The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 0601 CC REG ITEM 09BI THE PLANNING CENTER ITEM 'if>_ 1300 DOVE STREET. SUITE 100. NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 851-9444 May 10, 1988 City Council City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93201 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Moorpark City Council: The Planning Center would like to take this opportunity to provide you an overview of our efforts and hopefully to address your concerns regarding the Moorpark Downtown Study. It has been quite some time since we last discussed this project with the Council. We understand that there are now some questions as to the focus of the final product of the study and the additional work requested by the Planning Commission. We hope this letter will lay the foundation for a productive discussion. We will list the issues, discuss the intent of the project, the project guidance package, important project milestones, contract meetings, contract extension, and summary. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING We look forward to meeting with the City Council to respond to your questions, resolve your concerns and receive your direction so that the Moorpark Downtown Study can be completed and put into use. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION The following items are stated to identify what we believe are the issues at hand. (This list can certainly be added to should additional issues need discussion). 1. What is the intent of the study? (See Intent below). 2. What does approving the Study mean to the City? 3. Basically, it opens the door to further detailed studies recommended by the study and provides guidance that will inform other planning efforts (i.e., General Plan Update, redevelopment efforts, etc.) of the City's desires. What ideas/recommendations in consideration? (See Study, Recommendations). the Study pp. 5-6, merit further Summary of -Kt:.Ci:H/t.L) OFFICES IN NEWPORT BEACH, CA, PHOENIX. AZ and TUCSON, AZ 'JAY ? () 198f{ • PLANNING & RESEARCH • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • URBAN DESIGN • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ,_' , ::\ ,J i{'ft}t~; '•(~it·,,,~,@/ 4. 5. City Council City of Moorpark May 10, 1988 Page 2 How can the City revise the Draft? For example, it can direct that recommendations be rejected, modified or that additional ideas should be explored by: a) directing that the consultant incorporate these comments or conditions in the final document for later study, or by b) including them in qualifying language in the adopting resolution. Should additional accomplished? Is work? work be desired, how can it it part of the consultant's scope a) If so, if Council concurs, we are prepared to respond; be of b) If not, and a large task, is it important enough to the City to pay for the work as an extra service? c) If not, is it a small enough task such that we will do it at no charge? INTENT OF THE PROJECT The Planning Center has prepared the Moorpark downtown Study to be responsive to the city's request for proposal (RFP) and provide recommendations for Downtown improvements. The Moorpark Downtown study is intended to be a comprehensive vision statement or guidance document that begins the revitalization process. It is in reality the first step in the process of achieving the potential for this portion of the City. Once this study is accepted, its recommendations should be implemented through further detailed steps to address specific needs discussed in the study (see Implementation Plan, p. V-1, Study). PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose derives from the original RFP, which indicated that: "The City of Moorpark is soliciting proposals to prepare a study with resultant recommendations for the improvement of the Downtown area. The project is to result in alternatives and recommendations for: 1) land use/zoning plan; 2) architectural themes and standards including accompanying streetscape plans; and 3) implementation procedures including possible financing mechanisms." The essence of this direction is the preparation of a study that suggests what the downtown area's future should be and how to get there. •. /;' , ... ,. /~--, \ ·, 'J , ..... ,,' :.·~r-t~::=" '~, :;1.1.:, .J City Council City of Moorpark May 10, 1988 Page 3 PROJECT GUIDANCE PACKAGE A Project Guidance Package was prepared based on individual interviews with the Commissioners and members of Council. This resulted in refinement of (but not change in) the intent of the study; identified problems and opportunities, and described guiding principals for the project. It is attached for your reference. IMPORTANT PROJECT MILESTONES May 6, 1987 June 29 July 9 July 23 August 10 November 23 December 1 Consultant Selection by City Council Revised Scope of Work Draft Project Guidance Package Draft Potential Incentive Measures/Sample Streetscape and Design Workbook Pages Draft Land Use Analysis and 7 Exhibits Executed Contract Draft Moorpark Downtown Study (25 copies) Errata Sheet CONTRACT MEETINGS (14 REQUIRED/15 MEETINGS TO DATE) 1 Interview City Council/ Planning Commission 1 Business Community 1 Special Meeting 5 Staff 1 Joint Planning Commission/ Council Workshop 1988 1 Design Standards Committee 2 Planning Commission (4 attended to date) 2 City Council CONTRACT EXTENSION June 10 June 17 July 24: July 24: May 15: Rotary Club S.P.R.R. First -Ongoing September 21 January 12 December 21: Continued February 1 February 29: Special Downtown/Business Community Meeting March 21 (To Do) It is clear that confusion exists regarding The Planning Center' request for a contract extension. This request is based upon two things: 1) additional meetings (see letter dated February 25); and 2) additional work (see letter dated March 14). :,:"-:.~•-~t:\ .,;:; ' ., ~ , ~ '·<, '•~: City Council city of Moorpark May 10, 1988 Page 4 Regarding the matter of additional meetings, The Planning center has attended fifteen meetings (including May 18th) to date (see above list). This was acknowledged by Mr. Richards and we were requested to prepare a letter outlining our billing rates and estimating our costs for attendance at future meetings. The matter of additional work is a result of requests made by the Planning Commission in response to concerns expressed by merchants on February 29. The Commission directed staff to provide the following additional information (excerpt from Director's Memorandum to Planning Commission dated March 17): 1. A map showing which businesses/residences would be made non-conforming if the plan was adopted as proposed. 2. A revised draft plan exhibit to show all existing businesses with the rear alley parking concept. 3. Additional text language that expands upon how the City can deal with the parking issues. 4. Provide the Commission with an identification of planned public improvements in the Downtown area and how they will be financed. This matter was continued by the Planning Commission to their regular meeting of March 21, 1988. The Planning Center prepared a response (see letter dated March 14) noting that the draft document as it now stands is really a recommendation as to how best to achieve necessary revitalization and associated parking. The Study is not intended nor could it put any business/residence into nonconf ormance. It is conceptual, not regulatory. Depending on how the city chooses to respond to the idea, it may or may not be pursued in a later step, such as preparation of a Specific Plan. At that point, if the alley concept is used, there may be situations in which nonconformance would be an issue. Let us be clear. The Planning Center is not trying to avoid work, nor do we feel that money is the issue. What we wish to clarify is that this study is to provide the basis for additional steps as recommended by the draft to implement its concepts and guidelines. The draft can and should be revised to reflect the City's hopes for the Downtown's future. However, it is our understanding that further in-depth analysis of issues related to the implementation of this study' s recommendations are outside its scope and subjects for future work. .,.;.:-:·/,:_.',\ / :;:;ttf E'; ,;;~·~~..:Ji• City Council City of Moorpark May 10, 1988 Page 5 The Planning Center is encouraged by the citizen participation and City interest in the Downtown Study and wishes to respond to these concerns in the Downtown Study recommendations. A SuIDmary of Recommendations is provided within the Draft Moorpark Downtown Study, pages 5 and 6, for your reference. SUMMARY In summation, The Planning Center is committed to producing a useful and responsive Moorpark Downtown Study. This study is a beginning and is not intended to be the final word. The Moorpark Downtown Study will be a valuable comprehensive planning document that will give guidance for further ctetai.1ec:1 st:uaies as -c.ne Downtown revitalization process is activated. We look forward to a productive meeting with you and will do our best to address your concerns. Sincerely, THE PLANNING CENTER 'aJ~~ Michael H. Nihan Project Manager MHN:AB:pas MPK01.MN Al Bell Senior Project Manager