Illuminated "Cans" In Downtown Specific Plan
Area. Logos O.K. (20* of Signed Area Maximum)
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission did not see a need to amend the sign
regulations in conjunction with adoption of the Specific Plan,
although they concurred that sign regulations could be amended as
a follow -up implementation measure.
12. Delete Magnolia Street Promenade
Advisory Committee:
• Should Not Be All "Senior Rental". Recommend Food Court, Retail,
Office, etc., With Vehicular Access To Charles Street
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission recommended that language already included
on Page 29, describing that the Vision Plans are intended to help
guide future development but in no way are intended as mandatory
configurations for implementation, should be added to Page 140, to
clarify that the closure of Magnolia Street is not required.
DST C: \1- mistatirpt\ccdhW.rpt
000010
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 199-7
Page 9
13. Landscape Percentage
Advisory Committee:
• 20$ For Specific Plan Area, Except High Street And Any Allowed "011 -
Lot Line Projects
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission recommended landscaped setbacks for Moorpark
Avenue and Spring Road, as identified in the Commission's resolution
(Attachment A). The Commission's opinion was that the recommended
setbacks, in combination with existing zoning requirements for 10
percent site and parking area landscaping, would ensure adequate
landscaping.
14. Star Of The Valley
Advisory Committee:
• Adopt Sub - Committee Recommendation For Marketing /Logo In MDSP Area
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission's opinion was that any marketing logo was
a City Council issue.
15. Overcrossing - SPRR
Advisory Committee:
• Recommend Additional And Enhanced Pedestrian At -Grade Crossings.
"Metrolink Access" Is A Good Example
• Recommend Abandoning Pursuit Of Pedestrian Overcrossing(s) Due To
High Cost And Design Difficulty (Cost) In Meeting ADA Requirements,
Unless A Proposed Project Can Demonstrate Functional And Economic
Feasibility
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission did not find that any change to the Specific
Plan was needed related to railroad crossings.
DST CA1- mVtaffrpticcdtnsp.rpt
opr a�, ��ii
000tt
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 199-7
Page 10
16. Density North of Charles Street
Advisory Committee:
• Reinforce Single Family Residence Uses. Promote and Facilitate
Upgrades and Stabilize This Area
• Recommend No Change Of Zone With Adoption Of The MDSP. However,
Provide Policy Direction That A Specific Plan Amendment Will Be
Considered For Projects Consolidating Which Includes A Concurrently
Processed Specific Project. Exhibit -C(5)
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission recommended that Charles Street should
remain a predominantly single- family residential area (with the
exception of the the existing commercial zoned property of the
southeast corner of Walnut and Charles Streets, the Tafoya Terrace
Apartments at Magnolia Street, and the condominiums at the south
east corner of Spring Road and Charles Street) . The Commission did
concur with the Residential Planned Development (RPD) 7 -14 dwelling
units (du) per acre zoning for a site on Everett Street near
Moorpark Avenue.
17. Moorpark Avenue Zoning
Advisory Committee:
• Retain "C -1" Zone for East Side
• a.) Retains Only "Mixed Use" Area in MDSP
• b.) Prohibit Parking In Front Yard Setback
• c.) Will Not Create Additional "Non - Conforming" Uses. Rezone To
"C -O"' Would Create Additional Non - Conforming Uses
• Retain "CPD' Zoning On West Side -Same Reasons
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission agreed with the land use designations and
zoning recommended in the Downtown Specific Plan for Moorpark
Avenue, as shown on the exhibits attached to the Commission's
Resolution (Attachment A). The Commission's opinion was that the
C -O Zone is a good transition zone along the east side of Moorpark
Avenue, adjacent to single - family residential uses, and that the
list of permitted uses for the C -O Zone could be expanded so as to
minimize the creation of more legal non - conforming uses. Based on
the existing list of permitted uses in the C -O Zone, the restaurant
DST CAI- m\stafpt\ccdttW.rpt
V VCJCJI.Z
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 11 -
use (currently vacant) and personal service businesses such as a
beauty salon would become legal non - conforming. As part of an
already initiated update of Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code,
the Commission is examining the list of permitted uses in commercial
and industrial zones, and may recommend expanding the list of
permitted uses for the C -O Zone.
The Commission also thought that the C -1 Zone was more appropriate
than the existing C -2 Zone for the west side of Moorpark Avenue, due
to the adjacent residential uses. The C -1 Zone is more restrictive
in regard to permitted uses. For example, a rezoning to C -1 would
result in the existing automobile repair and feed store businesses
becoming legal non - conforming. The existing recreational vehicle
storage use is not allowed in any commercial zone (only in the M -2
Zone). If the Council does not agree with the C -1 Zone for the west.
side of Moorpark Avenue, then a Commercial Planned Development (CPD)
Zone should be considered, since the C -2 Zone and the CPD Zone have
the same list of permitted uses. The CPD Zone just more accurately
identifies that a CPD Permit is required. Both the C -2 and CPD
Zones have the same CPD Permit requirements.
18. Civic Center Site
Advisory Committee:
• Remove Playground Equipment. It Is Too Temporary And "Out Of Place"
Appearing - Downtown Park Is In Place. Install Something Of
Substance In Its Place Which Is More "Thematic" With MDSP
• Designate The Property Generally Located NW /Moorpark Avenue And
Everett Street (To Wicks Road) As Civic Center Expansion Area, To
Include A Neighborhood Park Along The Eastern Boundary, To The East
(Projected) Boundary Line Of Moorpark Avenue Frontage Properties
S /Everett Street.
Planning Commission:
The Planning _Commi.ssion'a opinion was that use of the Civic Center
was a City Council issue.
Design Guidelines
The Planning Commission agreed with the Citizens Advisory Committee that
all Spanish Mission and Pueblo architecture references should be deleted
from the Downtown Specific Plan, and the illustrations and photographs
in the Downtown Specific Plan should be revised to eliminate examples of
DST CAI- m\statirpticcdtnsp.rpt
di(l�iQl'1 i
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 12
these types of architecture and design features. The Planning Commission
and the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that architectural styles
to be encouraged should include Victorian, Western, Agrarian, Early
American Commercial, Eastlake, Eastern Stick, and Spanish Colonial, and
that an eclectic mix is preferred.
The Citizens Advisory Committee also provided numerous comments on
landscape species. The Planning Commission's opinion was that it would
be more appropriate to allow different species to be considered at the
project review stage, and recommended that the following note should be
added to the Suggested Plant Palette Table: Additional plant species can
be substituted for the species listed, if such species are consistent
with the architectural themes encouraged in the Downtown Specific Plan
area and will not result in damage to infrastructure or a maintenance
problem for the public streets and sidewalk areas.
Other design related recommendations of the Planning Commission included:
• Language should be added to encourage the use of paseos on High
Street.
• For the Old Town Commercial Zone, standing seam metal roofs should
not be allowed and corrugated metal should be allowed.
• The recommendation in the Downtown Specific Plan for a stop sign for
the High Street and Bard Street intersection should be changed to
a pedestrian activated stop light (Santa Barbara downtown crossings
were used as an example).
The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding corrugated metal roofs
was based on the fact that corrugated metal is a building material that
has been used for several existing buildings in the Downtown area and is
more reflective as a historically accurate material, while standing seam
metal roofs are a modern innovation. Staff did not feel that historical
accuracy was necessarily the goal of the Design Guidelines and does not
recommend that the future plan for High Street should encourage continued
use of corrugated metal. In regard to the Planning Commission's
pedestrian - activated stop light recommendation, the costs and need for
such improvements have not been evaluated by the consultant or
Engineering staff.
The Planning Commission's resolution summarizes the General Plan
Amendment actions. An amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed to
revise Section 5.2, Specific Plan Designation, to include a description
DST CA1- m \statirpt\ccdtnsp.rp9
01001.4
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 2.7, 1997_
Page 13
of the Downtown Specific Plan and to revise Exhibit No. 3, Land Use Plan
(City Area), to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area. The intent is
that the land use designation on the Land Use Element Exhibit 3 would be
Downtown Specific Plan. The land use designations for each property
within the Downtown Specific Plan area would be shown on an exhibit in
the Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission did recommend retaining the General Commercial
land use designation and C -2 Zone for the Moorpark Mobile Home property
on High Street. Staff's opinion is that the Draft Specific Plan land use
designations of Old Town Commercial and Public Institutional, along with
the proposed Old Town Commercial and Institutional Zones would be more
appropriate for that site. The mobile home park is already a non-
conforming use for the C -2 Zone.
An amendment to the Circulation Element is also proposed to revise Figure
3, Bikeway Element, to reflect the planned bikeway linkages that would
be consistent with recommended revisions to Specific Plan Figure No. 15.
The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation that
improved Class II bikeway (painted bike lane) linkages to the Downtown
were needed, including a Class II bikeway on Gabbert Road from Los
Angeles Avenue to Poindexter Avenue and along the entire length of
Poindexter Avenue, a Class II bikeway along Moorpark Avenue from
Poindexter Avenue to High Street, a Class II bikeway along High Street
and then continuing east along Los Angeles Avenue to Princeton Avenue,
and a Class II bikeway along Spring Road from Los Angeles Avenue /New Los
Angeles Avenue and continuing north of High Street.
The Specific Plan consultant, RRM Design Group, has commented that
painted bike lanes on High Street may not be completely consistent with
the historic character of the street, and that some parking spaces could
be lost as a result (maximum of approximately eight) . These spaces could
be regained through future improvements on the south side of High Street
that would create additional parking areas. An advantage of revising
Circulation Element Figure 3 to show the Class II bikeway linkages is
that the City would then be eligible to apply for grants to build the
bikeways (including but not limited to street widening, curb
improvements, signage, and painted striping). Staff's opinion is that
facilitating improved access to the Downtown has more potential positive
than negative consequences.
DST CA1- m\statirpticcdtnsp.rpt
r uA"fl l t!Z
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 2.7, 1997_
Page 14
On February 19, 1997, the City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance No.
224 as an urgency measure to impose a moratorium on the acceptance of
applications for new land uses for properties on the south side of Los
Angeles Avenue and east side of Spring Road east of and adjacent to the
proposed Downtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan consultant was also
directed to include a secondary planning area in the Downtown Specific
Plan and include recommendations for land use designations and zoning.
Ordinance No. 229 was adopted on April 2, 1997,-extending the moratorium
to August 8, 1997. A subsequent extension of the moratorium was not
approved. The draft Specific Plan does include a Secondary Planning Area,
which is discussed on pages 15, 18 and 30, and shown on Figures S and
6. Figure 6 on page 33 shows the zoning recommended by the Specific Plan
consultant (Old Town Commercial Zone east of Spring Road and south of the
railroad tracks, and M -1 Zone south of Los Angeles Avenue and north of
the railroad tracks). The Planning Commission concurred with the zoning
recommended in the Specific Plan. Public testimony was received that the
existing M -1 Zoning east of Spring Road and south of the railroad tracks
should be retained.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study was provided to the City
Council at the time of distribution for public review. The public review
period began on July 9, 1997 and ended on August 11, 1997 (which exceeds
the 30 -day review period requirement). The Initial Study was prepared
to evaluate the potential effects of the Downtown Specific Plan Project
upon the environment. Based upon the Initial Study and analysis of
available information, there is substantial evidence that the significant
effects of the proposed project can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the adoption of mitigation measures.
The recommendations of the Planning Commission for revisions to the
Downtown Specific Plan, including zoning, would not affect the
conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, project
description amendments would be appropriate., Prior to any City Council
approval action, staff would need to incorporate any project description
revisions into the Mitigated Negative Declaration and prepare the
responses to comment letters received (Attachment C).
DST CA1- m\sUifrpt\ccdWsp.rpt
000016
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Honorable City Council
October 27, 1997
Page 15
1. Open the public hearing and take public testimony;
2. Discuss issues identified in staff report and Downtown Citizens
Advisory Committee Report and provide direction to staff regarding
any additional revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan;
3. Direct staff to prepare the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program;
4. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution approving the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, General Plan
Amendment No. 97 -1 and the Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1, subject
to incorporation of required revisions;
5. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance approving Zone Change No.
97 -5; and
6. If the Council decides to have only one regular meeting in December,
continue the public hearing to December 17, 1997.
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission Resolution
B. Planning Commission Staff Report for the 8 -11 -97 Meeting
C. Comment Letters Received on Mitigated Negative Declaration
Documents Previously Provided to City Council:
1. Draft Specific Plan dated June 30, 1997
2. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study dated July
1997
3. Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report
DST CA1- m\staP&pUcdtnsp.rpt
000017
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. PC -97- U
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.
PC -97 -342, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 97 -1, ZONE
CHANGE NO. 97 -5, AND THE MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 95 -1
WHEREAS, public notice having been given
as required by law, the Planning Commission of
a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No.
5, and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No.
and subsequently continued the public hearing
September 8, and September 16, 1997; and
in time, form, and manner
the City of Moorpark held
97 -1, Zone Change No. 97-
95-1, on August 11, 1997,
to August 25, August 28,
WHEREAS, the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Project is more
specifically described as follows: `
General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1 - Amend the General Plan Land Use
Element to revise Section 5.2, Specific Plan Designation, to include
a description of the Downtown Specific Plan and to revise Exhibit
No. 3, Land Use Plan (City Area), to identify the Downtown Specific
Plan area; and amend the General Plan Circulation Element Figure No.
