HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2002 0722 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2002 -427
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY — JULY 22, 2002
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
799 Moorpark Avenue
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public
Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion,
item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing
or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion
of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary
for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of
the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item
of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing
must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation
of three minutes shall be imposed upon: each Public Comment and Discussion
item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon
each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in
lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion. items. Copies
of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the
Community Development Department /Planning and are available for public
review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the
Community Development Department at 517 -6233.
Planning Commission Agenda
JULY 22, 2002
Page 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
November
9, 1998.
B.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
November
23, 1998.
C.
Special
Meeting
Minutes
of
November
30, 1998.
D.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
December
14, 1998.
E.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
March 22,
1999.
F.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
August 9,
1999.
G.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
February
14, 2000.
H.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
June 26,
2000.
I.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
March 25,
2002.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Subject: Amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark
Municipal Code Related to Lighting Regulations
Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002-
recommending to the City Council approval of
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to Lighting
Regulations as included in Attachment No. 2.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of August 26, 2002:
• USA Development Agreement - Verbal
• Toll Brothers General Plan Amendment /Zoning Change -
Tentative
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2002 \020722 pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
JULY 22, 2002
Page 3
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (continued)
B. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of September 9, 2002:
• Zoning Ordinance Amendment on Signs - Verbal
12. ADJOURNMENT:
-------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's
Department at (805) 517 -6223. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to
this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II).
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2002 \020722 pca.doc
ITEM!o • A c
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 9, 1998
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on November
9, 1998, in the Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799
Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021.
1. Call to Order
Vice Chairman Millhouse called the meeting to order at 7:08
p.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
Commissioner DiCecco led the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
3. Roll Call
Chair Lowenberg was absent. Commissioners Millhouse, Acosta,
Miller, and DiCecco were present at the meeting.
Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director
of Community Development; Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager; John
Libiez, Principal Planner; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City
Engineer; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations
None
5. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda
Item 9.B.reordered.
6. Approval of Minutes
None
7. Public Comments
Jim Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, Moorpark, California. Mr.
Hartley expressed his concern regarding public hearing
noticing procedures.
8. Consent Calendar
None
9. Public Hearings
B. A -B Properties & Southern California Edison Development
Agreement 98.04 Proposal: The project that is the subject
of the proposed Development Agreement is currently being
considered for a change in land use designations to
Medium Industrial and Limited Industrial (M -2), General
Plan Amendment No. 97 -2, Zone Change No. 97 -8, and
Development Agreement No. 98 -4. Location and Property
Description: The project site to be included in the
SACommunity Development \COMMISSIONIMINUTESIPast PC Minutes Pending\F 1998 -11 -09 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 9, 1998
Paae 2
proposed Development Agreement is approximately 34 acres,
located approximately 1,300 feet west of Gabbert Road and
north of the railroad tracks within the City of Moorpark.
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 500 -34 -23 and 23. Existing
General Plan Designation: C -2, General Commercial.
Existing Zoning: Agricultural Exclusive (AE). Staff
Recommendation: Open the public hearing and accept public
testimony. Adopt Resolution No. PC -98- , recommending
approval of the Proposed Development Agreement to City
Council.
Presented by Nelson Miller, Director of Community
Development. Mr. Miller commented on issues of public
access, the 118 Bypass and Walnut /Gabbert Road drainage.
He explained that the Development Agreement addressed
certain aspects of development of future property and
that Caltrans conceptual plan and alignment needs are
still in process.
Testimony received from the following:
John Newton, 165 High Street, representing the applicant
reviewed several pages (2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,) of
the Development Agreement with staff.
Jim Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, expressed his
recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council to reopen the General Plan Amendment
process until the Environmental Report is amended to
include circulation patterns for Poindexter Avenue and
Gabbert Road.
Madeline Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, spoke about the
City's General Plan Circulation Element inconsistencies.
Her concerns were Casey Road as it currently exits,
Poindexter Avenue railroad crossing, and reduced property
values.
Rene Mayfield, 6085 Darlene Lane, addressed her concerns
of the proposed road being too narrow for semi -truck
traffic, and that rezoning would be inconsistent with the
current zoning.
Mary Kairouz, 11922 Darlene Lane, concerns expressed of
increased truck traffic.
John Newton addressed some of the concerns of surrounding
property owners. He stated that Gabbert Road, Casey Road
SACommunity DevelopmenhCOMMISSION IMINUTESIPast PC Minutes PendingT 1998 -11 -09 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 9, 1998
Paqe 3
and railroad crossing are improvements which need to be
made, and issues related to noise and light would not
affect surrounding property owners.
Dennis Hardgrave, 651 Via Alondra, #714, Camarillo,
representing Southern California Edison spoke about the
Development Agreement providing the framework for
development and a north /south link.
Public Hearing closed at 8:33 p.m.
The Commission's discussions centered on traffic
improvements, circulation, and funding. The consistency
with the General Plan and overall City circulation,
signalization, the proposed underpass, and consideration
of a truck weigh station.
Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development
commented that an option would be to provide an
alternative for a bypass and underpass.
MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner Miller
seconded a motion to approve AB Properties Development
Agreement 98 -4, as amended by the applicant with
recommendations that the applicant work with the adjacent
property owners to address their concerns. That an underground
tunnel, and bypass alternatives be reviewed. That easement
property be returned back to the applicant if a different
route is approved, and that the City Council study alternative
circulation patterns.
Motion passed with a 4:0 unanimous voice vote. Commissioner
Lowenberg was absent.
A. Pacific Communities Development Agreement 98 -02
Proposal: The Pacific Communities project, that is the subject
of the proposed Development Agreement, is proposed for 303
single - family detached residences and is currently also being
considered for the following entitlements: General Plan
Amendment No. 96 -2, Zone Change No. 96 -2, Tentative Tract Map
No. 5053, and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 96-
04. Location and Property Description: The project site to be
included in the proposed Development Agreement is located on
the south side of Los Angeles Avenue, opposite Shasta and
Goldman Avenues within the City of Moorpark. Assessor Parcel
Numbers: 506 -03 -135, 145, 155, 165 and 185. Existing General
Plan Designation: Very High and High Density Residential.
SACommunity DevelopmenACOMMISSIONNINUTESTast PC Minutes Pending\F 1998 -11 -09 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 9, 1998
Paae 4
Existing Zoning: Residential Planned Development (5.3 and 13.0
units per acre). Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing
and accept public testimony. Adopt Resolution No. PC -98- ,
recommending approval of the Proposed Development Agreement to
City Council.
Presented by Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development.
Testimony received from the following:
Elaine Freeman, 2509 E. Thousand Oaks, Thousand Oaks,
representing Pacific Communities.
Nelson Chung, 1000 Dove, Suite 100, Newport Beach,
representing Pacific Communities, provided the Commission with
background information related to the entitlement processing
and development proposal.
Bob Delp, 4808 Maureen Lane, adjacent property owner was
concerned about his privacy and recommended to the Commission
and staff to consider single -story dwellings for those
proposed homes adjacent to Maureen Lane property owners.
Joe Ahearn, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, in support of the
proposed development outline approximate costs and related
fees. Mr. Ahearn estimated approximately $8000.00 in fees per
dwelling unit.
Public Hearing closed at 9:30 p.m.
MOTION: Commissioner Millhouse moved and Commissioner Miller
seconded a motion to continue Item 9.A. to the Planning
Commission meeting of November 23, 1998.
Motion passed with a 4:0 unanimous voice vote. Commissioner
Lowenberg was absent.
10. Discussion Items
None
11. Announcements of Future Agenda Items
Commissioner Miller reminded the public of the Veterans Day
holiday.
SACommunity DevelopmentlCOMMISSION IMINUTES1Past PC Minutes PendingT 1998 -11 -09 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 9, 1998
Paae 5
12. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
William F. Otto, Chair
for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan, Community
Development Director
SACommunity DevelopmennCOMMISSION IMINUTESTast PC Minutes PendingT- 199 8-11 -09 pcm.doc
rrEM •
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 23, 1998
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on November
23, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799
Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
Commissioner Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
3. Roll Call
Planning Commissioners Keith Millhouse and Ernesto Acosta were
absent. Commissioners Bart Miller, Mark DiCecco, and Gary
Lowenberg were present at the meeting.
Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director
of Community Development; John Libiez, Principal Planner; Dirk
Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur,
Administrative Secretary.
4. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations
None
5. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda
None
6. Approval of Minutes
A. July 8, 1998 - Joint City Council /Planning Commission
B. September 23, 1998 - Joint /City Council /Planning
Commission
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner DiCecco
seconded a motion to approve the minutes of July 8, 1998,
and September 23, 1998.
Motion passed with a unanimous 3:0 voice vote.
7. Public Comments
None
8. Consent Calendar
None
9. Public Hearings
A. Application: Development Agreement 98 -02 (Continued from
11- 09 -98) Applicant: Pacific Communities. Proposal: The
Pacific Communities project, that is the subject of the
proposed Development Agreement, is proposed for 303
F 1998 -11 -23 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 23, 1998
Paae 2
single- family detached residences and is currently also
being considered for the following entitlements: General
Plan Amendment No. 96 -2, Zone Change No. 96 -2, Tentative
Tract Map No. 5053, and Residential Planned Development
Permit No. 96 -04. Location and Property Description:
The project site to be included in the proposed
Development Agreement is located on the south side of Los
Angeles Avenue, opposite Shasta and Goldman Avenues
within the City of Moorpark. Assessor Parcel Numbers:
506 -03 -135, 145, 155, 165 and 185. Existing General Plan
Designation: Very High and High Density Residential.
Existing Zoning: Residential Planned Development (5.3 and
13.0 units per acre) . Staff Recommendation: Open the
public hearing and accept public testimony. Adopt
Resolution No. PC -98- , recommending approval of the
Proposed Development Agreement to City Council.
Presented by Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development.
Staff Report dated November 18, 1998.
Testimony received from the following:
Nelson Chung, 1000 Dove Street, Newport Beach, representing
Pacific Communities, 1000 Dove Street, Suite 100
Newport Beach, California, 92660
MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner Lowenberg
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -98 -361
recommending to the City Council approval of Pacific
Communities Development Agreement No. 98 -02.
Motion passed with a 2:1 voice vote. Commissioner Miller voted
NO.
B. Application: Draft Environmental Impact Report for
Specific Plan No. 2, Specific Plan No. 95 -2, General Plan
Amendment No. 95.2, and Zone Change No. 95 -4 Applicant:
Morrison - Fountainwood- Agoura. Proposal: The Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) together with written
comments received through October 15, 1998, and the
City's responses to these comments, along with proposed
mitigation measures will be discussed. The EIR assesses
impacts which would result from development of the
project as described by the Specific Plan. Specific Plan
No. 2, which is the development project also to be
discussed, will establish public improvements, land uses,
dwelling unit types, densities, and development and
design standards for a 445 -acre site. The Specific Plan
project also proposes a 20.3 acre school site, an 11 acre
F 1998 -11 -23 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 23, 1998
Paae 3
park site, reservation of right -of -way for Highway 118
and Highway 23, the establishment of a 94 acre Open Space
Conservation Easement and creation of a Habitat
Conservation Plan. Also proposed is the amendment of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan to extend Spring
Road from Charles Street to Walnut Canyon Road and
designate this extension together with proposed "C"
Street of this project from the extension of Spring Road
east to the project boundary both as four lane arterial.
Additionally, this application includes a proposal to
amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by
changing the existing land use overlay designations to
reflect overlay designations that may be approved for the
proposed uses as described in SP No. 2 and by designating
the entire site as Specific Plan No. 2. This proposal
also involves a request to rezone the subject property
from the existing zoning designations to Specific Plan
Zoning.
Location: The subject property is located north of the
intersection of Spring Road and Charles Street and on the
side east of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark.
The assessors Parcel Numbers are:
512.0.240.03, 512.0.240.04, 512.0.270.08,512.0.270.07,
512.0.270.19, 512.0.270.20, 512.0.160.54,512.0.160.55,
512.0.160.70, 512.0.160.52, 512.0.160.12
Existing Zoning:
R -1 (Single Family Residential)
RE -5 acre (Rural Exclusive - 5 acre lot)
RA -10 (Rural Agriculture - 10 acre lot)
Existing General Plan:
Specific Plan No. 2 which incorporates the overlay
designations of RL (Rural Low Residential, 1 dwelling per
5 acres) and OS -1 (Open Space, 1 dwelling per 10 -40
acres).
Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept
public testimony related to the EIR, Specific Plan,
General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, and continue
these items open to a special Planning Commission meeting
on November 30, 1998, at 7:00 p.m.
Presented by John Libiez, Principal Planner. REFERENCE: Staff
Report dated November 23, 1998.
F 1998 -11 -23 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 23, 1998
Paae 4
Testimony received from the following:
Michael Graynald, 411 Daily Drive, #110, Camarillo,
representing Morrison Fountainwood Agoura. In support of the
proposal.
William LaPerch, 7200 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark,
California. Mr. LaPerch expressed concerns relating to the
project /s inadequate environmental report, impacts to air
quality, and wildlife, traffic circulation at Spring Road and
Charles Street, and a requirement committing the project to
regulate truck traffic.
Dorann LaPerch, 7200 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, California.
Ms. LaPerch also had concerns of traffic circulation.
Mark Stanley, 721 Sir George Court, Moorpark, California. Mr.
Stanley's concerns were truck traffic, impact on the Downtown
Area, and the lack of parking in the Downtown Area.
Karen King, 749 Sir George Court, Moorpark, California. Ms.
Kings concerns were impacts to traffic, population, and
housing.
Charles Von Rueden, 777 Sir George Court, Moorpark,
California. Mr. Von Rueden's concerns access /egress, truck
traffic, blind intersection at Spring Road and Charles Street.
Donald Shively, 820 Hedyland Court, Moorpark, California. Mr.
Shively said that the Village Heights park was never
developed.
Jose Martinez, 749 Sir George Court, Moorpark, California. Mr.
Martinez was concerned with vehicles speeding, and truck
traffic on Spring Road.
June Dubsarel, 4236 Laurelglen, Moorpark, California. Mrs.
Dubsarel's concerns were about truck traffic, the proposal to
take truck traffic from Walnut Canyon to Spring Road, the
impacts of Specific Plan No. 2 bypass.
Yoland McAlevey, 735 Sir George Court, Moorpark, California.
Ms. McAlevey is opposed to this proposal because it directly
affects her residence. She said there are issues of traffic
circulation and children's safety.
MOTION: Commissioner Lowenberg moved and Commissioner DiCecco
seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to November
30, 1998.
Motion passed with a unanimous 3:0 voice vote.
F 1998 -11 -23 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 23, 1998
Paae 5
10. Discussion Items
Commissioner Miller inquired about the status of the Mayflower
Market development. Nelson Miller, Director of Community
Development responded that reconstruction plans of the market
located at the northeast corner of High and Walnut Streets
have been revised to reduce costs of construction. Some of the
revisions may require City Council review. A revised packet
has also been resubmitted to the Small Business Administration
and it is hoped that approvals can be gained in the next
month.
11. Announcements of Future Agenda Items
None
12. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
Harry K. Hogan, Uommunity
Development Director
William F. Otto, Chair
for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman
F 1998 -11 -23 pcm
rrEM 6 . G .
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 30, 1998
Paae 1
The Special Meeting of the Planning Commission held on November
30, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center,
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
1. Call to Order
Chairman Lowenberg called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
Vice Chairman Millhouse led the pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
3. Roll Call
Chairman Gary Lowenberg
Vice Chairman Keith Millhouse
Commissioner Ernesto Acosta
Commissioner Bart Miller
Commissioner Mark DiCecco
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff attending
the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community
Development, Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager, John Libiez,
Principal Planner, Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer, Jayna
Morgan, EDAW Consultant, and Celia LaFleur, Administrative
Secretary
4. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations
None
5. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda
None
6. Approval of Minutes
None
7. Public Comments
None
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 30, 1998
Paae 2
8. Consent Calendar
None
9. Public Hearings
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 95 -2, Zone Change No.
95 -4, Specific Plan No. 95 -2 (Specific Plan 2), and
related Environmental Impact Report (Morrison -
Fountainwood Agoura). Located north of the intersection
of Spring Road and Charles Street and east of Walnut
Canyon Road (Continued from November 23, 1998, with
Public Hearing opened). Staff Recommendation: Accept
public testimony. Consider applications and direct staff
to prepare a resolution for recommendations to the City
Council for consideration on December 14, 1998; or
continue consideration of these applications to a Special
meeting on December 7, 1998.
Testimony received from the following:
Mark Stanley, 721 Sir George Court, Moorpark, California. In
support of the proposal.
Dennis B. Miller, 229 Charles Street, Moorpark, California. In
opposition to this proposal.
Yolande McAlevey, 735 Sir George Court, Moorpark, California.
In opposition to this proposal.
Mike Young, 861 Heddyland Court, Moorpark, California. In
opposition to this proposal.
Cindy Marschik, 632 Charles Street, Moorpark, California. In
opposition to this proposal.
John E. Wozniak, 735 Charles Street, Moorpark, California
Michael Greynald, 711 Daily Drive, Camarillo, California. In
support of this proposal.
MOTION: Commissioner Millhouse moved and Commissioner Acosta
seconded a motion to continue this item to the Planning
Commission Meeting of December 14, 1998.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 30, 1998
Paae 3
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote
10. Announcements of Future Agenda Items
None
11. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
William F. Otto, Chair
for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan, Community
Development Director
ITEM ro • j).
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 14, 1998
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December
14, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799
Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
1. Call to Order
Chairman Lowenberg called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
Commissioner Bart Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
3. Roll Call
Chairman Gary Lowenberg
Vice Chairman Keith Millhouse
Commissioner Ernesto Acosta
Commissioner Bart Miller
Commissioner Mark DiCecco
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff attending
the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community
Development, Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager, John Libiez,
Principal Planner, Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer, EDAW
Consultant, Sally Mirabella, and Celia LaFleur, Administrative
Secretary.
4. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda
None
5. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations
None
6. Approval of Minutes
None
7. Public Comments
None
8. Consent Calendar
None
9. Public Hearings
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 95 -2, Zone Change No.
95 -4, Specific Plan No. 95 -2 (Specific Plan 2), and
related Environmental Impact Report (Morrison -
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1998 -12 -14
pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 14, 1998
Paae 2
Fountainwood Agoura). Located north of the intersection
of Spring Road and Charles Street and east of Walnut
Canyon Road (Continued from November 30, 1998, with
Public Hearing open). Staff Recommendation: Accept public
testimony. Close the public hearing. Adopt Resolution No.