3, Bikeway Element, to reflect the planned bikeway linkages that
would be consistent with recommended revisions to Specific Plan
Figure No. 15, to facilitate bikeway access to the Downtown,
including a Class II bikeway on Gabbert Road from Los Angeles Avenue
to Poindexter Avenue and along the entire length of Poindexter
Avenue, a Class II bikeway along Moorpark Avenue from Poindexter
Avenue to High Street, a Class II bikeway along High Street and then
continuing east along Los Angeles Avenue to Princeton Avenue, and
a Class II bikeway along Spring Road from Los Angeles Avenue /New Los
Angeles Avenue and continuing north of High Street;
Zone Change No. 95 -3 - Adopt an ordinance amending Title 17, Zoning,
of the Moorpark Municipal Code to establish zone districts and
controlling development standards for the Downtown Specific Plan
site, as identified in Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan and except
as revised by the recommendations included in Section 5 of this
resolution, and to amend the City Zoning Map to identify the
Downtown Specific Plan area;
Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1 - Adopt the Downtown Specific Plan
in compliance with California Government Code Section 65450 et. seq.
c:\ 1- mVesol \pcsp9S- l .res
10 -13 -97
WGVVS
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 2
and Implementation Measure No. 22 of the General Plan Land Use
Element; and
WHEREAS, at its public hearings on the Project, the Planning
Commission took testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the
public hearing, and reached a decision on the recommendations for the
General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and Zone Change components of the
Downtown Specific Plan Project on August 28, 1997, and adopted Resolution
No. PC -97 -342; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued its discussion on the
General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and Downtown Specific Plan
design and landscape guidelines on September 16, 1997, reached a
decision, and directed staff to prepare a revised resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based upon the Project information presented to
the Planning Commission, including but not limited to, the Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, Draft Specific Plan,
staff reports, Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report, and staff and
public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following
findings:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings
1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific
Plan Project reflects the independent judgment of the City of
Moorpark, as lead agency.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific
Plan Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA
(Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of
California) and the City's CEQA Procedures.
3. The Planning Commission has received and considered the
information contained in the Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Initial Study prior to making any
recommendation decision for the proposed Downtown Specific
Plan Project.
c:\ 1- m\reso1 \pcsp95 -1.res 10-13-97
000016
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 3
4. Based on the mitigation measures that are proposed, there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
General Plan Amendment Finding
The approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1 is consistent with
the City's General Plan goals and policies.
Zone Change Finding
The approval of Zone Change No. 97 -5 is consistent with the City's
General Plan, subject to approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97-
1.
Specific Plan Findings
1. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of recommended
revisions, is consistent with the requirements of California
Government Code Section 65450 et. seq.
2. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of recommended
revisions and imposition of mitigation measures, is consistent
with the City of Moorpark General Plan, as amended by General
Plan Amendment No. 97 -1.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, to revise the General Plan Land Use
Element Section 5.2, Specific Plan Designation, to include a description
of the Downtown Specific Plan and to revise Exhibit No. 3, Land Use Plan
(City Area), to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area; and amend the
General Plan Circulation Element Figure No. 3, Bikeway Element, to
reflect the planned bikeway linkages that would be consistent with
recommended revisions to Specific Plan Figure No. 15, to facilitate
bikeway access to the Downtown, including a Class II bikeway on Gabbert
Road from Los Angeles Avenue to Poindexter Avenue and along the entire
length of Poindexter Avenue, a Class It bikeway along Moorpark Avenue
from Poindexter Avenue to High Street, a Class II bikeway along High
Street and then continuing east along Los Angeles Avenue to Princeton
Avenue, and a Class II bikeway along Spring Road from Los Angeles
c:\ 1- m\resol \pcsp93- l .res 10-13-97
nnnn2n
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 4
Avenue /New Los Angeles Avenue and continuing north of High Street
(reference Attachment 1).
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of
an ordinance amending Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code
to establish zone districts and controlling development standards for the
Downtown Specific Plan site, as identified in Section 2.0 of the Specific
Plan and except as revised by the recommendations included in Section 5
of this resolution, and to amend the City Zoning Map to identify the
Downtown Specific Plan area.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan No.
95 -1), subject to incorporation of the following list of revisions into
the Specific Plan document:
Page 22, Section 1.51, General Plan Consistency, Housing Element -
Delete incorrect Land Use Element reference for the Housing Element
consistency section.
Page 23, Section 1.5.2, Consistency with City Zoning Code, paragraph
2, line 4 - Revise Figure 9 reference to Figure 6.
Page 26, Section 2.1.1 - Add discussion to clarify that the General
Plan Land Use Designation on Exhibit 3 of the Land Use Element will
be Downtown Specific Plan and that Section 5.1, Land Use
Classifications, of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan
provides reference for the descriptions of land use classifications
shown on the Specific Plan Land Use Map. Since the Old Town
Commercial land use classification is not included in the current
Land Use Element, definition of the Old Town Commercial land use
classification is required in Section 2.1.1 of the Specific Plan.
A discussion of the relationship of the Downtown Specific Plan to
the General Plan Land Use Element should also be included in Section
2.1.1.
Page 26, Section 2.1.1.A, Special Commercial and Industrial Zones,
line 4 - Delete the last word, "the", in line 4. Also delete
reference to the expanded use list for the Neighborhood Commercial
(C -1) Zone and the permitted use list for the Industrial Park (M -1)
Zone. (Explanation: The Table 4 list of permitted uses for the C -1
Zone and all of Table 5, M -1 list of permitted uses, are recommended
for deletion, because the Planning Commission is studying an
c:\ 1- m\r=Rpmp95 -i .res 10-13-97
e 1nnn�t
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 5
amendment to Title 17, Zoning, that includes proposed revisions to
the C -1 Zone and M -1 Zone list of permitted uses.)
Page 26, Section 2.1.1.B, Residential and Office Zones - Delete
Charles Street Office Overlay District reference. (Explanation:
Planning Commission recommends maintaining Charles Street as a
single - family residential neighborhood.)
Pages 27 and 28, Table 4, Permitted Uses for Old Town Commercial
(OTC) Zone - Incorporate revisions to table, as shown on Attachment
2.
Page 30, Section 2.1.1.F, Secondary Planning Area - Revise Figure
9 reference in line 2 to Figure 6. Also revise text in paragraph
2 to delete reference to Light Industrial /Industrial Park (M -1) land
use and Table S.
Pages 31 and 32, Table 5 - Based on the Planning Commission's
recommendation that the property east of Spring Road and south of
the railroad tracks be zoned as Old Town Commercial (OTC) versus
Industrial Park (M -1), Table 5 should be deleted, any text reference
should also be deleted, and all subsequent tables should be
renumbered. (Explanation: Table 5 consists of a restricted list
of permitted uses for the M -1 Zone, and that table was considered
not needed in the Specific Plan if the area east of Spring Road is
zoned OTC.)
Page 33, Figure 6, Moorpark Secondary Planning Area Zoning - Revise
the title to also reference land use designations, and show planned
land use designations.
Page 35, Figure 7, Specific Plan Land Use Map - Revise proposed land
uses consistent with Attachment 3 to this resolution.
Page 36, Figure 8, Specific Plan Zoning Map - Revise proposed zoning
consistent with Attachment 4 to this resolution.
Page 37, Figure 9, Charles Street Professional Office Overlay
District - Delete this figure based on recommendation to retain
existing R -1 Zone, and renumber subsequent figures.
Pages 41 -116, Section 2.2, Development Standards and Guidelines for
Specific Plan Zones - The heading for each described zone district
must be consistent to include the full title and abbreviation, such
c: \1- m\reso1lpcsp95-1.res 10-13-97
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 6
as -change "Medium Density Residential Zone: R -1" to Single Family
Residential (R -1), consistent with Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark
Municipal Code. Delete references to land use designations, which
should not be described in Section 2.2. For Section 2.2, Design
Guidelines, for zU zones identified in the Downtown Specific Plan,
delete Spanish Mission and Pueblo architecture references and revise
all illustrations and photographs to eliminate examples of these
types of architecture and design features. Architectural styles to
be encouraged include Victorian, Western, Agrarian, Early American
Commercial, Eastlake, Eastern Stick, and Spanish Colonial. An
eclectic mix is preferred.
Page 41, Section 2.2.1.A.3, R -1 Zone Building Setbacks - Revise text
to reference Section 17.24.060.A of Title 17 of the Moorpark
Municipal Code for allowed intrusions into required setbacks,
including setback requirements for detached accessory structures,
and Section 17.24.070 for other miscellaneous setback requirements-
Page 41, Section 2.2.1.A.4, R -1 Zone Height - Revise text to
identify that the maximum height of an accessory structure is 15
feet and that the maximum height of a patio cover and second story
deck, not including railing height, shall be 12 feet. Section
17.24.080 of Title 17 should be referenced for exceptions to height
limits.
Page 49, Section 2.2.1.C, R -1 Zone Landscape Guidelines, revise
reference to Suggested Plant Palette (currently Table 6), and
include the Suggested Plant Palette Table following Section
2.2.1.C.2 or in the Appendices.
Page 51, Section 2.2.2, High to Very High Density Residential Zone,
RPD - The discussion on this page should be rewritten to be
consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendations for
properties to be rezoned to RPD, and the allowed density range,
consistent with Attachment 4 to this resolution.
Page 60, Section 2.2.2.C, RPD Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct
reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette.
Page 62, Section 2.2.3.A.1, Office Zone - C -O, Site Development
Standards, Land Use and Permitted Uses - The discussion incorrectly
identifies that rezoning from C -1 to C -O will result in a number of
existing auto retail /service uses along Moorpark Avenue becoming
legal non- conforming uses with the establishment of the C -O Zone
designation. Repair and reconditioning services and automobile body
work and painting uses are not shown as permitted uses for the C -1
c:\ l - m\resol \pcsp95- l .res 10-13-97
000023-
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 7
Zone in Table 17.20.060, Permitted Uses in Commercial and Industrial
Zones, in the current Zoning Code. The text should be revised to
clarify that automobile repair uses are already non - conforming.
Pages 69 to 71, Section 2.2.3.D, Office Zone - CO, Charles Street
Professional Office Overlay District - This section should be
deleted based on Planning Commission's recommendation to retain
existing R -1 Zone.
Page 72, Section 2.2.4.A, OTC Zone, Site Development Standards -
Language should be added to encourage the use of paseos.
Page 72, Section 2.2.4.A.2, OTC Zone Building Setbacks - If the
property east of Spring Road and south of the railroad tracks is
zoned OTC, the setback discussion should be revised to clarify that
the landscaped setback requirements, for that area, would be
consistent with Table 17.24.020.B of Title 17 (which requires a 30-
foot landscaped setback adjacent to arterials and a 20 -foot
landscaped setback for two -lane local and rural collectors).
Page 74, Section 2.2.4.A.S.g, Old Town Commercial, Mixed Use
Development - Second sentence has an editorial error and should
read: "Access for parking and driveways shall be taken from
adjoining alleys or alternative streets when available."
Page 85, Section 2.2.4.B.9, OTC Zone Building Materials, Roofs -
Delete standing seam metal roof and add corrugated metal.
Page 85, Section 2.2.4.8.9, OTC Zone Building Materials, Building
walls - Delete split -faced block and add stone or brick wainscoting.
Page 88, Section 2.2.4.C, OTC Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct -
reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette.
Page 89, Section 2.2.4.C.3, Plant Palette - Delete this section,
because it mandates adherence to the plant palette table.
Pages 89 and 90, Table 6, Downtown Specific Plan Suggested Plant
Palette - Relocate table per previous recommendation. A note should
be added to the table that additional plant species can be
substituted for the species listed, if such species are consistent
with the architectural themes encouraged in the Downtown Specific
Plan area and will not result in damage to infrastructure or a
maintenance problem for the public streets and sidewalk areas.
c:\1- m\resol \pcsp95 -Lres 10-13-97
0000 :4
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 8
Page 91, Section 2.2.5.A.1, Neighborhood Commercial (C -1) - Revise
reference to Table 4 list of permitted uses to reference Table
17.20.060 of Title 17. (Explanation: Planning Commission has
recommended that the C -1 Zone list of permitted uses on Table 4 be
deleted.)
Page 95, Section 2.2.5.C, C -1 Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct
reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette.
Page 97, Section 2.2.6, Commercial Planned Development (CPD) -
Revise front setback requirement from "None- to be consistent with
Table 17.24.020.B of Title 17 (which requires a 30 -foot landscaped
setback adjacent to arterials and a 20 -foot landscaped setback for
two -lane local and rural collectors).
Page 98, Section 2.2.6.C, CPD Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct
reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette.
Page 99, Section 2.2.7, Institutional Zone - Revise front setback
requirement from "None- to 20 feet of landscaping along Moorpark
Avenue.
Page 105, Section 2.2.4.B.4, Institutional Zone Design Guidelines,
Building Materials, Walls - Delete split -faced block and add stone
or brick wainscoting.
Page 108, Section 2.2.7.C, Institutional Zone Landscape Guidelines -
Correct reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette.
Page 109, Section 2.2.8.A.1, Industrial Park /Light Industrial (M -1),
Site Development Standards, Land Use - Revise the discussion to also
reference the existing industrial development in the secondary
planning area and to delete reference to Table S. Section 2.2.8.A.2,
Building Setbacks, and revise the front setback requirement from
"None" to be consistent with Table 17.24.020.B of Title 17 (which
requires a 30 -foot landscaped setback adjacent to arterials and a
20 -foot landscaped setback for two -lane local and rural collectors).
Page 113, Section 2.2.8.8.4, M -1 Zone Design Guidelines, Building
Materials, Walls - Delete split -faced block and add stone or brick
wainscoting.
Page 116, Section 2.2.8.C, M -1 Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct
reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette.
cA 1- mlreso1lpcsp95- l .res 10-13-97
000025
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 9 _
Following Page 130, Figures 11 and 12, High Street Vision Plan
Sheets A and B - Revise plan to delete raised, landscaped median.
Page 134, Figure 15, Public Pathways and Plazas - Revise Figure 15
to show a Class II bikeway along Poindexter Avenue, a Class II
bikeway along Moorpark Avenue from Poindexter Avenue to High Street,
a Class II bikeway along High Street and then continuing east along
Los Angeles Avenue, and a Class II bikeway along all of Spring Road
including continuing north of Charles Street; and also revise Figure
15 to delete the Class II bikeway shown on Charles Street and change
the Class II bikeway to a Class III on Moorpark Avenue beginning at
High Street and continuing north to the Specific Plan boundary.