PC -98 -362 recommending certification for the project
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 95 -2, zone Change 95 -4, and Specific
Plan No. 95 -2 (Specific Plan 2) to the City Council
including conditions of approval.
Presented by Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager. Reference: Staff
Report dated December 8, 1998.
Testimony received from the following
Michael Greynald, 711 Daily Drive, #110, Camarillo. Mr.
Greynald representing Morrison Fountainwood Agoura provided an
overview of alternatives proposed, which were addressed in his
letter dated December 7, 1998. Mr. Greynald addressed the
following concerns:
• Signal at the intersection of Spring Road and Charles
Street.
• Provide conditions to mitigate noise.
• Spring Road from "C" Street to Walnut Canyon required to
provide two lanes and restrict east /west turn movements
to limit traffic.
• The proposed park shall include paved area.
Tina May, 13853 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark. Tina May, an
adjacent property owner, said this proposal would enhance
property value, but was concerned about traffic circulation,
and trucks on Walnut Canyon.
Edward Pete Peters, 7155 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark. Mr.
Peters also stated his concerns of traffic circulation on
Walnut Canyon.
Roseann Mikos, 14371 E. Cambridge Street, Moorpark. Ms. Mikos
spoke about her concern for the wilderness and preserved area.
She questioned if 607 dwelling units would be an appropriate
use.
Bill Poleri, 6863 Trojan Court, Moorpark. Mr. Poleri offered
suggestions regarding traffic circulation at the Happy Camp
site. Mr. Poleri felt that the Charles Street residents should
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1998 -12 -14
pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 14, 1998
Paae 3
not be impacted and that Campus Park Drive was best to provide
a four lane thoroughfare.
Dennis Miller, 229 Charles Street, Moorpark. Mr. Miller
suggested a cul -de -sac at Charles Street.
Mark Stanley, 721 Sir George Court, Moorpark. Mr. Stanley said
there were too many restrictions concerning traffic
circulation for the Walnut Canyon circulation pattern.
The Commission discussed at length circulation patterns and
the feasibility of deleting truck traffic on Spring Road, and
widening Charles Street to "C" Street.
MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner Miller
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -98 -362
recommending certification for the project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) , approval of General Plan Amendment No.
95 -2, Zone Change 95 -4, Specific Plan No. 95 -2 (Specific Plan
2), and recommended conditions of approval to the City Council
with the addition of the following:
Condition -
A Class I bikeway (separated from the travel way)
shall be constructed along the westerly right -of-
way of Spring Road from Charles Street to "C"
Street
Condition -
The proposed dedication of a middle school site
shall be recognized as fulfilling the intent of
provision of seven acres of public /institutional
land within the Specific Plan.
Motion approved by a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
10. Discussion Items
None
11. Announcements of Future Agenda Items
A heartfelt "thank you" to fellow Commissioners and City staff
expressed by Planning Commissioner Bart Miller, as he informed
all of his decision to not reapply as Planning Commissioner.
Mr. Miller's term of service dated April 3, 1991 through
December 1998.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1998 -12 -14
pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 14, 1998
Paae 4
12. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
William F. Otto, Chair
for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barry n. nogan, �-ommunlzy
Development Director
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1998 -12 -14
pcm.doc
iTEMly Ee
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 22, 1999
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March
22, 1999, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799
Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman DiCecco called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Haller led the pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
3. ROLL CALL:
Mark DiCecco - Chair
Janice Parvin - Vice Chair
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
William F. Otto
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff attending
the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of
Community Development; John Libiez, Principal Planner; and
Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None
S. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. March 8, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes
B. February 22, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes
C. February 8, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes
CONSENSUS: By consensus the Planning Commission forwarded the
minutes of February 8, 22, and March 8 to the next regular
meeting of April 12, 1999.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
None
S:1Community DevelopmentCOMMISSION IMINUTES1Past PC Minutes Pending\F 1999 -03 -22 pcm.doc 7/17/02 3:11 PM
7
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 22, 1999
Paae 2
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Consider Issues Related To County Greenbelt
Implementation Program And County Study Of Agricultural
Compatible Uses" (Continued from March 8, 1999)
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Otto
seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council 1) Changes
in use and approving authority; 2) Current Ventura County
Agricultural and Open Space designations remain the same as to
uses and process; and add more restrictive designation for
Greenbelt areas by creating an Agricultural Exclusive
Greenbelt zone and Open Space Greenbelt zone.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
MOTION: Commissioner
seconded a motion to
Resolution No. 84 -110
Moorpark, Simi Valley
incorporate resolutior.
Greenbelt.
Landis moved and Commissioner Otto
recommend to the City Council that
a joint resolution of the Cites of
and Thousand Oaks be revisited and
s to provide more permanence to the
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of Community Development
announced to the Commission several future public hearing
items and the Joint Meeting of City Council /Planning
Commission, scheduled for March 31, 1999.
Chairman DiCecco announced Moorpark Academic Decathlon State
Champions and congratulated their hard work and
accomplishments.
Chairman DiCecco commended Nelson Miller for his service with
the City.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Commissioner Otto moved and Commission Haller
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Motion
passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
Mark DiCecco, Chairperson
F 1999 -03 -22 pcm
ITEM - (0. F.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of August 9, 1999
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
August 9, 1999, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic
Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021.
1) CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman DiCecco called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Landis led the pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
3) ROLL CALL:
Mark DiCecco - Chair
Janice Parvin - Vice Chair
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
William F. Otto
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff
attending the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Acting
Director of Community Development, John Libiez, Principal
Planner, John Whitman, Traffic Engineer, and Celia LaFleur,
Administrative Secretary.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
A) July 26,1999 - Planning Commission Minutes
B) RESOLUTION NO. PC -99 -376
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, APPROVE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADOPT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 99 -05 TO
ADD CHAPTER 17.30, "LIGHTING REGULATIONS" TO THE
MUNICIPAL CODE (APPLICANT: CITY OF MOORPARK.)
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1999 -08 -09
pcm.doc
7)
all
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of August 9, 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner Otto
seconded a motion to approve Item 6.A. AND 6.B. as
presented.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A) CONSIDER INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. IPD
99 -3 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -1 FOR A 7,127
SQUARE FOOT MULTI - TENANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AUTOMOBILE
REPAIR /BODYWORK ON THE APPLICATION OF JERROLD
FELSENTHAL. Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the
public hearing, accept public testimony and close the
public hearing. 2.Consider the Exemption prepared for
the requested entitlements prior to making a decision
for approval or denial of the projects. 3. Adopt
Resolution No. PC -99 -377 approving Industrial Planned
Development Permit No. 99 -3 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 99 -1. (Continued from July 26, 1999, with public
hearing open.)
Presented by Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of
Community Development. Reference: Staff Report dated
August 5, 1999.
Testimony received from the following:
Jerrold Felsenthal, the applicant, 9201 Wilshire Blvd.,
Beverly Hills, Ca 90210. Support
Ray Musser, Project architect, 7112 Los Coyotes Place,
Camarillo, CA. Support
John Ennis, 1000 Business Center Circle #200, Thousand
Oaks, CA. Support
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner Otto
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -99 -377, and
deletion of Conditions No. 28.A. and Condition No. 42.D.,
and revision to the following:
38.C. Prior to construction, the applicant shall
consult with the Fire Department to insure that all
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1999 -08 -09
pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of August 9, 1999
appropriate fire suppression requirements for development
of this structure and its potential intended uses involving
paint and body work are provided to the satisfaction of the
Fire Department.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. Planning
Commission action final unless appealed.
B) CONSIDER A REQUEST OF MANUAL ASADURIAN FOR APPROVAL OF
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 99 -1 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 5181 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SUBDIVISION OF
EIGHT LOTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS ON 1.2 ACRES BETWEEN BARD AND MILLARD
STREETS ( ASADURIAN). Staff Recommendation: 1. Open
the public hearing, accept public testimony and close
the public hearing. 2. Consider the Negative
Declaration prior to making a recommendation to the
City Council for approval or denial of the projects.
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC -99 -378 recommending to the
City Council approval of Residential Planned
Development No. 99 -1 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5181.
(Continued from July 12, 1999, with public hearing
open.)
Presented by Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of
Community Development. REFERENCE: Staff Report dated
August 5, 1999.
Testimony received from the following:
Donald W. Haase, Haase & Associates, 2555 Grand
Avenue, Fillmore, CA 93015. Support
Joe Ahearn, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, CA.
Support
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner Parvin
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -99 -378 with
staff recommendation and elimination of Condition 38.A.
(Knuckle requirement).
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
C) CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MOORPARK ZONING
CODE TO AMEND SECTION 17.20.050, TABLE 17.20.050, TO
ADD INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES FOR SEVEN OR MORE
PERSONS WITHIN THE R -0 (SINGLE- FAMILY ESTATE) ZONE,
S:\Community Development \COMMISSION\MINUTES\Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1999 -08 -09
pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of August 9, 1999
SUBJECT TO AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 99 -06. APPLICANT: CITY OF MOORPARK.
Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept
testimony, close the hearing, and adopt Resolution No.
PC -99 -379 recommending to the City Council approval of
an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit intermediate
care facilities within the R -0 (Single Family Estate)
Zone subject to a Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit.
Presented by John Libiez, Principal Planner. Reference:
Staff Report dated July 29, 1999.
Testimony received by the following:
Mary Leste, 4762 Maureen Lane, Moorpark, CA. Support
Shelly Chilton, 448 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA. Support
Joe Ahearn, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, CA.
Support
Written Statement Card:
Vicki Brenna, 4887 Maureen Lane, Moorpark, CA. Opposed to
proposal, and stated that the area considered is a family
neighborhood, and not an appropriate location for this use;
parking is not available, and it creates additional
traffic.
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner Parvin
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -99 -379,
subject to clarification of the purpose and intent of
"intermediate care facility" use.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
D) CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MOORPARK ZONING
CODE TO AMEND SECTION 17.20.060, TABLE 17.20.060, TO
PERMIT LIMITED RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN THE C -0
(COMMERCIAL OFFICE) ZONE WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC
PLAN, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 99 -07. APPLICANT: CITY OF
MOORPARK. Staff Recommendation: Open the public
hearing, accept testimony, close the hearing, and
adopt Resolution No. PC -99 -380 recommending to the
City Council approval of an amendment to the Zoning
Code to permit limited commercial retail uses within
the C -0 Zone in the Downtown Specific Plan area.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1999 -08 -09
pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of August 9, 1999
Presented by John Libiez, Principal Planner. Reference:
Staff Report dated August 3, 1999.
Testimony received from the following:
Carolyn Elizabeth Miner, 2762 N. Los Pinos Circle,
Camarillo, CA 93012. Support
Joe Ahearn, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, CA.
Support
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner Parvin
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -99 -380 with
revision to permit artisan workshop uses to promote and
rejuvenate the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
E) CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MOORPARK ZONING
CODE RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
INVOLVING THE CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL USES AND
STRUCTURES TO COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ONLY, ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT 99 -08. APPLICANT: CITY OF MOORPARK. Staff
Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept
testimony, close the hearing, and adopt Resolution No.
PC -99 -381 recommending to the City Council approval of
an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish an
application process and procedure for conversion of
structures and uses within the Downtown Specific Plan
area.
Presented by Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of Community
Development, Reference: Staff Report dated August 2, 1999.
Joe Ahearn, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, CA.
Support
MOTION: Commissioner Otto moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -99 -381 with
clarification to Permit Fee and Appeal Period in the
Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
9) DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None
S:\Community Development \COMMISSION\MINUTES\Past PC Minutes Pending�F 1999 -08 -09
pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of August 9, 1999
10) ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None.
11) ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned to August 23, 1999, at 11:14 P.M.
Mark DiCecco, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 1999 -08 -09
pcm.doc
ITEM 6. G
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 14, 2000
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
February 14, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic
Center, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California
93021
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7 :07 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Otto led the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
3. ROLL CALL:
Mark DiCecco - Chair
Janice Parvin - Vice Chair
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
William F. Otto
All Planning Commissioners were present at the meeting.
Staff attending the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Director
of Community Development, Paul Porter, Principal Planner,
Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer, John Whitman, Traffic
Engineer, and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None
S. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. January 10, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes
B. January 24, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting Canceled
due to lack of quorum.
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded a motion to approve the minutes of January 10,
2000.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
F 2000 -02 -14 pcm 7117102 3:03 PM
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 14, 2000
Paae 2
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Consider Tentative Tract Map No. 5147, a proposal to
subdivide 34.53 acres of land in the M -2 (Limited
Industrial) zone, located 1300 feet west of Gabbert
Road and north of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-
way into 17 lots for development and two lots for open
space and drainage, an environmental determination
under the provision of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) will also be made (Applicant: AB
Properties). Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to
conditions, City Council action required. (Continued
from January 24, 2000)
Paul Porter, Principal Planner presented the staff report.
Reference: Staff Report dated February 10, 2000.
Mr. Loftus spoke about the Development Agreement, which
Council approved at least a year ago. He said that within
the Development Agreement there were specific requirements
for improvements and completion of the Gabbert Road
intersection and alignment.
Public Hearing opened at 8:00 p.m.
Testimony received from the following:
John Newton, applicants representative, 165 High Street,
Moorpark.
Joe Toth, Skyview Engineering, applicants engineer, 483 E.
High Street, Moorprk. In support of the proposal.
Jim Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, Moorpark. Mr. Hartley's
concerns were 1) An industrial use in a residential zone.
2) How are the impacts of this industrial use going to be
mitigated? 3) Traffic studies used in this proposal are
outdated. 4) Poindexter Avenue / Gabbert Road need for
improvements as it currently exists.
Sharon Schieltz, 6133 Darlene Lane, Moorpark. Ms. Schieltz
said she also was concerned with traffic impacts and
circulation, and phasing plan for building construction.
Gregory Hronek, 11822 Elwin Lane, Moorpark. Mr. Hronek was
concerned about the proposed stacking lane. He said that
delays currently exist and with this proposal he expected
twenty- minute delays. Mr. Hronek was concerned that without
F 2000 -02 -14 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 14, 2000
Page 3
a timeframe this proposal could remain at a 65% buildout
forever, an inconvenience to surrounding property owners.
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Parvin
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC- 2000 -387
recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 5147, a
proposal to subdivide 34.53 acres of land in the M -2
(Limited Industrial) zone, located 1300 feet west of
Gabbert Road and north of the Union Pacific Railroad right -
of -way into 17 lots for development and two lots for open
space and drainage, an environmental determination under
the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) will also be made on the application of Anderson
Burns Properties and include a recommendation respective to
the following:
• To remove construction traffic from the Gabbert
Road access;
• Signalization at Gabbert Road and Poindexter
Avenue;
• Include hours of construction limiting truck
traffic and any conflict with school traffic;
The motion passed with a 4:1 voice vote. Commissioner
Haller votes NO.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
Mark DiCecco, Chairperson
F 2000 -02 -14 pcm
ITEM - "
Planning Commission, City Of Moorpark, California
Minutes Of June 26, 2000
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June
26, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center,
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Walter Brown, City Engineer led the pledge of allegiance to
the flag.
3. ROLL CALL:
Mark DiCecco - Chair
Janice Parvin - Vice Chair
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
William F. Otto
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff
attending included Wayne Loftus, Director of Community
Development, John Libiez, Planning Manager, Walter Brown,
City Engineer, and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. June 12, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded a motion to approve the minutes of June 12, 2000
as presented.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
SACommunity DevelopmenhCOMMISSION IMINUTESIPast PC Minutes PendingT 2000-06 -26 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City Of Moorpark, California
Minutes Of June 26, 2000
Paae 2
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Tentative Tract Map 5045 to divide 445 acres into 562
residential lots, 69 acres of open space, 101 acres of
habitat easement, a 22 acre school site, a 7 acre
public park, reservation for the extension of SR -23
and the SR -118 arterial bypass. Planning Commission
action is a recommendation to the City Council who
will take final action. Applicant: Morrison -
Fountainwood- Agoura. Location: The site is generally
located northerly of Charles Street easterly of Walnut
Canyon Road, southerly of the City corporate border on
the north and immediately west of Ventura County Happy
Camp Canyon Regional Park. Staff Recommendation:
Approval subject to conditions.
John Libiez, Planning Manager presented the staff
report. Reference: Staff Report dated June 26, 2000.
The Commission commented on the following:
✓ Assessment District vs. Homeowners Association for
maintenance of Open Space and common areas.
✓ Plan for preserving the Habitat Conservation Area
for the California Gnatcatcher and the provisions
for protection and long term maintenance.
✓ School facility fees, dedication of the school site
and status of an agreement.
✓ Lot size and setbacks and their relationship to the
Specific Plan.
✓ Regulations of the Hillside Ordinance, and the
incorporation of contour grading through policy
guidelines, including appropriateness, application
and enforcement.
✓ Approval of a truck /haul route if necessary.
✓ Grading, cuts and fills monitoring and enforcement.
Testimony received from the following:
Michael Greynald, 711 Daily Drive, #110, Camarillo,
representing Morrison Fountainwood Agoura. Mr. Greynald
gave a brief overview of the proposed development. He
F 2000 -06 -26 pcm
Planning Commission, City Of Moorpark, California
Minutes Of June 26, 2000
Paae 3
described each of the planned areas, the trail system and
the process required for preservation of the Habitat
Conservation Area for the California Gnatcatcher.
Pam and Steve Castro, 479 Charles Street, Moorpark. Pam and
Steve Castro had the following concerns:
✓ The Habitat Conservation Area for the California
Gnatcatcher area is at the rear of the Castro property
and should be fenced.
✓ Drainage, installation, flow and concerns of Condition
No. CED -17, page 26.
✓ Provisions for future fire hydrants.
✓ Are existing utilities going to be placed underground?
✓ Removal of water meters and its effect on the business of
P.S. for Kids.
✓ Paving of access road to the proposed development. Who
pays for new or rerouted access?
✓ Grading and noise during construction.
Victoria L. Chaidez, 13931 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark.
Ms. Chaidez was concerned that the southeast corner of the
development continues to provide a corridor to the Arroyo
for wildlife to travel from Happy Camp Canyon Park.
Mr. Greynald provided the following information:
✓ The concerns raised by Pam and Steve Castro and Victoria
Chaidez regarding drainage, fencing, fire hydrant,
utilities, access and wildlife movement have been
addressed and an agreement for compensation has been
reached. Many details remain to be worked out including
relocation of the water meters.
The public hearing closed at 8:25 p.m.