(Explanation: The Planning Commission recommends that Class II
bikeways be provided to facilitate access; to the Downtown area of
the City.) -
Page 135, Section 3.3.8, Medians - Revise discussion to 'delete
proposal for a raised and planted median on High Street, and
reference other potential pedestrian friendly improvements such as
are discussed in Section 1.4.1 on Page 138. The second sentence of
Section 3.3.8 should be revised to clarify that the construction of
medians on Moorpark Avenue (State Route 23) may not be approved by
Caltrans, due to the state highway designation; however, a median
on Moorpark Avenue should be considered as a long -term objective if
a State Route 23 bypass is constructed and the City assumes
responsibility for Moorpark Avenue.
Page 138, Section 3.4.1, Traffic Calming, second paragraph - Revise
reference to a High Street median. Revise stop sign recommendation
for the High Street and Bard Street intersection to a pedestrian
activated stop light.
Page 139, Figure 17, High Street Section - Revise the street section
to delete the raised, landscaped median.
Page 140, Section 3.4.4, Closure of Magnolia Street - Add
clarification language that the Vision Plan showing the closure of
Magnolia Street is intended to help guide future development, but
in no way is intended as a mandatory configuration for
implementation.
Page 141, Section 3.5, Pedestrian /Bicycle Circulation - Revise
planned bikeway system discussion to be consistent with Attachment
1 to this resolution.
cAI- m\reso1 \pcsp9S -Lres 10-13-97
Resolution No. PC -97 -345
Page 10
Page 142, Section 3.5.1, Bicycle Racks and Bench /Rest Stops - Revise
the last sentence due to missing text pertaining to where bicycle
racks can be located.
Page 171, Section 5.2.1.E, Program 1 - Revise reference to High
Street median.
Page 176, Table 13 - Revise High Street cost estimates pertaining
to raised median construction.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission hereby rescinds Resolution No.
PC -97 -342, which is superseded by this resolution incorporating all
recommendations of the Commission on General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1,
Zone Change No. 97 -5, and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1.
The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the
following roll call vote: `
AYES: Commissioners Millhouse, Miller, and Lowenberg, and
Chair Acosta
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Norcross
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997.
Ernesto Acosta, Chair
ATTEST:
Celia La Fleur
Secretary
Attachments:
1. Revised Circulation Element Figure 3
2. Revised Specific Plan Table 4
3. Revised Specific Plan Figure 7
4. Revised Specific Plan Figure 8
c:\ 1- m\rew1 \pap95 -1.rea 10-13-97
000027
nuftuaaue CUSS I BIKEWAY (BIKi PATH) . A (soft domWed W
«Nteae we by w7dw WA Pftf map sgwm d ham
veheWae trait b► a bonw. pride rp or epee rgetaa
Croat•flema by ahtdm and pedm m areal bw ttttei.tn.ta
asome MSS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) • A pied area of a
roodwey door med for prefettmtel ma of bieycfea. Pnemeht
martunp and mVwW andteate tIM prsaatee of a bite lalta ae
i he road.,"
110%,%mmix CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) . A eehatt ormal meet
+note mte retgea art Ideated tw ltpt ettl} 4tere art ne
special ps"mem - altwaya and btc'yela traf w skwm the
roadw" .tilt mmdnted traffic. Only Claw 111 faatttel woeh
connen the Meorgvt tow a mitib the rogm btkawq ryaew
are identified to the btttt y neawrIL Road a vbtch aR
na deormted .rift a C1ma 11 tideway. bw .M& wry as
connecitdm helween Chit It fWWHM or the repent Odewq
system ahouid be coroWered a Claw 111 bikeways.
••�•�•� CITY UMfr SOUNOAAY
22
FIGURE 3
CITY OF MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
SUCE41fW ELET+ ea
May I& 198E
•
CLASS AI BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) • A pe-ed area of a
roadway deatpaau l for prtleremW um of bicycles Pavemem
mrttrtp and apuq tndeatO 1IM preaettee df • ate We elt
the cad-ay (New Class Q Bikeways, upgraded from
Class III Bikeways)
11 ll911617 C'11
ATTACHMENT 2
LASS r+ ,,00p cubic yards
mo,-c than Soap cubic yand� Q
000029
Table 4 (continued)
(7)nns -A. ,W "4". ��6es.- ��i.r% :jL i-.�_ el_ 1 /• r
T a. T�n7 \1 r>s..iMQr w77f
Manufacturing and re air of hoto rahic and optical goods
.�`OI
Ciwl�',
Martial arts and dance studios
Motion kture and TV production, and related activities and structures
Temporary maximum 47 days in any 180-day period)
ID
1
Offices: business, professional, and administrative, except health and veterina
0 ticai Goods
Or anizations rofessional religious, political, labor, trade, youth, etc.
Parks — PLAIDI, r—
-�
Parking lots
Public utility facilities
Offices only
Pharmacy, accessory retail for prescription pharmaceuticals only
Photocopy/quick printers
Photofinishing 1 -hour photo)
Produce stands retail
Repair of personal Goods such as jewelry, shoes and saddlery
�.
S
Restaurants cafes and cafeterias
eS nuror-ts am Caf OLA5i eaAln OYtQ
Retail trade , •
e l s
Lumber and buildina materials sal arils
Schools: Elementary and second nonboardi on
Schools: Professional vocational craft and self-improvement
Storage of building materials t ur r osi
Uses and structures accessory
Outdoor sales and services to see definitions in Chapter 17.08 Title t
Repair of products retailed
Vaccination clinics tenVorM, for od animals
Veterinary clinics animals only
Water Production, store a and dlstribudon facilities: private purveyor*
Ut ,, da,, R Aa,; j Trams o.AtA :
D•Atdov�r Sa.lccp a-raM
M
0 wt,800 t g al e s c►rscL +.0 'r, )" ywd% r y 4&
dCrnow,
!! f
M
H
z
w
V
d
H
H
d
d •°
v
s
d
.CN��C c
a1c 0. � V
n
a
E
V°
E
h -b
c O
D"1
an
v
a a
dE
I o z J
d r
M■ a ®
Ct .
I! I I I!! jjj I Jjj
f. i i :�ii li I lil�i'��'Iill i'IIIII
OF
MEMNON
0.
ca
/co
LL
U
U
C.
cn
•
• ,, ;,
Muni
• :: :I
■■ ■I
■■ ■I
OMNI
'III !11111 \: :I "
NEI
` C •
��II�I 1 "I►!I. iii i � r � r - - � ,
■■I r i
ll!It!, (■■i�� r r is ;,;i 10011111 ii \ ►SS
■■lir r w ..a ; • . 1
ll!11f ��
on 1 1 111111
. !II „I� III'�If�! I' .r 1 � � _ _ ■ � 11 1111
• �lilll3l i„„�' I I •ri : � � ' � � I' 1 � �
1 �. •
�
§/�00
Is
VON,
\\ �■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■
� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,:::...
•
to
A.
.9M
E.
G.
ATTACHMENT B
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE:
August 11, 1997
HEARING LOCATION:
Moorpark City Hall
City Council Chambers
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
STAFF CONTACTS:
Nelson Miller, Directc�
of Community Development
Deborah S. Traffenstedt ':Dg-r
Principal Planner
EXECUTIV3 SUMMARY:
Item 9.A.
B. HEARING TIME:
7:00 p.m.
D. PROJECT:
Downtown Specific Plan-
SP-95-1
General Plan Amendment 97 -1
Zone Change 97 -5
F. CONSULTANT CONTACT:
LeeAnne Hagmaier
RRM Design Group
3026 S. Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 95354
The proposed Downtown Specific Plan Project consists of: (1) A General
Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 97 -1 to revise the land use
designations shown on the Land Use Plan for various properties within the
Specific Plan area and to amend the Land Use Element text pertaining to
land use classifications; (2) A Zone Change No. 97 -5 to revise Title 17,
Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to include new zoning standards,
revise the list of permitted uses, and to revise the City Zoning Map for
the Specific Plan area; and (3) Adoption of the Moorpark Downtown,
Specific Plan (SP- 95 -1), which includes land use and zoning maps, a
streetscape beautification program, pedestrian and traffic circulation
improvements, and specific design guidelines and development standards
to guide future development within the Specific Plan area.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration is intended to be adopted for the
Downtown Specific Plan Project. Based upon an Initial Study and analysis
DST cAl- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp 000033
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997
Page 2
of available information, there
significant effects of the proposed
of insignificance with the adoption
Ls substantial evidence that the
project can be mitigated to a level
of mitigation measures.
A Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed an earlier draft of the
Downtown Specific Plan, and prepared a report which identified 18 issues
that addressed Specific Plan implementation, financing, land uses,
design, and physical improvements. Advisory Committee identified issues
are addressed in this staff report and in Attachment 1, Comments from RRM
Design Group (the Specific Plan consultant) on the Steering Committee
Recommendations.
The Downtown Specific Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study,
and Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee Report were provided to the
Planning Commission under separate cover.
Requested Action And Staff Recommendation:
1. open the public hearing and accept public testimony on the Specific
Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change; and
2. Discuss issues identified in staff report and Downtown Citizens
Advisory Committee Report, and continue public hearing to August 25,
1997; and
3. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution recommending approval of
the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, subject
to incorporation of Specific Plan revisions as identified by the
Planning Commission. ,
H. BACKGROUND:
In 1989, the City hired the Planning Center to identify and address the
issues of revitalization of the Downtown, which resulted in the
preparation of the Downtown Plan. That Plan addressed opportunities for
change, and includes a recommended land use concept for the Downtown,
general design guidelines, and an implementation plan. One of the
implementation measures identified was to initiate a regulatory type of
specific plan having specific standards and design measures addressed in
detail rather than policy statements.
In May 1995, the City hired RRM Design Group to prepare a Downtown
Specific Plan, to implement the 1989 Downtown Study recommendations. As
part of the Specific Plan preparation, all of the recommendations in the
1989 study were reviewed and summarized by RRM Design Group to determine
DST cAl- m\safhpc\pcdm.sp
"nn!l7 R
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997 -
Page 3
whether individual programs have been implemented, are currently being
implemented, or have not yet been acted upon. The summary review of the
1989 Downtown Study is included in the Appendix for the Specific Plan,
which was provided separately to the Planning Commission.
The Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan was developed by RRM Design Group
over a two -year time period (from May 1995 through July 1997) and
involved public outreach and investigation through a series of methods,
which included but were not limited to: 1) a market analysis study to
estimate the amount of spending leakage leaving the City; 2) a resident
survey that was sent to over 800 homeowners in the City and addressed
issues of downtown image and architectural character, use of the
Metrolink station and retail and business opportunities for the Downtown
versus Los Angeles Avenue commercial areas; 3) joint City
Council/ Planning Commission workshops in 1995 and 1997; 4) a Dgwntown
merchant survey that was distributed as a follow -up to a December 1995
joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop; and 5) appointment of
a Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee to review a preliminary draft of
the Downtown Specific Plan and develop recommendations for revitalizing
the Downtown. The Committee's report is summarized and analyzed in
Section M, Advisory Committee Issues, of this staff report and in
Attachment 1.
The Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan furthers the vision for the overall
revitalization of the downtown and addresses design standards,
guidelines, and a strategy for business attraction and development of the
City /Redevelopment Agency owned parcels in the Downtown.
I. . PROCESSING TIME LIMITS:
The proposed adoption of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and
Zone Change require legislative, rather than adjudicatory actions by the
City Council; therefore, there is no time limit for adoption. The City
Council, however, has directed staff to expedite Planning Commission
review. Tho Council's stated preference was that the Planning Commission
complete its review and provide a recommendation to the Council, so as
to allow the City Council hearings to begin in September 1997.
J. DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (PROJECT SITE):
The Specific Plan area includes High Street, at its core, along with
other parts of Downtown Moorpark, such as residential neighborhoods to
the north of High Street, the railroad right -of -way south of High Street,
and the properties along Moorpark Avenue from City Hall south to Los
Angeles Avenue (reference Specific Plan Study Area shown on Attachment
DST cAl- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp
(Innn11_5
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August S', 1997--
Page 4
2). The Specific Plan area also extends east of Spring Road, between
Flinn Avenue and High Street /Los Angeles Avenue (reference Secondary
Planning Area shown on Attachment 3).
R. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS:
1. General Plan Amendment (OPA -97 -1)
A General Plan Amendment is proposed to revise the land use
designations shown on the Land Use Plan for various properties
within the Specific Plan area and to amend the Land Use Element text
pertaining to land use classifications (reference Attachment 4 to
this report, which is a figure that shows the proposed Land Use.
Plan) . General Plan consistency is addressed in Section 1.5.1 of
the Specific Plan.
2. Zoning Code Amendment (ZC -97 -5)
An amendment to Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code is proposed
to include new zoning standards, revise the list of permitted uses,
and to revise the City Zoning Map for the Specific Plan area
(reference Attachment 5 to this report, which is a figure that shows
the Zoning Map amendments). Pages 8 through 16 in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration include a more complete description of the
zoning amendments that are proposed. Consistency with Title 17 is
also addressed in Section 1.5.2 of the Specific Plan.
3. Specific Plan (SP -95 -1)
The City's General Plan requires the use of specific plans to
systematically implement General Plan policies and priorities and
identifies that the intent of a specific plan is to achieve a long-
term cohesive development program which is responsive to the
physical and economic opportunities and constraints of the specific
plan area.
As required by Section 65451 of the California Government Code, the
content of a Specific Plan shall include the following:
A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which
specify all of the following in detail:
(a) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land,
including open space, within the area covered by the plan.
DST 01- m\staffrptlpcdtn.sp
if xfAIAWIC
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997_
Page 5
Section 2, Land Use and Zoning, of the draft Specific Plan
does address the distribution, location, and extent of the
various proposed land uses, and also includes development
standards, design guidelines, and regulations pertaining to
private property maintenance, renovation, and expansion.
(b) The proposed distribution, location, extent, and intensity of
major components of public and private transportation, sewage,
water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other
essential facilities proposed to be located within the area
covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses
described in the plan.