John Libiez, Planning Manager clarified that the tentative
tract map before the Planning Commission at this time will
create only four hundred sixty (460) single family lots and
that the area identified as Plan Area 5, designated for
small lot development would require a subsequent tract map
to ownership opportunities.
F 2000 -06 -26 pcm
Planning Commission, City Of Moorpark, California
Minutes Of June 26, 2000
Paae 4
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Landis
seconded a motion approving Resolution No. PC- 2000 -392
recommending City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map
5045 to divide 445 acres into 562 residential lots, 69
acres of open space, 101 acres of habitat easement, a 22
acre school site, a 7 acre public park, reservation for the
extension of SR -23 and the SR -118 arterial bypass.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
The Director informed the Planning Commission that IPD 99-
4, the industrial building by Gerald Felsenthal on Condor
Drive recently recommended by the Commission to the City
for approval would be on the City Council agenda on July
19, 2000.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
Mark DiCecco, Chair
F 2000 -06 -26 pcm
rrEM (o. Z . 210�
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
March 25, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark
Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California,
93021.
1) CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Otto called the meeting to order @ 7:10 p.m.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Parvin led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3) ROLL CALL:
Commissioner's DiCecco, Haller, Parvin, Vice Chair
Landis and Chair Otto were present at the meeting.
Staff attending the meeting included Hugh Riley,
Assistant City Manager; Deborah Traffenstedt, Acting
Community Development Director; David Bobardt,
Planning Manager; Paul Porter, Principal Planner;
Joyce Parker - Bozylinski, Planner /Consultant; Walter
Brown, City Engineer; Laura Stringer, Senior
Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Secretary II.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL
PRESENTATIONS:
Chair Otto commended the Moorpark High School Academic
Decathlon Team on their first place finish at the
State championships.
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
None.
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
7) PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Lloyd Laycook, Laycook & Associates, 1850 Gammon
Court, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mr. Laycook (representative for Zelman Retail
Partners, Inc.) thanked the Planning Commission for
their expeditious processing of the Zelman Retail
Partners project (Commercial Planned Development No.
2001 -01 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5321) which
was considered at the February 11, 2002 meeting.
020325 pcm 7118102 12:17 PM
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Paae 2
8) PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000-
10, a request to Construct an Approximately
113,994 Square Foot Mini - Warehouse /Office
Building on a 112,184 Square Foot Parcel Located
at 875 Los Angeles Avenue, at the Northwest
Corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Goldman Avenue,
on the Application of Asadurian Investments
(Assessor Parcel No. 511 -0- 070 -55). (Tabled and
re- advertised from special meeting of November
13, 2001). Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the
public hearing, accept public testimony and close
the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-
2002- recommending to the City Council denial
of Industrial Planned Development Permit No.
2000 -10.
Paul Porter gave the presentation and a brief history
of this project. He cited issues related to the
General Plan consistency.
The Commission asked staff if previous issues
regarding increased square footage, landscape,
hardscape, parking, and stacking, on this project had
been complied with by the applicant, to which staff
replied yes.
Chair Otto opened the public hearing.
Ken Carrell, Architect, 24338 El Toro Road, Laguna
Woods, CA. addressed issues of Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
traffic, and landscape. Mr. Carrell stated that the
Land Use Element and job housing ratio issues were
just brought to the applicant's attention, who has not
had time to address the issues for tonight's meeting.
Greg Call, Consultant, 17805 Skypark Circle, Irvine,
CA., spoke in support of the project.
Chair Otto closed the public hearing.
Chair Otto invited further discussion from the
Commission, which included:
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020325 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Paae 3
• Architecture of the building still needing more
work.
• Project not being compatible with the General
Plan based on the housing issues.
• FAR issues.
• Storage Opportunities in Moorpark.
• All Commissioners expressed concern with timing
of General Plan consistency issues.
Ms. Traffenstedt stated that the Commission could
approve this project but would have to make findings
that would justify General Plan consistency.
Discussion of architectural features ensued,
concluding that the applicant should work with staff
to achieve the desired quality.
MOTION: commissioner Haller moved and Vice -Chair
Landis seconded a motion that staff, along with
Commissioners DiCecco and Parvin, work with the
applicant on architectural issues, and that staff
provide a resolution for approval including findings
in support of storage and draft conditions of
approval; and that the item be continued, hearing
closed, to may 13, 2002.
Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
Chair Otto called a recess. The time was 9:08 p.m. The
meeting reconvened at 9:26 p.m.
B) Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 for subdivision of
approximately 2.44 acres into twenty -two lots,
Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2001-
01 for construction of 22 single family homes,
General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -01 to change the
land use designation from S (School) to VHD (Very
High Density) and Zone Change No. 2001 -01 to
change the zoning from R -2 (Two Family
Residential) to RPD (Residential Planned
Development) and a Variance (VAR) to allow a
sound wall up to 11.5 feet in height. Staff
Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020325 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Pacie 4
accept public testimony, and close the public
hearing; 2) Consider the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration to ensure that it adequately
addresses the impacts of the proposed residential
project prior to making a recommendation; 3)
Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending to
the City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2001 -01; 4) Adopt Resolution No.
PC -2002- recommending to the City Council
approval of Zone Change No. 2001 -01; 5) Adopt
Resolution No. PC 2002- recommending to the
City Council approval of Residential Planned
Development No. 2001 -01, Tentative Tract Map No.
5307, and Variance No. 2002 -01 subject to
conditions of approval.
Joyce Parker - Bozylinski gave the staff presentation.
The Planning Commission queried staff regarding:
• Parking on "A" Street
• Parking and access for Police Station
• Gates shown on elevatons
• Rear yard setbacks and patio cover limitations
• Use of proposed Poplar trees.
• Landscaping and irrigation.
• Monument sign (Walnut Acres).
• Wall heights, materials and screening
opportunities.
• Heating of the homes and insulation requirements
on the garages.
• Potential development of adjacent property to
east.
• Signs, parking ordinances that apply, such as
overnight parking.
• Landscape Maintenance issues
Chair Otto opened the public hearing.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020325 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Paqe 5
Wayne Colmer, 5000 Parkway Calabasas, Calabasas, CA. -
Mr. Colmer stated that he had promised the school
district the homes would first be offered to
schoolteachers. He further discussed the pricing,
architecture and the interior amenities.
He assured the Commission that the affordable housing
homes will be compatible on exteriors but would not
have fireplaces or walk -in closets.
Mr. Colmer reviewed a letter submitted prior to the
start of the meeting, regarding the conditions of
approval.
The Commission queried the applicant on the following:
• Parking and access issues at the Police Station.
• Potential for Mr. Colmer to construct the
affordable units proposed for the adjacent
property.
• Timing for wall construction.
• Proposed setbacks between buildings
• Side yard fencing and Gates
John Newton; 165 High Street, Moorpark, CA. - Mr.
Newton recommended that this project be sent forward
to the City Council for approval, and that he had
assisted Mr. Colmer with land use and property issues.
Chair Otto stated that before he closed the public
hearing he would like to hear staff comment on the
Conditions that Mr. Colmer referenced in his letter.
Staff responded to Commission questions regarding
conditions of approval:
Chair Otto closed the public hearing.
Chair Otto invited discussion from the Commission,
which included:
• The code requirement and the sound level inside
the homes.
• The gates and making them optional is fine.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020325 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Paae 6
The Commission came to consensus on revisions to the
conditions of approval:
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 23 to be revised to
require "Notice to Purchaser" in lieu of language
in the Final Subdivision Public Report regarding
the future widening of Los Angeles Avenue.
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 24 and RPD
Condition 7 to be revised regarding the timing of
certificates of occupancy for market rate units
related to construction of affordable units.
• RPD Condition No. 15 regarding installation of
vehicular gates to be deleted.
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 32 regarding
undergrounding of utilities will not change.
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 48 regarding
phasing to be revised to reflect design and
construction as a single phase.
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 52. j regarding
street sweeping will not change.
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 53 regarding
phasing to be revised to reflect grading as a
single phase.
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 80 to be revised to
correctly reflect installation of landscaping on
the south side of the property line wall adjacent
to Los Angeles Avenue.
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 89 regarding
improvements to "A" Street to be modified to
clarify parking restrictions and signage
requirements.
• Tentative Tract Condition No. 96 regarding a
looped waterline system will not change.
The commission also concurred that the following
requirements be included in the conditions:
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020325 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Paae 7
• The footprints for Plan 3 on lots 1 and 22 should
be reversed so that the front entry faces Flory
Avenue.
• The landscape plans to be revised to eliminate
poplar trees as a front yard tree.
• Fast growing vine species to be used along the
outside perimeter wall along Los Angeles Avenue.
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Vice Chair
Landis seconded a motion to approve staff
recommendations with modified conditions; that a
recommendation be forwarded to City Council that the
applicant be selected as the builder of the affordable
housing homes adjacent to this project, and that
additional study of the parking and access for the
police station be conducted.
Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
9) DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None.
10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
• Introduction of the new Planning Manager - Dave
Bobardt.
• Joint City Council and Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for Wednesday April 24, 2002.
By consensus, the Commission agreed.
• Next Planning Commission meeting to be on Monday
April 8, 2002. Staff will schedule a review of
the Lighting Ordinance related to the Zelman
Retail Development project.
• The Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
Monday April 22, 2002 to be cancelled.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020325 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 25, 2002
Page 8
11) ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Vice Chair Landis moved and Commissioner
DiCecco seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
Chair Otto adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m.
William F. Otto, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020325 pcm.doc
mmW-ammIklan
CITY OF MOORPARK
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Barry R. Hogan, Community Development Directo
By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager�j�
DATE: July 16, 2002 (PC Meeting of July 22 2002)
SUBJECT: Amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal
Code Related to Lighting Regulations
BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public workshop to
discuss potential changes to the lighting regulations in Chapter
17.30 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Tom Doyle, contract lighting plan
reviewer for the City, and Mr. Mark Marincovich, a lighting
designer, provided information to the Commission on the various
ways lighting is regulated and the implications of those
regulations. The Planning Commission gave direction to staff to
prepare a number of minor amendments to the code for consideration.
Moorpark's lighting regulations are intended to avoid: 1) nuisance
impacts on abutting properties; 2) impacts on the community's
astronomical resources; and 3) wasteful use of energy resources.
The development standards that address these goals should be
understandable, measurable, and enforceable. In cases where
desirable results cannot be easily measured, but rather rely on
professional judgment, guidelines can be used instead of standards.
Changes to the attached draft of the City's lighting regulations
include recommendations for revised definitions, development
standards, and guidelines to address issues raised at the May 28th,
2002 Planning Commission Public Workshop on lighting, along with
other staff concerns.
DISCUSSION
Public Workshop Topics
The Planning Commission discussed each of the following topics at
its May 28th, 2002 public workshop, focusing primarily on the
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Lighting Regulations
July 22, 2002
Page No. 2
lighting of commercial parking lots. Further analysis and staff
recommendations are included for each topic. The staff report
prepared for the May 28th meeting is attached.
1. Liahtina Values
• initial v. maintained values
• allowable tolerance before correction is needed
• relationship between maximum light value, evenness of
lighting and pole height.
The Planning Commission and lighting consultants discussed the
limitations of lighting modeling software and the difficulties
enforcing maximum illuminance levels in the field. A number of
internal variables (tolerances of specifications for lamps and
ballast units) and external variables (building color, texture,
windows, street lighting, signs, etc.) affect the measured values.
It was also noted that the current code does not specify whether
the maximum illuminance levels are for initial lighting or for
maintained lighting. Maintained lighting, generally measured at
halfway through the expected lamp life, is considerably lower than
the initial illuminance, given a drop in lamp output, along with
accumulated dust on the lens. The Planning Commission noted that
the lighting standards that are developed should be enforceable by
ensuring that the lighting is installed, according to
specifications on the lighting plan, without relying on field
measurement for enforcement.
Staff reviewed lighting regulations in other cities, as well as
recommendations from the International Dark -Sky Association (IDA)
and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).
None of the surrounding cities in Ventura County have a maximum
level established for outdoor lighting and therefore do not have a
need to measure lighting. As mentioned by the lighting consultants
at the May 28th workshop, the City of Orange conducts field
measurements of lighting but only on a complaint basis. Orange has
a standard that lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot - candles beyond
the property line, however, no standard is set for lighting within
a property. The Orange Police Department enforces the light
spillover standard. A light meter is used and enforcement generally
involves shielding or redirecting floodlights.
The IDA in its "Pattern Code," does not recommend a maximum
illuminance level but rather recommends a maximum amount of initial
lumens per acre for all outdoor lighting, depending on the
surrounding land uses. This approach is used by the IDA because it
allows for flexibility in the lighting design, while controlling
excessive overall lighting and is relatively easy and inexpensive
S: \Community Development \Z 0 A \2002 -09 \Staff Reports \PC 020722 Lighting Regulations.doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Lighting Regulations
July 22, 2002
Page No. 3
to enforce. The recommendation of the IDA varies from 10,000
lumens per acre for residential areas with intrinsically dark
landscapes (i.e. adjacent to national parks) to 200,000 lumens per
acre for commercial uses in urban areas with high levels of
nighttime activity. The entire site, including building area, is
included in calculating the "lumens allowance" under the IDA
recommended standard. One drawback of this standard is that it
doesn't take into account that different uses take up different
percentages of the site with buildings, affecting the amount of
remaining outdoor space that needs to be lit. For example, single -
story industrial buildings will generally have greater lot coverage
than single -story retail buildings or restaurants because of the
lower parking requirements. Applying the same "lumens allowance"
per acre would allow uses with greater lot coverage to also have
brighter parking lots, since the outdoor area to be lit is smaller.
The IESNA has recommendations based on minimum average, maintained
foot - candles, with 3.6 foot - candles for high- activity parking
areas, 2.4 foot - candles for medium - activity parking areas and 0.8
foot - candles for low - activity parking areas. These levels are
recommended as starting points for design, and not as code
standards. There may be professionally justifiable factors that
necessitate design that is either higher or lower than these
standards. As recommended design minimums, their intent
(sufficient lighting for the intended use) is not the same as that
of the City's lighting regulations (to avoid nuisance light
spillover).
Recommendation: Staff recommends keeping the current 7.0 foot -
candle maximum for parking lot lighting as a standard, but that it
be for "maintained" lighting, and that 950 of the grid points on
the photometric plan for maintained lighting be at or below this
level. This would avoid excessive hot spots and require high -
quality design, but still be achievable. With testimony that
measured results may not match modeled results for lighting due to
a large number of internal and external factors, it is recommended
that only lighting installation according to approved lighting
plans be verified in the field. Testing with a light meter would
be reserved for code enforcement activities.
2. Types of Outdoor Lamps and Color
• incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, low- pressure sodium,
high pressure sodium, mercury vapor and metal halide
• warm color versus cool color lamps
S: \Community Development \Z 0 A \2002 -04 \Staff Reports \PC 020722 Lighting Regulations.doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Lighting Regulations
July 22, 2002
Page No. 4
The two (2) primary types of outdoor lighting used today are high -
pressure sodium and metal halide. Both are extensively used because
they have medium energy efficiency, a relatively long life, and
good color rendition. Metal halide lights tend to be blue -white in
color, sometimes harsher on the eyes than the high - pressure sodium
lights. Mr. Marincovich testified at the May 28th public workshop
that warmer metal halide lights (around 3,000 Kelvin) currently
available are not as reliable as the normal metal halide lights
(around 4,100 Kelvin).
The current code generally prohibits mercury vapor and low - pressure
sodium lighting. Mercury vapor lighting, although inexpensive and
long- lived, is relatively inefficient and has a harsh color. Low -
pressure sodium lighting is among the most energy efficient
lighting available, but has a very limited spectrum, preventing the
distinction of colors if it is the only light source available.
Low - pressure sodium lighting can be an appropriate lighting source
in areas where color rendition is not important, such as in
industrial areas. It also has low impacts near astronomical
observatories, since its limited spectrum can be filtered.
Recommendation: To address concerns related to the lighting color,
a new guideline is recommended that the lighting color be
appropriate for the architecture of the building and surrounding
area. This is similar to a code requirement applied by the City of
Thousand Oaks. Although most commercial projects would not use low -
pressure sodium lighting because of its poor color rendition, its
use should not be prohibited outright because of its benefits
related to high- energy efficiency and compatibility with
astronomical observatories. The new proposed guideline should
preclude any use of low - pressure sodium lighting where color
rendition is important (i.e. a large commercial parking lot). It
should also address issues with the potential incompatibility of
blue metal halide lighting.
3. Energy Efficiency
• relationship of local lighting regulations to State
standards
The California Energy Commission is developing outdoor lighting
standards in response to Senate Bill 5X, which was adopted in April
2001. The intent of the standards is to minimize energy use from
outdoor lighting. These standards will also reduce excessive
lighting by regulating the amount of energy that can be used to
light an outdoor space. The first draft of these standards,
released on June 6, 2002, calls for parking lot lighting not to
exceed 0.080 watts per square foot in urban commercial areas.
Generally, this would allow for one (1) 250 -watt bulb every 3,125
S: \Community Development \Z 0 A \2002 -09 \Staff Reports \PC 020722 Lighting Regulations.doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Lighting Regulations
July 22, 2002
Page No. 5
square feet of parking area (about 10 parking spaces), or one (1)
400 -watt bulb every 5,000 square feet (about 16 parking spaces).
For comparison, the Mission Bell Plaza parking lot has
approximately one (1) 400 -watt light for every twenty (20) parking
spaces, and the Moorpark Marketplace is proposing approximately one
(1) 400 -watt light for every fourteen (14) parking spaces. These
State standards would prevent excessive lighting in parking lots,
but would not result in a noticeable change from existing
development in Moorpark. Different lighting requirements are
proposed for other outdoor spaces, such as, building grounds,
entrances and outdoor sales areas. Another draft standard is for
lamps over 100 watts to achieve an efficacy of sixty (60) lumens
per watt or greater. This would ensure the use of energy efficient
lighting, such as metal halide, high - pressure sodium, low - pressure
sodium and fluorescent lighting. The California Energy Commission
intends to adopt the standards by July 1, 2003, taking effect in
2005. Although these standards would help achieve Moorpark's
lighting goals, a substantial amount of development could occur in
Moorpark before any State regulations take effect.
Recommendation: A numerical standard for energy efficiency proposed
by Chair Otto at the May 28th public workshop to replace the
existing guideline that "lighting systems shall be energy
efficient," would allow staff to easily determine if the lighting
meets the stated goal of energy efficiency. In order to be
consistent with the draft State energy standards released on June
6th, staff is recommending a standard of sixty (60) lumens per watt
for all lamps over 100 watts.