Discussion of existing and planned circulation and streetscape
beautification is included in Section 3 of the draft Specific
Plan, and public utilities, infrastructure, services, and
safety is addressed in Section 4.
(c) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and
.standards for the conservation, development, and utilization
of natural resources, where applicable.
Section 2, Land Use and Zoning, includes Development Standards
and Guidelines for Specific Plan Zones. Standards are
regulations that are intended to be adopted as zoning code,
and design and landscape guidelines are intended to complement
the mandatory site development standards by providing good
examples of potential design solutions and assist the project
applicant in understanding the City, atigoals and objectives for
high quality development within the various zone districts.
(d) A program of implementation measures including regulations,
programs, public works projects, and financing measures
necessary to carry out paragraphs a, b, and c.
Section 5, Implementation and Administration of the Specific
Plan includes discussion of potential funding sources,
recommended implementation programs, public streetscape
improvements, and specific plan administration, adoption and
amendment procedures.
DST c A l - m\stafftptlpcdtn.sp
nnnnll "P
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August S., 1997.
Page 6
The Specific Plan shall Include a statement of the relationship of
the Specific Plan to the General Plan.
Section 1.5, Relationship to City Plans and Programs, addresses
General Plan and City Zoning Code consistency.
L. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was provided
to the Planning Commission under separate cover. The Initial Study
was prepared to evaluate the potential effects of the Downtown
Specific Plan Project upon the environment. Based on the data
contained in the Initial Study, a determination was made that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was the appropriate environmental
document, because mitigation measures have been proposed that will
ensure that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. Neither the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines nor the City's CEQA Procedures require a public hearing
for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The public review period
began on July 9, 1997 and will end at 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 1997
(which exceeds the 30 -day review period requirement).
M. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ISSUES:
A Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee was appointed by the City
Council in March 1997 to review the preliminary draft of the
Downtown Specific Plan. The Committee was comprised of twelve
citizens from throughout the community and included residents and
business owners. The Council requested the Committee to develop a
report with recommendations and suggestions regarding the plan,
which would be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration
during the public hearings on the Draft Specific Plan. A copy of
the Committee's report has been provided to the Planning Commission
under separate cover. The Committee's list of issues is contained
in Exhibit C of their report and are also listed below.
Many of the Committee's recommendations identify issues which relate
to general revitalization of the downtown area or recommended
implementation measures to assist in revitalization and do not
necessarily require revisions to the Specific Plan. These issues
also relate to various issues the City "Council and the
Redevelopment Agency are considering, or may wish to consider
separately form the Downtown Specific Plan.
DST cAI- mistaffrptlpcdtn.sp
nnp.nZA
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August S, 1997.
Page 7
Staff has listed the Advisory Committee identified issues below and
provided comments /recommendations following each issue. In
addition, Attachment 1 is the RRM Design Group's comments on the
Advisory Committee Report. Staff has not included additional
comments in this staff report on the Advisory Committee's
architectural/ aesthetic recommendations, since Attachment 1
provides comments on those recommendations. The Downtown Citizens
Advisory Committee recommendations regarding re- activating the
Committee for various purposes are not addressed below, because
additional Committee involvement would need to be determined by the
City Council.
1.
2.
East Gateway
Advisory Committee:
Must Resolve to Implement Plan
Perception•Reality- Stay Away
Consistent And Constant Enforcement
Needs Firm Commitment
(a) Negotiated hours
(b) Established location on property for laborers
(c) Cultural- ethnic sensitivity
(d) Assign resources officer as primary duty, assisted by
bicycle patrol
(e) Enforce City ordinance requiring cooperation of property
owner
(f) Reinstall landscaping and irrigation, and enforce
regular maintenance to discourage loitering /standing in
planter areas
(g) Consider relocation to City /RDA property as an
alternative if the above is not implemented
Staf f :
Issues identified pertaining to Typsy Fox and
require any revision to the Specific Plan, but
Committee as concerns to be resolved to
revitalization.
Implementation Plan
Advisory Committee:
DST cAl - m\st&fr pt\pcdtn.sp
day laborers do not
were identified by
implement Downtown
Add Eastern Properties to Plan Boundary (See Moratorium Item,
Ordinance No.- 224) (Exhihit -_ 111
000039
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997
Page 8
DCC to be Activated Again to Review and Recommend, When
Available
Design Review Committee, With Staff Support, To Be Formed To
Function in "Pre- Application" Stages of Project Proposals
(Advisory to Director, Planning Commission and City Council)
Staff :
DST cAI - mistaffrpt\pcdtn.sp
Eastern Properties identified in Ordinance No. 224 were added
to the Specific Plan area and are identified as the secondary
planning area.
Advantages of a Design Review Committee are that it would
promote citizen involvement and /or could be structured so as
to include members with a broad range of expertise and
backgrounds. Disadvantages are that the approval time period
for projects could be lengthened (depending upon the
responsibilities of the Design Review Committee), and the
Committee could require staff support, such as preparing
agendas and reports, meeting notices, and minutes. Typically,
staff would also need to attend Design Review Committee
meetings to present information and answer questions.
The parameters of Design Committee involvement would need to
be clearly defined in the Specific Plan, such as what
applications would be reviewed by the Committee and when. Any
Design Review Committee should not duplicate the role of the
Planning Commission, but would need to be advisory to the
Commission and City Council. Also, should such a Committee be
comprised of design professionals, or be more focused on
residents and /or business owners in the area would need to be
determined.
As an example, the City of Simi Valley has four Neighborhood
Councils and each Council has 13 members that reside in the
designated district area. The Councils are provided project
and environmental information after staff has determined an
application complete, but before scheduling the project for
Planning Commission hearing. The Neighborhood Council's
recommendation is then advisory to the Planning Commission and
City Council. The Neighborhood Councils are not formally
involved before an application completeness determination by
staff, because of the 30 -day statutory time limit for a
determination of application completeness.
The City of Simi Valley has had to fund a full -time position
to provide staff support for the four Neighborhood Councils.
The staff time is billed to the project application deposit;
however, additional staff was necessary to support this
11110 1,
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997-
Page 9
program. The need for additional staff time may conflict with
the Advisory Committee's recommendation pertaining to a
recommended 50 percent fee reduction (see No. 5, below).
3. Financing Plan
Advisory Committee:
Gisler Field Money To Be nesigra •d For Housing Projects In
Downtown Specific Plan Area
Psi;nata Significant "Tax Increment" Money to Downtown
Specific Plan Area
DCC To Be Activated Again To Review and Recommend, When
Available
Staff :
Recommendations pertaining to Gisler Field sale revenue and
redevelopment tax increment money to be used /designated for Downtown
Specific Plan area do not require any revisions to the Specific
Plan; rather, they are subject to determination by the Moorpark
Redevelopment Agency.
4. Approval Authority
Advisory Committee:
See Revised Resolution No. 95 -1135 - Once The City Council Has
Adopted The Specific Plan, Then The Director And Planning Commission
Can Implement (With The Design Review Committee Advisory Input).
City Council Must Approve Any Amendments To The Specific Plan, And
The Appeals Process Can Be Employed By Anyone (Recommend 4
Hours \$344.00 Appeal Fee) - Exhibi - (21
Staff :
Exhibit C -2 of the Advisory Committee's Report identifies recommended
revisions to the Resolution of the City Council that establishes certain
permit approval processes (currently Resolution No. 95- 1135). The
Committee's suggested revisions are intended to apply to the Downtown
Specific Plan area only and could be incorporated into the Specific Plan.
Page 181 of the Draft Specific Plan already details the amendment
procedure for the Specific Plan. Consistent with State Government Code
Section 65453, a specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in
the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be
adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as
deemed necessary by the legislative body. The legislative body for the
City of Moorpark is the City Council.
DST cA1- mtsnfhptlpcdtn.sp
,1rTT�TL5 1
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997
Page 10
The Committee also recommended allowing the Planning Commission to have
more approval authority for commercial and industrial projects in the
Downtown Specific Plan area (allow Planning Commission approval for
proposals containing less than 40,000 square feet of gross floor area for
all buildings involved versus 20,000 square feet as authorized by City
Council Resolution No. 95 -1135. The Advisory Committee also suggests that
the language that would require City Council approval for commercial and
industrial Planned Development Permits within 300 feet of a residential
zone or use would be deleted. If the Planning Commission concurs, a
recommendation could be included in the Commission's resolution that the
zoning section of the Specific Plan be amended to clarify permit approval
authority for the Downtown Specific Plan area consistent with the Advisory
Committee's recommendations.
The Advisory Committee's recommendation regarding a $344 (4 hour) appeal
fee does not require any revision to the Specific Plan, but would require
a revision to the City Council fee resolution as an implementation action.
S. Fees
Advisory Committee:
50$ Reduction In Deposit Fees (And Commit To Process Within Deposit
Fee), For Downtown Specific Plan Area. This Recognizes That The
Process Is More Efficient Due To Established Detail and Guidelines
In specific Plan
The Recommended Approval Levels Revision Also Reduces Process Time,
and Staff Time
Staff :
The Advisory Committee has recommended a 50 percent reduction in the
deposit amount for the Downtown Specific Plan area. As a follow -up
implementation measure for the Specific Plan, staff could further
investigate potential processing time efficiency for projects in the
Downtown Specific Plan area and then provide a recommendation to the City
Council in conjunction with the yearly fee schedule adoption. Any savings
that may be gained due to the proposal to allow the Planning Commission
more approval authority may be expended if additional staff involvement is
required for a Design Review Committee. Also, many special circumstances
relating to uses and structures in the Downtown area, especially relating
to applicant's desires to reduce costs, minimize improvements or changes,
frequently have lead to considerably greater amounts of staff time in
these areas, rather than less. The City's policy has been for full cost
recovery of all costs associated with processing of applications. The
current fee schedule already incorporates a lesser fee for a commercial or
industrial planned development permit for an existing building, which is
frequently more applicable to the Downtown than other areas of the City.
DST c:\1- m\statirptlpcdtn.sp
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997
Page 11
6. Old Town Commercial Zone Uses List
Advisory Committee:
Any Deletions Should Be Deleted From "C -1 ", "C -2" and CPD Zones in
Downtown Specific Plan Area, Or All Zoning Should Be C -OT
See Uses Deleted (Table -5) Exh b; - (4
Staff :
As referenced above, the Committee's recommendations for the list of
permitted uses in the C -1 and OTC Zones is included as Exhibit C(4) to
their report. Attacbment 6 to this staff report is a marked up copy of
Specific Plan Table 4 that incorporates a combination of Committee and
staff recommended revisions. The Committee has recommended deleting
automobile repair as an allowed use for the C -1 Zone, since it-is not
currently permitted by the existing Zoning Code. Staff concurs. Other
uses the Committee has recommended deleting include kennels, Laundromats,
tanning centers, public utility facilities, lumber and,building materials
sales yards, and water production, storage, and distribution facilities
(private purveyors). The Planning Commission should discuss the
appropriateness of the recommended revisions.
The CPD Zone only applies to the Town Center and adjacent property (which
is already zoned CPD), a small area that is currently part of the
Metrolink parking lot, and an area south of Los Angeles Avenue and east of
Spring Road (which is also already zoned CPD). No changes to the list of
allowed uses appears to be needed for CPD zoned properties. The reason
for not zoning all Moorpark Avenue and High Street areas the same was to
recognize that there is a need for different zone standards and design
guidelines for two very different areas.
7. Police Resource Center
Advisory Committee:
Relocate To Downtown -High Street Area, As Soon As Possible
Staff :
This is an Implementation measure that does not affect the Specific Plan.
DST c:U- m\staffryt\pcdtn.sp
r lnnns Z
Downtown Specific Plan
To. Planning Commission
August 5, 1997
Page 12
8. Medians
Advisory Committee:
High Street - No
Moorpark Avenue - Yes!, As Proposed
Staff :
Staff concurs with the recommendation to not have a raised median on High
Street, due to past use of the street for parade and street fair type
uses. Other pedestrian friendly measures could be incorporated such as
are discussed on page 138 of Specific Plan and in ]Attachment 1).
9. R -2 Zone
Advisory Committee:
Recommend for Flory Avenue and 1st, 2nd, And 3rd Streets (Alley
Access Areas). No "RPD" Zoning (CUP for 2nd Unit)
Staff :
Disagree with use of R -2 zoning for the purpose of permitting a second
dwelling unit. Based on Section 65852.2 of the State Government Code, a
local government may, by ordinance, provide that a second unit is allowed
in single - family and multi - family zones. Local governments can designate
areas where second units may be permitted and may impose standards,
including but not limited to parking, height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, and maximum size. Because of the overcrowding
conditions in some of the single- family areas'of the City (including the
Flory Avenue, and First through Third Streets, the City's Zoning Code was
amended several years ago to require a minimum one - fourth acre or larger
lot. The R -2 Zone is an old County of Ventura zone district designation
that is no longer used. The R -1 Zone may be more appropriate for Flory
Avenue versus the RPD Zone, which is used for new residential areas or
areas that may convert to higher density, such as the proposal for Charles
Street.
10. Filming
Advisory Committee:
Significantly Increase Fees and n—= sticmar. Money To Downtown Specific
Plan Area (Less Staff Costs)
DST cAI - m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5•, 1997
Page 13
Staff:
This is an Implementation measure that does not affect the Specific Plan.
11. Plastic Signs
Advisory Committee:
Recommend No'Internally Illuminated "Cans" In Downtown Specific Plan
Area. Logos O.K. (20% of Signed Area Maximum)
Staff:
As a follow -up implementation measure, the City Council could initiate
amendment of Chapter 17.40, Sign Requirements. The scope of work for the
Specific Plan, as approved by the City Council, did not include sign code
amendments. Only gateway signage is addressed in the Specific Plan.
12. Delete Magnolia Street Promenade
Advisory Committee:
Should Not Be All "Senior Rental". Recommend Food Court, Retail,
office, etc., With Vehicular Access To Charles Street
Staf f :
The Committee's comments pertain to the conceptual uses shown on the
Vision Plan for High Street. As discussed on page 29 of the Specific
Plan, the Vision Plans '...are intended to help guide future development,
but in no way are intended as mandatory configurations for
implementation." The zoning will control the actual uses that eventually
may locate in the Magnolia Street area. The closure of Magnolia Street is
not mandated by the Specific Plan as currently written.