4. Use of Drop -Down Lenses
• potential exceptions to outright prohibition
The concern over the use of drop -down lenses is related to the
direct viewing of the light source when the lamp is visible through
the lens and the indirect viewing of the light source when the
light from the lamp is refracted through or diffused by the lens.
Both could cause nuisance glare. For this reason, the current code
prohibits the use of drop -down lenses.
Many lighting fixtures are available that have the lamp enclosed
entirely within the housing but also include some sort of drop -down
lens. These lenses are included for aesthetic purposes (such as a
reproduction of a certain historic period light fixture) or for
refraction, the spreading of the light to cover a larger area. The
refraction of light upward increases as these lenses get dirty.
Decorative fixtures with the lamp fully recessed and with a two-
S: \Community Development \Z 0 A \2002 -04 \Staff Reports \PC 020722 Lighting Regulations.doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Lighting Regulations
July 22, 2002
Page No. 6
inch drop -down lens were recently approved for the Moorpark
Marketplace project, as such lenses were not considered to pose the
risk of nuisance glare.
Recommendation: Staff recommends amending the current prohibition
on drop -down lenses to allow such lenses where the lamps are fully
recessed and lenses are clear. Existing guidelines to maintain
glare and reflections within the property would avoid the use of
lenses with excessive refractive qualities. The current code also
requires keeping the lighting systems clean.
5. Pole Height
• relationship between pole height and number of poles needed
• relationship between pole height and architecture
• relationship between pole height and glare spillover
The height of the light poles generally determines the evenness of
the lighting and the number of poles needed to light an outdoor
space. The pole height does not necessarily cause light spillover
onto adjacent properties if shielding is incorporated into the
light and the lights are placed at an appropriate distance from the
property line. At the May 28th Planning Commission meeting, Mr.
Marincovich explained that most parking lot lighting is designed
for placement on 30 -foot high poles, though 25 -foot high poles were
acceptable, at a minimum. He noted that a substantially larger
number of additional poles would be needed if pole height were
restricted to twenty (20) feet. This would increase energy
consumption and the potential for lighting hot spots. It should be
noted that although Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks all
restrict pole height to twenty (20) feet, the IDA recommends that
pole height not be restricted, particularly below twenty -five (25)
feet.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that pole heights of twenty -five
(25) feet be allowed in all commercial, industrial and
institutional zones, except within 100 feet of residential zones
where a maximum 20 -foot high pole would be permitted. Given the
design of common driveways and parking areas for some higher -
density residential projects in the RPD zone, such as the Archstone
apartments, it is also recommended that pole height in the RPD zone
be determined as part of the plan entitlement, not to exceed twenty
(20) feet. This would distinguish the RPD zone from other
residential zones, where the current maximum pole height is
fourteen (14) feet. The current light spillover standard of 1.0
foot - candle maximum beyond the property line would address
potential impacts from taller light poles.
S: \Community Development \Z 0 A \2002 -04 \Staff Reports \PC 020722 Lighting Regulations.doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Lighting Regulations
July 22, 2002
Page No. 7
Other Issues
In the course of reviewing the lighting regulations, staff is
recommending a number of other minor amendments:
Definitions
"Candlepower" is defined but not used in the code and therefore
should be removed from the definitions.
"Luminaire or luminary" in Section 17.30.020 is defined as the
light element of the light fixture. This is not consistent with
the lighting industry practice. The National Electrical
Manufacturers Association Luminaire Section has developed a list of
definitions for outdoor lighting codes based on the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America handbook. This list defines
"luminaire" as a complete lighting unit consisting of the light
source, optical reflector, and housing. The term "lamp" is used by
the lighting industry to describe the light element.
"Initial Lighting Values" and "Maintained Lighting Values" should
be clearly defined for consistency in interpretation.
Prohibited Lighting
In addition to changes recommended based on the discussion of the
Planning Commission at its May 28th meeting, staff recommends that
the prohibition on directly visible lamps (17.30.050(E)) be
clarified, and that searchlights and laser lights aimed skyward for
the purpose of advertising be prohibited.
Distinction between Standards and Guidelines
A number of standards in the lighting regulations are not easily
measured and therefore are not enforceable. The principles within
these standards are, however, valuable toward achieving the goals
of the lighting regulations. Such principles would be appropriate
as guidelines. Section 17.30.070 of the current code, entitled
"Design Guidelines" contains some regulations best grouped as
guidelines and some best grouped as standards. It does not indicate
a process or authority responsible for evaluating a project for
compliance with the guidelines. Changes to the lighting regulations
are recommended by staff to separate guidelines from standards and
create a process for the guidelines to ensure consistency in
implementation. It is recommended that the authority for
determining compliance with the guidelines be established with the
Community Development Director. This would provide accountable
responsibility and allow for prompt plan review.
S: \Community Development \Z 0 A \2002 -09 \Staff Reports \PC 020722 Lighting Regulations.doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Lighting Regulations
July 22, 2002
Page No. 8
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an
Initial Study was prepared for the proposed amendments to the
lighting regulations. No adverse impacts were projected and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared. The comment period on the
Proposed Negative Declaration extends through August 1, 2002.
STAFF RECO14MENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the
public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending to the City
Council approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related
to Lighting Regulations as included in Attachment No. 2.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report from May 28, 2002 Public Workshop.
2. Proposed Changes to Chapter 17.30 of the Municipal Code.
3. Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Proposed Changes.
4. Negative Declaration.
S: \Community Development \Z 0 A \2002 -04 \Staff Reports \PC 020722 Lighting Regulations.doc
CITY OF MOORPARK
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan; Community Development Directo
By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager'P
DATE: May 16, 2002 (PC Meeting of May 28, 2002)
SUBJECT: Consider Public Workshop for Discussion of Potential
Modifications to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal
Code related to Lighting Regulations
BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution to approve
the Moorpark Marketplace shopping center project at the southeast
corner of New Los Angeles Avenue and Miller Parkway. In this
resolution, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to
initiate a study of lighting regulation amendments in Chapter 17.30
of the Zoning Ordinance and /or in the Carlsberg Specific Plan.
Amendments to the Carlsberg Specific Plan lighting regulations were
considered by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2002. On May 15,
2002, the City Council approved the amendments to the Carlsberg
Specific Plan lighting regulations as recommended by the Planning
Commission. This report addresses potential changes to the
Lighting Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Existing Regulations
Comprehensive lighting regulations were adopted through Ordinance
No. 266 on November 17, 1999 as Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark
Municipal Code. This chapter includes regulations on light
intensity, spillover, pole height, hours of lighting and types of
lamps and fixtures. A copy is attached as Attachment "1 ". In
summary, the Moorpark Municipal Code sets forth eight general areas
regulations for exterior lighting:
PC ATTACHMENT /
Planning Commission Staff Report
Lighting Regulation Workshop
Page No. 2
Applicability of regulations - All new construction and repairs,
replacements, or reconstruction where 25% of the fixtures are
affected.
Prohibited lighting - Blinking lights, low- pressure sodium lights
(except where necessary for light- sensitive land uses such as
astronomical observatories), mercury vapor lights (except in rural
residential and agricultural areas), lights with visible bulbs, and
drop -down lenses.
Light Spillover - Light value must drop to 1 foot - candle or less at
the property line._
Lighting Values - For exterior parking areas, lighting is limited
to 1 foot - candle minimum and 7 foot - candles maximum. For interior
parking areas, lighting must be a minimum of 10 foot - candles. In
addition, for blue metal halide and high - pressure sodium lights,
400 -watt maximum bulbs are allowed, and for fluorescent lights, 100
watts per fixture are allowed.
Light Pole Maximum Heiaht
Residential:
14
feet
Commercial:
20
feet
Industrial:
25
feet
Institutional:
20
feet.
Architectural Compatibility - Fixtures are required to be
compatible and complementary to the architecture of the project.
Timing - Automatic timers required with a drop of 75% of lighting
output after closing time (10:00 PM unless otherwise permitted).
Ted - Light meter testing by City's lighting engineer prior to
final inspection, with correction of deviations prior to final
project clearance.
Regulations in Other Cities
Staff evaluated lighting regulations from surrounding cities. The
following compares major provisions of these regulations:
Camarillo - Camarillo requires lighting for parking lots to be
indirect, hooded, and arranged to reflect light away from adjoining
properties. Light poles may be up to 20 feet in height in any
zone. No requirements are established by code for intensity, types
of lights, architectural compatibility, or timing of lights.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Lighting Regulation Workshop
Page No. 3
Simi Valley - Simi Valley sets a maximum height for commercial and
industrial light fixtures at 20 feet, unless within 100 feet of a
residential zone, in which case the maximum height is 14 feet. The
maximum height in residential zones is 14 feet. Low - pressure
sodium lighting is prohibited, and no more than a 7 -1 ratio of
maximum to minimum illumination level is permitted between lights.
Thousand Oaks - Thousand Oaks requires parking -lot lighting to be
reflected away from adjoining residences. Light poles and fixtures
must be low profile and architecturally compatible with the
building, a maximum of 20 feet in height, 14 feet in height if
adjacent to residences or in residential zones. Lights must be of
a color compatible with development in the vicinity.
Ventura - Ventura requires that parking -lot lighting not spill
beyond the site. No specific requirements are established by code
for intensity, types of lights, height of lights, architectural
compatibility, or timing of lights.