13. Landscape Percentage
Advisory Committee:
20t For Specific Plan Area, Exce t High StrPAt And Any Ai_iowAd on-
Lot Line Prniectn
Staf f :
The current Zoning Code requirement is 10 percent. The Committee's
recommended percentage would impose considerable additional constraints,
based on the lot sizes involved, although the Specific Plan requirement
DST cA 1- m\ttaffrpt\pcdtn.sp
+U000a.t� "_
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997--
Page 14
for a 20 -foot minimum setback for the C -O and C -1 Zones will allow the
opportunity for landscaping along the street frontage. In addition, the
criteria for conversion of residential structures, as identified on page
71, include requirements for a conditional use permit and the application
of additional standards or controls and site development upgrades in order
to maintain neighborhood compatibility. Increased landscaping and
screening requirements are listed as examples of additional standards and
controls that can be required.
14. Star Of The Valley
Advisory Committee:
Adopt Sub - Committee Recommendation For Marketing /Logo In MDSP Area
Staff :
This is an Implementation measure that does not affect the Specific Plan,
but can be incorporated into the Recommended Implementation Programs
section.
15. Overcrossing - SPRR
Advisory Committee:
Recommend Additional And Enhanced Pedestrian At -Grade Crossings.
"Metrolink Access" Is A Good Example
Recommend Abandoning Pursuit Of Pedestrian Overcrossing(s) Due To
High Cost And Design Difficulty (Cost) In Meeting ADA Requirements,
Unless A Proposed Project Can Demonstrate Functional And Economic
Feasibility
Staff :
Railroad crossings are already provided at existing access points to the
neighborhood to the south of High Street. The second comment does not
require any revision to the Specific Plan, which does not address
pedestrian overcrossings.
16. Density North of Charles Street
Advisory Committee:
Reinforce Single Family Residence Uses. Promote and Facilitate
Upgrades and Stabilize This Area
Recommend No Change Of Zone with Adoption Of The MDSP. However,
Provide Policy Direction That A Specific Plan Amendment Will Be
DST c:\1- m\stafirpt\pcdtn.sp
60 (indc-
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5-, 1997
Page 15
Considered For Projects Consolidating Which Includes A Concurrently
Processed Specific Project. Exhibit -e(s)
Staff:
The referenced Exhibit C -(S)is an economic feasibility analysis of
intensified residential densities within the Downtown Specific Plan, which
includes a conclusion that, with the exception of senior housing, any
intensification of the zoning density would diminish the rural character
of the downtown area.
Charles Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road currently contains
predominantly single - family residential uses with limited multi - family
residential development, such as the Tafoya Terrace apartments . The
proposed zoning will allow the opportunity for additional multi - family
residential development with lot consolidation, which could change the
character of the neighborhood over time. The Specific Plan consultant
included the potential for higher residential densities to increase the
population in close proximity to the Downtown commercial properties and to
provide additional opportunity for affordable housing. If the Planning
Commission and the City Council want to see the single- family residential
use maintained, then the zoning should remain R -1.
17. Moorpark Avenue Zoning
Advisory Committee:
Retain "C -1" Zone for East Side
a.) Retains only "Mixed Use• Area in MDSP
b.) Prohibit Parking In Front Yard Setback
c.) Will Not Create Additional "Non - Conforming" Uses. Rezone To
"C -0" Would Create Additional Non - Conforming Uses
Retain "CPD" Zoning On West Side -Same Reasons
Staff :
The C -1 Zone does not identify residential or auto repair and
reconditioning uses as permitted; therefore, those existing uses are
already "non- conforming." Rezoning the east side of Moorpark Avenue to C-
O will result in the former restaurant and beauty salon uses also
becoming "non - conforming" (the restaurant and beauty salon buildings are
not currently occupied). The reason given in the Specific Plan for the
rezoning from C -1 to C -O is that the C -O Zone is intended to provide
opportunity for conversion of existing residences to small professional
and commercial offices, while preserving residential scale, and respecting
the existing historic character of the neighborhood. The emphasis is on
the office use versus retail.
DST cAl - m\staffirpt\pcdtn.sp
0+0004'7
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997 -
Page 16
The Specific Plan could be revised to allow restaurant and personal
service establishments (such as beauty salons) in the C -0 Zone, or the
Planning Commission may consider recommending that the list of permitted
uses for the C -O Zone (Table 17.20.060 of Title 17) be amended to also
allow restaurant and personal service establishment uses, which would
appear to be very compatible with office uses. Alternatively, the
existing C -1 designation could be retained for the east side of Moorpark
Avenue. This may be more appropriate, if a more defined hierarchy of uses
is provided (as is currently under discussion by the Planning Commission
with revisions to the list of uses in the Zoning Code).
Parking is already prohibited in the front yard or street side setback,
except that fully operative, licensed and registered vehicles may be
parked in a driveway access to the required parking or on a paved area
adjacent to the driveway, as an accessory use to the dwelling. At no time
may more than 50 percent of the required front setback area be covered by
asphalt, concrete, or other hardscape materials used for vehicle parking
(reference Section 17.24.060.A.4.b).
18. Civic Center Site
Advisory Committee:
Remove Playground Equipment. It Is Too Temporary And "Out Of Place"
Appearing - Downtown Park Is In Place. Install Something Of
Substance In Its Place Which Is More "Thematic" With MDSP
Designate The Property Generally Located NW /Moorpark Avenue And
Everett Street (To Wicks Road) As Civic Center Expansion Area, To
Include A Neighborhood Park Along The Eastern Boundary, To The East
(Projected) Boundary Line Of Moorpark Avenue Frontage Properties
S /Everett Street.
Staf f :
The Civic Center area is planned and zoned for Institutional uses.
Government buildings and parks are permitted uses in the Institutional
Zone. The comment regarding the playground equipment does not require a
revision to the Specific Plan.
N. OTHER RECOIENDED SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS:
Staff is recommending other minor revisions/ corrections to the
Specific Plan as follows:
Page 22, Section 1.51, General Plan Consistency, Housing Element, delete
Land Use Element reference for Housing Element consistency section.
DST cAl - m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5-, 1997
Page 17
Page 23, Section 1.5.2, Consistency with City Zoning Code, paragraph 2,
line 4, revise Figure 9 reference to Figure 6.
Page 26, Section 2.1.1.A, Special Commercial and Industrial Zones, line 4,
delete the last word, "the ", in that line.
Pages 27 and 28, Table 4, Permitted Uses for C-1 and OTC Zones,
incorporate revisions to table, as shown on Attachment 6.
Page 29, Section 2.1.1.D, Vision Plans - These exhibits are correctly
referenced as Figures it through 14; however, during reproduction of the
Specific Plan, they were inserted incorrectly following page 29, they
should be inserted following page 129.
Page 30, Section 2.1.1.F, Secondary Planning Area, line 2, revise Figure
9 reference to Figure 6.
Pages 31 and 32, Table 5, incorporate revisions to table showing M -1 Zone
permitted uses, as shown on Attachment 7.
Page 62, Section 2.2.3.A.1, Office Zone - C -O, Site Development Standards,
Land Use and Permitted Uses - The discussion incorrectly identifies that
rezoning from C -1 to C -0 will result in a number of existing auto
retail /service uses along Moorpark Avenue becoming legal non - conforming
uses with the establishment of the C -0 Zone designation. Repair and
reconditioning services and automobile body work and painting uses are not
shown as• permitted uses for the C -1 Zone in Table 17.20.060, Permitted
Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones, in the current Zoning Code. The
text should be revised to clarify that automobile repair uses are already
non - conforming.
Page 74, Section 2.2.4.A.5.g, Old Town Commercial, Mixed Use Development,
second sentence has an editorial error and should read: "Access for
parking and driveways shall be taken from adjoining alleys or alternative
streets when available."
Page 97, Section 2.2.6, Commercial Planned Development (CPD), revise front
setback requirement from "None" to be consistent with Table 17.24.020.E of
Title 17 (which requires a 30 -foot landscaped setback adjacent to
arterial& and a 20 -foot landscaped setback for two -lane local and rural
collectors).
Page 99, Section 2.2.7, Institutional (I -Civic Center), revise front
setback requirement from "None" to 20 feet of landscaping along Moorpark
Avenue.
Page 109, Section 2.2.8, Industrial Park /Light Industrial (M -1),
subsection 1. Land Use, revise the first sentence to reference the
existing development in the primary planning area, and for subsection 2.
DST c:\ I - m \staffrpt\pcdtn.sp
00004,4
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August 5, 1997_ -
Page 18
Building Setbacks, revise the front setback requirement from "None,, to be
consistent with Table 17.24.020.8 of Title 17 (which requires a 30 -foot
landscaped setback adjacent to arterials and a 20 -foot landscaped setback
for two -lane local and rural collectors).
O. FINDINGS:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings
1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific
Plan Project reflects the independent judgment of the City of
Moorpark, as lead agency.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific
Plan Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA
(Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of
California) and the City's CEQA Procedures.
3. The Planning Commission has received and considered the
information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Initial Study prior to making any recommendation decision
for the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Project and has found
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study
adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed
project.
General Plan Amendment Finding
The approval of General Plan Amendment No., 97 -1 is consistent with
the City's General Plan, subject to incorporation of recommended
mitigation measures.
Zone, Change Finding
The approval of Zone Change No. 97 -5 is consistent with the City's
General Plan, subject to approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97-
1, and imposition of mitigation measures.
Specific Plan Findings
1. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of recommended
revisions, is consistent with the requirements of California
Government Code Section 65450 et. seq.
DST c:\1- m\staffipt\pcdtn.sp
000050
Downtown Specific Plan
To: Planning Commission
August S, 1997-
Page 19
2. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of recommended
revisions and imposition of mitigation measures, is consistent
with the City of Moorpark General Plan, as amended by General
Plan Amendment No. 97 -1.
P. REQUESTED ACTION AND STAFF RBCONN END ATION:
1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony on the
Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change; and
2. Discuss issues identified in the staff report Downtown
Citizens Advisory Committee Report, and continue public
hearing to August 25, 1997; and
3. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution recommending
approval of the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and
Zone Change, subject to incorporation of Specific Plan
revisions as identified by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Comments from RRM Design Group on the Steering Committee
Recommendations
2. Specific Plan Study Area Map
3. Specific Plan Secondary Planning Area Zoning Map
4. Specific Plan Land Use Map
5. Specific Plan Zoning Map
6. Specific Plan Table 4 with Recommended Revisions
7. Specific Plan Table 5 with Recommended Revisions
DST CAI- m \Staffrptlpcdtn.sp
i I"It Ill C-.!
ATTACHNW_;_
RECFI SEE
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan �_u�
Comm_ ents to Steering Committee Recommendations
RRM Design Group
July 31, 1997
1. Exhibit A - Architecture and Aesthetics Subcommittee Comments
Generally, the comments are thoughtful, helpful, imaginative and appropriate supplements to
the other recommendations in the Spec Plan. Certain comments warrant some key
clarifications, which are made below.
• No Spanish Mission or Pueblo architectural styles permitted on High St.
Spanish Mission architecture is prevalent in Moorpark The Mayflower Market was
approved in Spanish Mission style on a central, prominent High St. location. The approval
of this style of architecture drove the decision to permit Spanish Mission styles on High St If
it is likely that the market is not to be reconstructed, or further design review can dictate the
landowners willingness to change the design style to an
Early AmericanNictorian
architectural style, then it would be appropriate to allow /encourage only early American
styles on High St vs. Spanish Mission. Otherwise, -the presence of predominately wood and
stylized metal structures on High St could conflict with the plaster /stucco finishes planned
for use in the market
• An eclectic architectural mix is pre%ned.
Regarding encouraging an eclectic mix of architectural styles — the design guidelines
expressly state that they are intended to set a framework for design, but that individuality in
architecture is preferred. This is the reason for maintaining the design parameters as
guidelines verses standards. The standards have been limited to issues of site planning
(placement of the building on the site), height and massing (how the building relates to the
street and surrounding uses). An array of architectural styles can be accommodated within
the context of the design guidelines set forth in the Spec Plan, and are encouraged.
• - General design comments
Good comments on design details (materials, colors, .planting, etc.), which can be
incorporated into the guidelines and standards.
• Omit medians on High Street.
The median design on High Street in the Vision Plan involved consideration of traffic flow
through permitting- turning movements at consolidated intersections. Median planting was
specified as small, lacy, colorful canopy trees to limit obscuring visibility to storefronts, and
also provide a more intimate canopy to reduce the scale of the street, without detracting
from the majestic Pepper trees. The comment however, that the medians would impede
City parades is an excellent point, and possibly warrants their removal. Perhaps an at-
grade, decorative median could be installed as opposed to a raised and planted median.
While costly, it could provide a "safer crossing' to pedestrians, allow for free vehicle turning
movements and parades, and beautify the street. If adobe brick is to be a common design
theme on High Street, such material may help tie the street together.
000052
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations
July 31, 1997
Page 2
• Omit proposed stop sign at High and Bard Streets and install user - activated stoplights at
mid -block crossings (i.e. Santa Barbara).
The Vision Plan does not propose a stop sign at the High/Bard Street intersection.
Decorative paver/bridc crossings are proposed to enhance pedestrian safety and connect
both sides of High Street Neither stop signs nor stoplights are recommended anywhere on
High Street because; 1) they are not warranted by the number of vehicle trips, and 2) both
stop signs and lights typically cause traffic stacking/congestion. The installation of at- grade,
decorative paving allows for free traffic flow, but draws attention to crossings.
• Closure of Walnut Street verses Magnolia Street
The concept of dosing Walnut Street is an excellent idea, particularly with the Epworth
Church as a key terminus. The concern, however, is that a number of existing and planned
businesses take access on Walnut Street For this reason, closure of Magnolia Street
appears easier to facilitate, since it involves vacant properties that could be designed to
enhance the new public space, and only one small business takes direct access onto the
street Further, senior housing is usually considered a compatible use near a downtown,
since seniors tend to walk, shop, dine and have more leisure time to spend patronizing
downtown public spaces and retail -type uses.
• Provide /substitute passo's in proximity to High Street.
This is another excellent idea, and the Plan can and should be modified to include policy
language encouraging paseo design in new and refurbished structures. An important point
to note is that the narrow depth of the parcels could limit the feasibility for paseo's to be
designed as workable public spaces. Paseo's work beautifully in Santa Barbara, where
large parcels connect to parking structures, or large public gathering spaces can be
accommodated. It is likely that paseo design in Moorpark may liken more to Ojai, where
many smaller, intimate interior plazas can be incorporated into building design. This is
particularly applicable to the City -owned property, since the railroad impacts the use and
depth of useable space. The primary limiting factor on the north side of High Street is the
substantial grade change and change in zoning that occurs from commercial to residential
use.
• Public, Transit— Identity location for a bus stop.
The Vision Plan shows a bus turnout immediately in front of the High Street plaza on the
south side of the street
Gateways and Signage are desirable.
The OSP illustrates ideal locations for monument signs, identifies the need for freeway
signage of the downtown, and notes that directional signage is needed. Very conceptual
gateway signage was explored in the revised OSP, but could be significantly enhanced
should the City request it. With respect to building signage, the City recently adopted
comprehensive sign code amendments. Therefore, little consideration in the OSP was
given to revisiting sign standards and guidelines. The Implementation Plan of the OSP
000053
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations
July 31, 1997
Page 3
could include a policy/program stating that the City should readdress these code
amendments and develop specific standards (materials, font style, etc.) for the downtown.
000054
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations
July 31, 1997
Page 4
• Landscaping — the DSP plant palette is insufficient and should require increased percentage
of lot coverage (more than 10 %)
Generally, the subcommittee's ideas are imaginative and could be incorporated into the
Plan. See attached memo for response to their spec treeNine suggestions.
♦ Issues of public safety, plaza amenities, permit streamlining, promotion (logos — "Star of the
Valle)", marketing, event planning, etc.).
These issues have been addressed in the revised DSP and are referenced in the Public
Streetscape and Implementation sections of the Specific Plan (Sections 3.0 and 5.0).
♦ Pedestrian Ovemrossing
The Vision Plan does not recommend a future overcrossing simply because the span and
height necessary to accommodate both the Union Pacific line and the VCTC spur would
require significant expense. Commercial development of any of the City's properties is not
likely to support the cost for overpass construction. However, once the downtown is built-
out and economically thriving, the feasibility of connecting both sides of these important
commercial districts should be explored, and possible use of public funds, or a public - private
funding partnership considered.
♦ No three -story buildings in the C-OT zone to maintain scale and hillside vistas.
The 35' height limit in the DSP would allow for three story buildings. It is an issue of design
and building massing that is essential to regulate to ensure that a three -story "wall* does not
interrupt a pleasant, uniform street scene. If a building is designed to step, with variation in
the roof form, parapet, or inclusion of balconies or well - ornamented facades, then the issue
of height can be dramatically reduced. The three -story height limit allows for creativity in
building design and permits flexibility to accommodate often desired and/or required square
footages that can lead to more investment in construction.
♦ Ideas to incorporate a Children's Museum, Penbmung Arts center, art co-op r.e. Bergamont
Station) and art In pubftodvate places (mural projects, etc).
These are all wonderful ideas but require community commitment, investment and a plan to
achieve. The Implementation Plan (Section 5.0 of revised DSP) begins to address
programs that can be adopted to pursue such efforts and programs. Further development of
these ideas could be considered in the DSP if desired.
000055
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations
July 31, 1997
Page 5
2. Exhibit C -- Supplemental Issues Related to Enforcement, Implementation, Financing
and Zoning
♦ Establish a Design Review Committee and On -going Citizen's Review Committee.
The Steering Committee recommends appointing both types of committees. These are
good concepts, but could be complex and have serious ramifications for
administration/staffing and streamlining the permit process. They can be quite positive for a
downtown, but need evaluation with respect to many criteria, which warrants special
consideration.
♦ Issues related to free reductions, relocation of the police resoume center, financing, ' and
appmva/ authority.
These issues have been addressed in the revised DSP Implementation section, 5.0, with
programs recommended.
♦ Allowable uses in the different commercial zones should be similar (our understanding of
this issue may be inaccurate).
The allowable use list for the GOT zone has been overhauled in the revised DSP. Further,
a new limited/expanded use list is being recommended in the revised DSP. These Plan
modifications may satisfy this concern.
♦ Deletion of R -2 zone in favor of creating an RPD -7du zone is not preferred.
The steering committee's comment that this would trigger a CUP for a second unit is correct.
This was raised at the last PC /CC study session as the potential problem with this rezone. If
the R -2 zoning were retained, then the DSP would need to be modified to include design
standards and guidelines for this additional zone. Considering the City Council's recent
action to limit second dwellings near the downtown, this would be in conflict with previous
policy direction. Second dwellings are often a benefit near a downtown, but Moorpark has
special conditions whereby second dwellings have resulted In the increased presence of
substandard housing.
♦ The density of the Charles Street residential neighborhood should remain single- family, with
allowance for a SP amendment with lot consolidation.
The issue of lot consolidation in the Charles Street neighborhood was considered in the
revised DSP, and a program for lot consolidation set forth in the Plan. The design standards
and guidelines identify criteria that must be met when multi- family density projects are
pursued. These standards and guidelines are intended to ensure compatibility in design
with the adjacent single - family neighborhood. Because of the steep topography, narrow
parcel sizes and existing building conditions in this area, the multi- family density is
recommended to generate sufficient interest in lot consolidation and property reinvestment.
000056
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations
July 31, 1997
Page Q
Retain C -1 and CPO zoning along Moorpark Avenue.
The 1989 draft Downtown Plan recommended changing the C -1 zoning to office zoning in
order to create a use which is more compatible with the adjacent residential uses. With the
City's realignment of State Hwy 23 to Spring Road in the Circulation Element, the rezoning
of this area becomes even more pressing. The DSP suggests that the area east of
Moorpark Avenue become a mix of office and OTC zoning. The office use is particularly
appropriate with the presence of the alley for access and parking. Design standards and
guidelines set forth in the DSP should preclude creating conditions which have been
experienced with the recent three -story office structure on Moorpark Avenue, through
encouraging building massing and architectural design that is compatible with the scale of
the street and surrounding neighborhood. The issue of non- conforming use expansions is
permitted under certain conditions in the DSP, thereby reducing the potential rezoning
problem.
The rezoningfrom CPD and C-2 to C-1 (with a special preferred use list) on the west side of
Moorpark Avenue will allow for redevelopment and capture of uses identified as those
leaking retail sales to other nearby cities. Since both of these areas are built -out,
redevelopment into targeted uses appears to be the only means by which properties in this
area will develop successfully.
♦ Remove the playground equipment at the Civic Center site.
While the children's play area at the Civic Center is not the perfect area for children to
congregate, it is heavily used and relatively safe. Considering the lack of parks for children
to play in close proximity to the downtown, this play area appears to be much needed.
Redesign of this area is ideal (including all the City's holdings) to reroute parking and
increase useable public spaces, and possibly including site and building expansion. As an
interim use, however, until the City can afford to redevelop the site and civic officesluses, is
probably a good use. The DSP encourages expansion and relocation/consolidation of civic
uses in this existing location and throughout the downtown..
0000571
R R M D E S I G N G R O U P
Architecture • Ptanning • Engineering • Surveying • Interiors a Landscape Architecture
CREATING ENVIRONMENTS THAT PEOPLE ENJOY
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 4, 1997
To: LeeAnne
From: Patrick Bolger Location: ■ San Luis Obispo Office
Title•. Landscape Architect 0 Oakdale Office
Job Name: Moorpark Job No. P9%m
Re.- Plant List Response
Below is a list of my opinions /comments regarding the following plant species.
Bougainvillea spp. Positive attributes: Vibrant color, fast growing.
Negative attributes: Thorns, likes heat, needs space.
Norfolk Island Pine. Positive attributes: Fast growing, picturesque silhouette tree.
Negative attributes: Requires large area to grow such as a park, large sale -up to 100' tall,
not recommended for urban use
Bottle Tree. Positive attributes: Evergreen, common street tree, good shade tree, fresh green color.
Negative attributes: Fruit drop may be a nuisance, large caliper trunk may be difficult to
plant in tree grate.
Apricot Positive attributes: Good historical tree, could be used in a plaza grove or trained as an
espalier.
Negative attributes: Fruit drop may be a nuisance or hazard. Plant in softsape areas
instead of sidewalks.
Magnolia
Peach
1
'L
Walnut
Chinese Elm
Positive attributes: Common street tree, evergreen, lush dark green foliage.
Negative attributes: Roots may lift sidewalks without root barriers, leaf litter constant.
Positive attributes: Good historical tree.
Negative attributes: Intensive maintenance practices need to be performed, susceptible to
peach leaf curl, requires good drainage, not recommended for street tree use.
Positive attributes: Good historical tree.
Negative attributes: Has aggressive root system, may inhibit growth of shrubs and
groundcovers within dripline, leaf litter may be a problem as the tree goes dormant.
Positive attributes: Excellent shade tree, beautiful mottled bark
Negative attributes: Susceptible to storm damage, branch crotches can easily split,
susceptible to pests, roots are at the surface and may break up concrete.
3026 South Higuera Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • Phone. 803/543 -1794 a FAX 805/ -443 -4609
131 South Second Ave. • Oakdale, G 95361 • Phone: 209 /647 -17% • FAX 209/847 -2511 (� rt
A C110.e c..rO. lV:0.M.ej.wj6 Ara ..C- U=WNY.r.cmolo
l/" "What ACE 13UN- L5"MIWA .LA.L "
N ` "n-tlji
ATTACHMENT 2
Moorpark0owntown
f c c'Li>t
s,
1
L1¢ -., I ` h� `.LYE ► I t
Ligon � Nqn $uNt --_i - \ i
ITINT
Applicable Properties -
Design Guidelines /Standards
Los AngiOn e
Scale
Specific Plan Study Area Figure 2
ATTACHMENT_
M
00"to•wn Speafcc pCan
Planned extension of
..a..�.._:._.._.._.., Spring Road
to the north
(See Figure 10)
_`:X _ J.. i..::._..r' "'
Highway 118
JHO sno
U11-- - -.
Act
�'��LZ:' .
�� � fir•
3 a
1
J Q.
`9
La ArgMN Awm e
Industrial
Park
Old Town Commercial
P%o Iww"
PaaAucstrlal i� I Park Industrial
i
MuWFamily Residential
Legend
X84= Specific Plan Boundary
iir+i f 1ndUSUW Park (M -!)
Old Town Commercial (OTC)
Not to Scale
Moorpark Secondary Planning Area Zoning Figure 6
candVse a.ndZoni —
Lim
ATTACHMENT_'
"'Woorpark'Downtown SALc2lic ccan
Cil
TfGi•� � � +n vl
tr�1 I 4 Not to Scale
Q, r-+ j
0
adrA Legend
re Medium Density Residential (4.6 du)
- O a
i r High to Very [Ugh Density Residential (7 -13 du)
CP
_ Office
Old Town Commercial.
Q _
( ® Neighborhood Commercial
i3 ceneral Commercial
Ught Industrial
School �� ® Public Institutional
? , 0 Parks
Loa AfgMN Avw"A _,o- P� iQe Plan Boundary
'-1 S
Specific Plan Land Use Map Figure 7
L
ATTACHMENT_
RPD -7 -14u * *
*toorpark DOwntOwn Specific FCan
RPD -7u
RPD- 7 -14u* *
L r— RPD -15u
Not to Scale
Legend
r
C;?
Ali
a a.
_a
c
*toorpark DOwntOwn Specific FCan
RPD -7u
RPD- 7 -14u* *
L r— RPD -15u
Not to Scale
Legend
r
U /
Q
(R - l) SWI& Family Residential
�eoi
®
( RPD) Residential Planned Development. 7 -14 units/acre*
ip
-
j
r0
(
(C- o)Ofiic.
CIM
`.
(C • l) Neishbocbood Commercial
r'
V
; _
I
■
(C - an Old Town Commercial
(CPD) Commercial Planned Development
C3
®
(1) Institutional
t
FIOry
School
Industrial Paris
�.�_,�
a
C
—••—
Specific Plan Boundary
--� �-
av�we
• See Charles Street Office Overlay District
RPD -7u
'• Density bonus of up to 14du allowed with lot
consolidation and replacement structures
Specific Plan Zoning
Map
Figure 8
CK-
ATt Wr L _
00wseW" Sptczfu p(an
USES,> Table 4
.• ZONES
SYMBOL KEY
Ah, Temporary use permit
♦ Permitted by zone clearance
—� -
Planning Commission -a roved Planned development Permit
Cltv Council-approved Planned develooment permit
— —
Plannina Commission-approved con itionai use oormit
---
■ ; City Council- Condldonal Usa Permit
--
EXPANDED USE UST
C•i
OTC
cauOld Town l
Amusement and recreational facilities see definitions in Chaptw 17.08
Art called" museums and botanical oardene
Automobile repair, including component remit
Automobile service stations
Banks and related financial offices and insdhmons
Barber has fists manicurists
Tannina centers
Barn taverns and ni htclubs
Cars facilities: For 7 or more Dofww D
Churches synaoogues, and other buildingle used for religious worship
Club pro9ects, tomporafy outdoor
Clubhouses
With alcoholic bevera es
Communications facilities
Radio and television broadcasting stations
Crop roduction
Doo and cat aroomina
OrI933maidna and tailor
Dwelling for superindandeM or owner
Dwellino. caretaker
Education and training
Festivals and similar events outdoor
Government buildinas. excludina Correctional institutions
Fire stations
Gradin
Health club) urn see definitions
Health services such as PmfsssiOft offices and Outpatient clinics
Hotels motels and boardina houses
Kennels animal hospitals, boardft and grooming - small animals
Laundry service laundromats
Laundry service (light)
Libraries and information center
Table 4 (continued)
Man L► 47.ari 01�rfoClo�� W1�}� craJ: iftu s 1!nciudi a!l�R+bl ,0ch;b{j,dtw,•.,
Manufacturing and repair of photograhic and optical goods ,4c'- t
Land Vse and Zon '
Martial arts and dance studios
Motion picture and TV production, and related activities and structures
Temporary maximum 47 days in any 180-da nod
Offices: business professional, and administrativo,_oxcW health and voterinarV
Optical Goods
0 anizations (professional, relic loos political, labor, trade uth etc.
Parks
Parking lots
Public utility facilities
Offices only
Pharmecy, accessorV retaii, for pmwAMn only
Photocopy/quick printers
Photofinishing 1 -hour photo)
Produce stands retail
A6
,&
Repair of Do rsonal goods such as iewelry, shoes, and saddlery
Restaurants cafes and cafeterias temporary outside eatno
and MY sispe*
Retail trade •
Lumber and buildlag materials va rds
Pls�rseriw. Mo �►
Schools: Elementary and secondary (nonboardi on
Schools: Professional vocational art and solf-imarovement
Stora s of building materials t nim
Uses and structures accessory
Outdoor sales and services t see definitions In ChapW 17.08 TMe t
R r of products retailed
Vaccination clinics tenvorary. for pa ankrw ft
•
Veterinary clinics animals only
Water production, stora and diatrbution facilf les: rtvate u
Land Vse and Zon '
Table s
'PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL
SYM BM KEY
Mmki Not ' ed
Peffr tt d by zone deerw=
Planned Pem+it
Ca x"ond Use Pem�M
and recreational fadiitla see Mnftns
Arrnrtement wft and
W4 go &Nft mom indoor
oukbor
Hodh see definitlons
MWWl arot and dance studos
Bars tnvems and n ubs
Ctubhouses
Wtlh aloohdk belle
Conference center /oo mrWon center
Dog and cat
Educa*m and Vaftio
Coftm and urA*rsivee
Schooia: Momentmy and secondwy (nonboardng an
Sdiods: Prdusional vocational and sell
Fesdvale and similar rientc toffyorwy outdoor
Oovemnwd buUdixm excludna correctional InstMutlone
Fire stai "
WitMn an overtay zone see Chww 17.
Health services such as oft es and conics
Ambulance swvims
HompbM
for
Hotels motet and hmm
L.aborat xr w research and sdentlfto
Modem and denial
Ubrades and cw tar
Man use ancillm
mWed
D and Wlor shops
Chemft ad nW#Md roduc ts see definitleons uodud nerve a
D atd the we
and deaners
Eoectrical and electronic mac hire and supoko
Houahoid
Food and related orodLxft
Alc�
Fumiture and related t t me
Instruments: ff"wrina, analyzing and controllina
sdvwwam and plated ware
Leather and leather pmductB
$isr
Table 3 (continued)
Lumber and wood products and procemes.
Cabrwt work
Mach' exoW 9Wctrial
Office and socoundng machines
Musical instrument ' and
Pow and related products
Pmducts from oww and oamboard, Indudina oontirwrs
P and other office and artiest materials
Personal agods
and opWW goods, and watches and docks
Pedvdm. pubkhkv and related hdustries
Pt" to 1500 sm ft a grom fbor are
Rubber and
Skm and
Stores day and
Gim wodift merle a
T and and aNsft agods
T tion eautwoom
and related peft
Motion PiMre and TV proWcdw, and related activities and Wyckw"
T rrwxlrrxxn 47 dmm in ow 1 80-day pedod)
Of eg business and admhistratlw h"M and v*Whm
Parkkv Ift
Puboo Udmv facipilee
Ommorgy
Record studio and sound a
Rental and Wasft a durable
rentW
Elecoial and elecironio and embmwd
Instrument musloal hstrtxnenb
ONloe and sopoundna macftirws
PhoWgraft and oo*W goods
Repair a pemonal acock such as Wwaky shoes and uWdlory
RoftymnM cafes and afetsrlas ampamry outside es
Retell trade see definitions
Lumber aaMs yards
Servke
Wa deftOw s
Persohm see 006" rw
Ghwisp 47.401
.040 wd
ilk F of-oft advardsky slow
Uses and smxwros
Dwoftafor or owner
arotaker
Oame mad wa: thres or fewer more
Recreational fadiid" rssturants and cafes: for e
Rstd mW of oroducts manufactured on -alts
Temporary buRcIng during construc:tlon
Vacchadon cirks for pot anknals
Veterinary dinice anhwls groty
Z " Gardens, animal exhibib and commercial awamims
Je
Laa'fhs=dZ nines — (lrlinCirz
ATTACHMENT C
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Principal Plannerr
DATE: August 20, 1997
SUBJECT: COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION /INITIAL STUDY FOR TH8 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN
Attached, for your information, is a copy of the comment letters
received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) /Initial Study
for the Downtown Specific Plan. Responses to comment letters will
be prepared and provided to the City Council for its consideration
prior to final action on the Specific Plan. No changes to the
MND /Initial Study are proposed to be made at this time, since any
City Council directed revisions to the Specific Plan may require a
corresponding change to the MND /Initial Study.
If you have any questions, we can respond to them at the August 25
continued public hearing.
Attachment: Letters received on MND /Initial Study
CC: Honorable City Council
Steve Kueny, City Manager
Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development
nnnnc►�
STATE OF CAUFORNL4
PETE VviISON, QoNw+or
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
August 12, 1997
DEBORAH TREFFENSTEDT
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 MOORPARK AVE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
Subject: CITY OF MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN SCH #: 97071033
Dear DEBORAH TREFFENSTEDT:
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Negative
Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now
closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On
the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghous4
has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of
Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment
package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately.
Remember to refer to the project's eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so
that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code
required that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a
project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which
are required to be carried out or approved by the agency."
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their
comments with specific documentation.
These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final SIR. Should
you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency at your earliest convenience.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact at (916) 445 -0613 if you
have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA
Chief, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures R E C c 1 E 74'
cc: Resources Agency
AU3 14 1997
1144zl
SlArt d CAW406hu_ 9U$W4 sf AND MAPAS Cntwnd+ ACANCY
PM wKSO+, c.....
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
asn"CT 1. 120 sa W9946 s1.
k06 AWAU& CA IM12.7401
too (2131 M1MIQ
July 21; 1997
DEBORAH TRAFFENSTEDT
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Re: IGR/CEQA #970723/NP .
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Moorpark Downtown SpeciBal &&_
City of Moorpark
Vem 178-17.49/023 -11.43
Den Ms. TraBensteft -
t
FILED
wq g ,V
SWE
CIEARMGH DUSE
Thank you for the opportunity to providemamtmWw the above -named Specific PI&L The project land
uses are mixed general commercial, offices, light industrial, single family and multi- family residential,
and publiclinstitutional bW1dinXL
We hays the following comments to text on pages listed below.
1) Page 143, Section 3.7, Fig. 13 - Caltrans Policy does not provide for decorative textured cross -
waft bulbout4 and gateway signs on State highways,
2) Page 131 & 140 - Hwy. 23 was built to accommodate truck traffic We cannot prohibit trucks
on this roadway.
3) Page 133 - We have concerns about placing a raised median island on Hwy. 23 as it is a fixed
object that can be hit by motorists, We would prefer a two-way left turn lane.
4)- Page 139 - Lane widths shouid not be lea than 12' on Hwy. 23. •
If you hoe any questions regarding this response: please contact the undersigned at (213) 897.4429 and
refer to our IGR/CEQA 0970721/Np
Sincerely,-
Ort*hd stomd W
STEPHEN L BUSWELL
Program Manager
IGR/CEQA
cc: ,/ Chris Heisler
State Clearinghouse-
tiTY OF MOOIVARM
Nonce of Cot> PLETiOW
97071033
.%U9 to Sbaa ClaarlagMea. 140 Tarr $OVA. Seasomme. CA 9914 (916) 44feet3
Pi 0M row It=& Plate
Coastal comet
Lead Apeaq• river n/ a/eereaelr C/moet Fateaa:
Detsarh TnRefrtedt
Strut Addrsw At rA 9301
POaat ]0]!]246e6I, ea �6
City: moornark State C.16joilims,
Zip Code 93022 Cottoty: Vemun
Project Location
X_ Fish A Goals #
County: Veram CitrlNeatat Commumv:
Nmrsartt
Cross Stmt (nehadu Hier e. yer =rrr Ava.- means ad__
Zip Code 93021 Tool Aenr.
Asoswr'f Patt:si NO. V eua sac ttatx
TWP Range Bane
within 2 Milan: Stara Hwy #: 21 and t tt Wasiorwo a:
Auporte �N/A it"We": Saahaa Ptcstle
Scheola: Flew (: hheff!Msnr
Docussnladoe Type
NO! ❑ StrppleWSubesgtret
Og Doatasmt
Early Cow 8 El (P iw to SM NO
EA Document
F:E
Neg On WIN,
Draft W
Draft EM
La o:adoet Acdon Type
Comm Playa Update 3pm& no
RoaNO ❑ Aeneadoe
Goomal P1as Ameadmed Maate Plan
Ptsaarn 8 R.r..�P..t
Cord Plan Hares Pled Uea Oew4►
Use rwmw odw
Cotatalty Plan Shs no
Land Dlvtdn
(StartavtsIM Paved
Maw Ties M* wr.t
ReAdrnt�d- N[TS Acna—
wore room me TYPd MCD
oelee $4 Pt Amts_ &Wbpm
dnwgmudm-
COSWAPA L• 3a. It_ Actin_ gmpb)ysaB—
mmm MIIrPLAL-
lad adC 4 R Aaen— Fo fbyeen—
Pswc TYP7lk
Wawa ateThomann: TYM
pAWdood
Reatatatlad
Hm den Matttt TYlllr
® 01��t Dewsesm SaeeiAe Rua
Project Una Dleeawd to Document
Aa diside flood PMM rdkq%edmg
SehoelaAhdvwd" Male Qadhr
Agriadmed Ltd Ptnet LWMA Rated
gin
3spt Sywea Mew JeOPtplamwweattr
I
AirQlWiry OnbOW3do"
Sewcspadtr. WodWRlpda
Attdaaoloddl aatie
sid hadescossomdow Wasimb
❑ CANAd zoee ®Wien
aradho
® Sam Maw ❑ Oraoss,toomme
Present Lay Uat/Ldate roneeal flan Utlat
Mixed C aad lodoew
Sate Clearinghouse ContscC Mr. Chris Belsky
(916) 443-0613
Soo Review Bepoc. �•�•�
Dept. Review to Agencyr, �,•
Agency Rev to SCH 4?-.
SCH COMPLIANCB __L•1
Please cote SCH Neater on all Comments
:,7A71ri33
Pleaso forward bee comments directly to the
Lead Agency
>Q%iD.'APCDJ-0/(Resources:_z lel
Project Sent to the followring State Agencies
—JL Raewreen
Statsocomismer Sven
Booting
—_
— General Services
Coastal comet
caYElA
_ Coastal Coav
_ ARS
• Colorado Rvr Bd
CA Waste Mgmt 1)d
"„CMervisboa
_SWRCB: Grout:
X_ Fish A Goals #
_ SWRCB: Delta
_ Delta Protacuott
Forestry
=Pants a RwJOHP
Reclatratm
_ BCDC
DWR
OES
Bea Trap Hoes
_ Aeronrnics
_CHP
X Calasms M _
Trans Planning
_X Housing R Devel
Health A Walters
_ Drinking H2O
Medical Waste
_SWRCB: War Quality
_ SWRCB: Wtr Rights
X Reg. WQCB a
DTSCICTC
Yth/AdRConaltim s
_ Corrections
Indepeadeat Como
Energy Comm
NAHC
PUC
_ Santa Mn Mons
_X_ State Lanais Cuanau
_ Tahoe Rgl Plan
Other.
•
i
0000'70
county of ventura
<r V
a �
Solid Waste Management Department 4 <1
Boo S. Victoria Avenue. Ventura. CA 93009 -1650 (805) 634 -2889 FAX (808) 648-9233
KAY MARTIN
Director
DATE: August 8, 1997 R E C E I Y E D
iK
TO: Deborah Traffm twit, Scniac Planner, City of Moorpark AUG 1 4 1997
1' ROl- / r5 9m' YL Raw, Ventm COtit y Soald Waste M3nagana t Dep.=cnt C "i c f
Cc:T.ru.-ley L_"
SUBJECT: Ravww of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Moorpark Downtown Sp=& Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft mitigated negative declaration prepared for the
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan The Solid Waste Management Department offers the
following comments for your review and consideration.
The draft Negative Declaration does not adequately provide information related to the amount of
waste generated from the proposed project, nor identify munulative solid waste disposal impacts.
This information is relevant in judging the overall impact to regional landfills and compliance with
the provisions of the County's Source Reduction Recycling Element (SAKE) (pursuant to the
mandates of AB939, California Statates of 1989) Taken from total building footage listed in
table 11 and 12 on page 149 of the specific plan, SWMD assumes the following square footage's
in order to calculate overall diversion tonnage
89 Dwelling Units 3.304 persons/DU - Residential
11igh Street 209.000 - Commercial
Moorpark Avenue 100,700 - Commercial
24,150 - Office
8,0W - Institutional
Our solid waste project impact calculations (see attached) indicate that 1,544 tons per year will be
generated by the developmeat of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan. In addition to conditins
provided on page 155 of the specific plan, it is recommended that the City of Moorpark also
incorporate the following conditions:
1. Require recycling to the extent feasible, construction and demolition wastes Wood waste, if
separated on -site, should be recycled by mulching and chipping for use in landscaping, weed
control, water conservation, etc. Metals can be recycled through local hauling companies.
Concrete, shall be recycled into aggregate for road beds, walkways, etc. If the applicant
requires technical assistance they should contact the Moorpark Solid Waste Department or
Ventura County Solid Waste Managment Department for solid waste reduction information.
2. Recycling or reducing green waste collected from the proposed project through xeriscaping,
grasscycling, mulching or small-scale composting activities.
Alok Dedicated to Recovering and Recycling our Natural Resources r1nn,� -J,e
I . Ananeft wkh a bcab UssWrecydables hauling company for mau nls collection or the
aPpicut nW urmp for Wf4mibg to an suthorizred &Cgky which accepts rayclable
mataWAL -
Thank you fox the oppomu*y to review this environmental document. Please call me at (8o5)
648 -9229 if you Should have any questions.
c: Carole Trigg. PWA
Flu Myers, City of Moorpark
000074
PLC,-11-1997 14:29 RMP PL W f NG
GM 654 3683 P. Of
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
county of "ntu ra ,P40MAS BUG
Monday, August 11, 1997
Deborah Tra$enstedt
Moorpark
FAX 529 -8270
Subject: Downtown Specific Plan
Dar ML TraSe wtedt.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject documents. These notices were
circulated for review. The responses are attached. Please forward your reply to our
comments as appropriate.
Pleeaa can Kim Hocking if you have questions and he wifl direct you to the appropriate
persM 805 - 6542414.
Yours truly,
a-(" 7A
Thomas Berg, Director
Reference No. 97.4&
cc: Trigg, PWA - L#I600
Attachment
Gaamma%CaW F*4fAd0.iMrWWI u17M
Bm e. VieW* Ave., VwrMa t141bDm (do 454-20" FAX 64MM2
0000'73
AUf� -ti-1997 14:30 RMA PLAWING
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Traffic and Planning do Administration
MEMORANDUM
August 6, 1997
TO: Resource Management Agency, Planning Division
Attention: Kim Hocking
FROM Robert B. Brownie, Principal Engineer R d O
SU'BJEC'T: Review of Document 97-49
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Moorpark Downtown Draft Specific Ptan
Vf AWn the City of MOORPARK
905 654 36M P -22
_7 � % G & M58
.
The Transportation Department has reviewed the subject Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Moorpark Downtown Draft Specific Plan. We offer the foIIowing comments:
1) We concur with the comments in the Initial Study and MrdVed Negative Declaration for
those am it the purview of the Transportation Department with the exception of
Section 3.4.5. Truck traffic should not be diverted to the County portion of Gnmes Canyon
R, cad, Grmses Canyon Road is a rural road It is not recommended that significant volumes
of commercial or residential traPRc be divested to Grimes Canyon Road unless the City of
Moorpark is wiping to participate in the cost o(upgrading the road to current road standards.
Additionally, are again recommend that the City of Moorpark consider participation in a
reciprocal traffic agreement with the County.
2) The Initial Study and Mtigsted Negative Declaration show that this project will not have a
significant adverse project impact on the County's Regional Road Network. However, the
cumulative impacts of this and other projects in the City have not ban addressed and our
previous comments regarding a reciprocal traffic agreement are still valid.
3) Oars review of this project is limited to the impacts this project may have on the County's
Regional Road Network
Please call me at extension 2080 with questions.
c: Richard Herrera
Duaw Flaten
Carole Trigg
RDW&WOMM
97-42j.
0000'74
AIJG -11 -1997 14: 31 RMA PL MN I NG
August 4, 1997
TO: E1R Review Coordinator
FROM IGm Hocking, Cultural Heritage Program Staff
SUBJECT: Moorpark Downtown SPeaffc Plat NOS (97.48)
885 6u 3683 P.83
Please note that the Pepper Trees along High Street are County Landmark No. 72. This is not
noted In Sadlon XN, Cultural Resources. The trees an mendone4 appropriately In Sac. VII,
Biological Resources. however.
00007 A
July 31, 1997
To: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner
Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development
Moorpark Planning Commission
Moorpark City Council
Fr: Lori Rutter
Member, Ad Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee for
Draft Downtown Specific Plan
Re: Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Initial Study and Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
R "'A,ED
AUG 04 1997
City iviuorpark
I will keep my comments brief and referenced only to those matters where I have strong
disagreement or concern.
I. Land Use and Planning (p. 13)
I feel that the medium scale local- serving household uses, such as home furnishings, appliances,
and hardware are either already adequately available (K -Mart is only a block or more away) or
better served by a consistent C -OT zoning in this area. I feel that C -1 zoning is incompatible
with a busy thoroughfare and with the C -O zoning located across the street.
Area 14 (p. 14) - I do not wish to see CPD allowed uses on this site, such as car repair, car
washes or gas stations. C -OT should be applied consistently here to keep only compatible uses
within the DSP area.
Secondary Planning Area (p. 15) - If you agree that residential density is desirable in the DSP
area, and that existing residential zones along Charles and Everetts Streets may not develop as
planned for, f would suggest that this area is very well suited to high density residential
development given its proximity to the complexes adjacent to the south (WoodCreek ?). I think
it's ideal for senior housing or condominiums, and should be well - screened and landscaped as a
buffer from busy Spring Street and the railroad tracks.
Charles Street Office Overlay District (p. 16) - If I understand this proposal correctly, the
underlying RPD 7 -14DU zone would prevail and the overlay district would permit conditional
office uses. Would the owner of a future condominium on one of these sites also be permitted to
apply for office use? I would rather see the City put their efforts into rehabilitating these Charles
Street residences, perhaps converting them into C -OT business uses, than creating office space
within an essentially residential area. If the inventory of offices is so low, then why not zone the
000071,
previous Secondary Planning Area (see above) for offices instead of C -OT?
II. Population and Housing (p. 22)
Does the proposal displace existing residents or housing, especially affordable housing?
No impact ?? While the DSP may create a potential for additional housing density to occur, this
is not sufficient mitigation for those who will most certainly be displaced. Anticipation of a net
increase in the number of dwellling units also does not mitigate their certain displacement. I
think the City should look more carefully at the needs of existing residents who will certainly
need affordable replacement housing!
III. Geologic Problems (p. 24)
I disagree that no unique geologic/physical features exist beyond the hillside area at the northern
portion --there is a lovely canyon at Charles and Spring Streets where the Department of Fish and
Game have found endangered gnatcatchers. Is this property not within the DSP area? I believe
that it was initially when the Citizens Ad Hoc Committee reviewed it.
IV. Water (p. 25)
To say that there would be no increase in surface runoff, and that median planters may increase
the amount of pervious surface and improve runoff impacts is a ridiculous statement. What
about the extensive paving for the dozen or so new rear parking lots? This is not less than
significant. If you've ever seen the watering patterns for medians along Tierra Rejada, you
would know that the runoff is significant and wasteful. All the more reason to consider my
suggestion not to pave the parking areas at the rear, but rather to finish the surface with crushed
rock or gravel (photo example supplied to the Council).
V. Air Quality (p. 2 )
The City's own Circulation Element of the General Plan requires the implementation of alternate
systems of travel and specifically describes an equestrian trail network in conjunction with new
development in the northern area of town. I believe that the DSP should have included design
elements for equestrian- oriented transportation via the property near Charles and Spring Streets.
Would the proposal expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Less than significant impact ?? Children are highly susceptible "receptors" to pollutants. To say
that the DSP design policies will mitigate the obvious effects of "normal growth- induced air
quality impacts" is unsubstantiated at best. You only have to look at reports of increased death
rates due to respiratory causes to find these mitigation factors are wholly inadequate. Not to
()( A077
mention that our Hillside Management Standards allow for the stripping bare of every inch of
native habitat, otherwise known as "grading ". Air quality is not measured nor limited to the
DSP - -our air quality is impacted every time we approve a Carlsberg project, or a Messenger
project, or SDI, etc.
VI. Transportation/Circulation (p. 29)
Will the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
The obvious flaw in these analyses is that projects approved and/or under construction will have
unintended impacts. Should we not consider the TMC's 1200 truck trips down SR 23 each day?
How congested will Moorpark Avenue be when the majority of parents arrive to drop off and
pick up their students at Casey Road School? The Circulation and Streetscape Beautification
Design measures are not reasonable responses. Reasonable people know this.
It was not the desire or recommendation of the Citizens Ad Hoc Downtown Advisory Committee
to have medians on High Street. Decorative paved crosswalks without pedestrian- activated
signals may be inducing a false sense of security (per Senior Deputy Tumbleson and Mary
Lindley). Is there actual proof that sidewalk bulbouts actually improve pedestrian safety? I OUU
believe it's just the latest in street design that serves a very limited purpose and unnecessarilygo
the cost of the downtown improvements.
The CAHDAC also did not endorse the DSP's proposal to close Magnolia Street and create a
promenade. It serves no important purpose and reduces cross traffic and circulation from three
streets to two, on an otherwise long thoroughfare with no southerly circulation.
The draft Downtown Specific Plan neglected to provide for the installation of any equestrian
access. This is an oversight that needs correction. Moorpark has many equestrian- oriented
businesses and residents, access to a substantial County park on its northern border, and
professes to cherish its country roots.
VII. Biological Resources (p. 38)
Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats?
No impact! No known significant biological habitats. I wonder if the Department of Fish and
Game, which found the gnatcatcher on the Morrison property, would agree that this bird's habitat
does not include any part of the DSP area?
X. Noise (p.41)
Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels?
000078
Levels of 70 dBA are comparable to a vacuum cleaner operating four feet away - -hardly possible
to have a conversation between two people standing 15 -20 feet apart! Trees, shrubbery, and
landscaped medians are not efficient noise absorbers according to Gary Roller with the CHP.
And he also states that vehicular traffic noise levels can only be effectively measured at constant
rates of speed above 50 mph.
er i ec
I believe that large delivery trucks will be the main source of increased noise pollution. I think
the City needs to look very carefully at businesses which will generate substantial truck trips into
the High Street area and put very clear guidelines into place to mitigate their impact upon nearby
residential uses. For example, in Sonoma, there is a truck delivery "zone" marked off in the
middle of the streets surrounding their plaza retail center (refer to photos provided by the
Citizens Committee). This would keep trucks out of public parking lots and away from
residences north and south of High Street.
XI. Public Services (p. 43)
Would the proposal result in a need for new or altered police protection?
"Less than Significant Impact" response addresses only the current perception of policing and
ignores the obvious impact of increased business activity in the area. Retail areas are always
targets for crime, loitering, etc. In fact the Citizens Committee recommended relocating the
Police Resource Center back to the DSP area precisely because this area has been vulnerable in
the past and will certainly generate more of these same issues. Also, the DSP will add more
residential density to the area whic�`emmandsAreater police services.
Would the proposal result in a need for new or altered schools?
Unfortunately, it is well- documented that impact fees paid for by new construction projects are
inadequate in the tong term. It is essential that public service impacts generated by the DSP be
adequately accounted for long term. Communities can ill afford to deal with these fiscal issues
after the fact, and the trend of approving more and more massive projects to cover the City's
fiscal obligations (often leftover from some other ill -conceived project) will obviously ruin the
desirability of Moorpark.
Would this proposal result in new or altered maintenance of public facilities?
Again, this analysis is ludicrous given the Mayor's announcement just this week that the City
will ask voters this Fall to approve Measure P, asking for additional park maintenance funding.
The Citizens Committee vetoed the medians plan for High Street in the DSP. I would think the
City of Moorpark should only consider additional plazas and/or pocket green areas that retain
their natural character (not manicured, sprinkled, etc.), thereby reducing maintenance costs by 10
X.
00001 'S
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance (p.49)
Why is there no response to question 'V'? Does the Department of Fish and Game's findings re:
the gnatcatcher affect the DSP proposal in any way? I think a yes or no answer should be
indicated.
XVHL Reference List
Is the EIR for Moorpark Land Use and Circulation Element Update also dated 1991? I was
under the impression from the recently completed General Plan Annual Report that these updates
actually pre -date 1991.
With what specific authority, title, or knowledge does Senior Deputy Tumbleson speak to the
issues in the MND? I think it is important to substantiate between his opinions and his expertise.
I feel that in many instances his comments are more opinion than expertise, and I have disagreed
with him wholeheartedly on several issues in the past, unrelated to the DSP. In fact, the DSP
makes recommendations that I know he would personally take issue with (e.g. pedestrian "Safe-
crosses").
Determination: I seem to find no clear choice as to whether an EIR will be prepared for the DSP.
Five options are stated, and none indicated? Is this an oversight?
Additional remarks: The notice states that verbal or written comments must be received by 5:00
p.m. on August 11, yet the hearing doesn't take place until 7:0O p.m. This would seem to
preclude consideration of any public comments made verbally at the meeting- -true?
000080
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
county of ventura
Representing Ex- officio:
Ventura County Flood Control District
Ventura County Waterworks Oistncts
No. 1, 16, 17, and 19
Lake Sherwood Community Services Oistnct
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
July 24, 1997
City of Moorpark
ATTN: Deborah S. Traffenstedt
799 Moorpark
Moorpark, CA 93021
RE: Comments to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Draft Moorpark Specific Plao
Dear Ms. Traffenstedt:
Director
Arthur E. Goulet
Deputy 01rectors
William B. Britt
Transmnatror
John C. Crowley
Water Resources 6 Oeveiopmem
Robert E. Quinn, Jr.
Engrneenng Seances
Paul W. Ruffin
Cantral Semcee
Alex Sheyday+
Flood Contro
The Ventura County Flood Control District has reviewed the above referenced-documents and offers
the following comments:
I . Negative Declaration, Page 25, Water, item c: Please add that new development would be
required to comply with the requirements of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management
Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CASO63339, and any
other NPDES permit issued by the State of California.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have fiuther questions, please contact Kathy
Kefauver at (805) 6543942.
Very your;
Sheydayir
Deputy Director of Pubfie Works
Flood Control Department
cc: Kim Hocking, RMA
DWNTNSP.DOC
RECEIVED
JUL 25 1997
City of Kjcorcark