County of Ventura - The County requires parking -lot lighting to be
_ reflected away from residential zones. No requirements are
established by code for intensity, types of lights, architectural
compatibility, or timing of lights. Lighting is reviewed on a
case -by -case basis to determine if a photometric analysis is
necessary. Light poles up to 20 feet in height are permitted by
right in all zones, although light poles up to 35 feet in height
could be approved through a Planned Development Permit.
A survey was also conducted through the League of California Cities
to find jurisdictions that regulated the Correlated Color
Temperature of outdoor lighting. Low color temperature implies
warmer (more yellow /red) light, while high color temperature
implies a colder (more blue) light. Only a few Cities responded.
Some Cities (including Moorpark) prohibit certain types of lights,
such as low - pressure sodium or mercury vapor lights because of
either their color temperature or the narrow spectrum of light.
Only one City (Claremont) was found that set a numeric standard in
maximum degrees Kelvin for Metal Halide or other High Intensity
Discharge (HID) lighting. The intent of Claremont's Code is to
avoid the harshness on the eyes of cool lights. A maximum of 3400
Kelvin is set so warm color bulbs would be used, giving a light
similar to incandescent bulbs.
State Energy Conservation Requirements
In April 2001, Senate Bill 5X was signed into law. It allows the
California Energy Commission to adopt energy efficiency standards
for all outdoor lighting applications. The goal of this
legislation is to conserve energy and reduce electricity peak
Planning Commission Staff Report
Lighting Regulation Workshop
Page No. 4
demand. Staff of the California Energy Commission is currently
holding workshops to identify topic areas for lighting standards.
The California Energy Commission is expected to act on proposed
standards by July of 2003, with the standards becoming effective in
2005. Such standards may further limit the types of permitted
outdoor lighting, depending on its efficiency (i.e. lumens per
watt). Hours of illumination may also be regulated under these
standards.
Recent Projects
To date, no multi - family or new commercial development project has
been built in Moorpark under the current standards. The light
poles in the parking areas of the Archstone Apartments, which were
entitled prior to the effective date of the lighting ordinance, are
20 feet in height where the current code would restrict lighting to
14 feet.
The Planning Commission and the City Council recently reviewed the
Moorpark Marketplace project in the Carlsberg Specific Plan area.
The applicant requested amendments to the Specific Plan regulations
to allow light poles up to 25 feet in height, maintained lighting
values of up to 8.2 foot - candles, and drop -down lenses (See
Attachment "2 "). This project was found to be in keeping with the
intent of the code to avoid light spillover, and was approved.
Topics for Discussion
This agenda item was advertised as a public workshop. The intent
is to obtain public input, discuss lighting issues, and direct
staff as appropriate. No formal action of the Planning Commission
is necessary at this meeting.
The following are potential topics for discussion and direction to
staff:
1. Lighting Values
• initial v. maintained values
• allowable tolerance before correction is needed
• relationship between maximum light value, evenness of
lighting, and pole height.
2. Correlated Color Temperature
• warm v. cool lamps
3. Types of Outdoor Lamps
• incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, low- pressure sodium, high
pressure sodium, mercury vapor, metal halide
S: \Community Development \Eve ryone\Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020528 Lighting workshop
Planning Commission Staff Report
Lighting Regulation Workshop
Page No. 5
4. Energy Efficiency
• relationship of local lighting regulations to State standards
5. Use of Drop -Down Lenses
• potential exceptions to outright prohibition
6. Pole Height
• relationship between pole height and number of poles needed
• relationship between pole height and architecture
• relationship between pole height and glare spillover
STAFF RECOMNENDATIONS
1. Open the public workshop, accept public testimony, and discuss
issues related to lighting regulations.
2. Provide direction to staff for the possible preparation of
amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
Attachments:
1. Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code
2. Staff Report on Moorpark Marketplace project
17.30.010
Chapter 1730
LIGHTING REGULATIONS
Sections:
17.30.010
Purpose and intent.
17.30.020
Definitions.
1730.030
Applicability.
1730.040
General requirements.
1730.050
Prohibited lighting.
1730.060
Plans required.
1730.070
Design guidelines.
1730.080
Certificationttesting.
1730.090
Exemptions.
1730.100
Violation— Penalties.
1730.1I0
Nonconforming systems.
1730.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide
regulation of lighting systems constructed on properties
within the various zones in the city.
The city recognizes that lighting has both a practical
and aesthetic value and is an integral portion of any devel-
opment. The city also recognizes that improperly installed
lighting, illegal lighting, or improperly maintained lighting,
creates impacts upon astronomical resources within the
community and creates conflicts and nuisance impacts upon
abutting properties and is wasteful of energy resources by
causing energy to be expended without producing additional
useful light. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
1730.020 Definitions.
Words and terms as used in this chapter shall have the
meanings set forth in this section. Words or terms not
defined herein shall have the generally accepted meaning
as defined elsewhere within this title.
"Candlepower" means the total light output expressed
in candelas.
"Drop down lens" means a light directing diffuser or
lens which is shaped so that it lays or falls below the
horizontal plane of the bottom of the fixture, thus resulting
in direct viewing of the lens from above the horizontal
plane.
"Glare" means the effect produced by lighting sufficient
to cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual perfor-
mance and visibility. For the purposes of this chapter, glare
occurs when the luminaire (or associated lens) of a light
fixture is directly viewable from a location off the property
that it serves.
"Human scale" means the proportional relationship of
a particular building, structure, or streetscape element to
human form and function.
"Luminaire or luminary" means the light producing
element of a light fixture. Examples are bulbs and tubes.
Direct viewing of luminaries of greater than one thousand
(1,000) lumens per fixture is undesirable.
Secondary luminaire. For the purpose of this chapter
a diffusing lens between the bulb and the viewer is not
considered an obstruction to the direct view of a single
luminaire and is considered a "secondary luminaire."
Spillover. In practical terms, a close relative of glare.
"Spillover" occurs when the illumination intensity outside
the property boundaries exceeds one (1) foot - candle. (Ord.
266 § 2 (part), 1999)
1730.030 Applicability.
The regulations contained within this chapter shall apply
to all residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional
zoned lands and projects, except additions or remodels of
single - family homes within the city. These regulations shall
apply to all specific plan areas and are intended to augment
lighting standards and regulations contained within any
adopted specific plan. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
1730.040 General requirements.
A. Lighting permitted shall be limited to those levels
necessary to provide safety and security to the site.
B. Use of low intensity lighting for aesthetic purposes
in order to enhance or accent building features. public am
or landscape architectural features of a project is encour-
aged. Such lighting shall not spill over onto, or extend
beyond the property -line or into adjacent public right -of-
way.
C. All lighting systems shall meet adopted uniform
codes and standards of the city.
D. All lighting system components shall be kept in
good repair and service. Periodic cleaning, painting and
servicing of supports, globes. fixtures and foundations is
required. Poor maintenance shall be considered a public
nuisance.
I? All lighting components shall be decorative and
shall be compatible with the architectural style of the build-
ings within the project location. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
1730.050 Prohibited lighting.
The following types of lighting shall be prdubited within
the city:
A. Any outdoor lighting system erected, installed.
modified or reconstructed without proper plans and permit
approvals;
B. Flashing, alternating or blinking lights, other than
traffic or hazard lights or those permitted under the sign
regulations contained in Chapter 17.40;
(Moorpark 1 -01) 346
PC ATTACHMENT
C. Low pressure sodium (LPS) lights, except
when it has been determined by the director of community
development that LPS use in proximity to a light sensitive
land use, such as an observatory, is appropriate to minimize
light impacts on the adjacent use which would otherwise
limit the function of the light sensitive land use;
D. High intensity mercury vapor security lights (with
fixture not properly implemented to shield direct viewing
of the luminaire or the light shaping lens/diffuser from
off the property) in other than rural residential or agricultur-
al areas;
E. Any luminaire that is viewed directly with no
intervening lens or shielding element, other than bare bulbs,
tube lighting, or approved neon lighting;
F. Drop down lens. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
1730.060 Plans required.
All commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential
projects, except additions, approved after the effective date
of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall have the
lighting system and its components, to be incorporated
within that project, approved by the city's lighting engineer
prior to issuance of building permits for that project.
Projects approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this chapter shall comply with the provisions
of this chapter to the extent feasible, consistent with Section
17.30.110.
Each lighting plan shall incorporate electrical plans and
structural plans which detail the provision of lighting
systems for exteriors of all buildings, parking lots, loading
areas, walkways, public use areas, public art displays,
fountains, or landscape areas.
Lighting plans shall be prepared, signed and certified
by a civil or electrical engineer licensed and/or registered
within the state of California to prepare and certify lighting
system designs/plans.
Lighting plans shall, as a minimum include and exhibit
the following:
A. Style, size, height and location of any poles used
to support lighting fixtures or electroliers;
B. Size, height and location of any foundation systems
upon which light poles may be erected;
C. Style, type, location and quantity of fixtures and/
or electroliers, whether pole mounted, bollard mounted
or building mounted;
D. Number and wattage of luminaries/bulbs/electroliers,
light color temperature (equivalent Kelvin blackbody
temperature) and/or the radiometric emission spectrum
giving relative intensity vs. wavelength over the range of
400 — 700 nanometers;
E. Shields, cut-off mechanisms, or diffusers used with
each fixture;
17.30.050
F. Construction structural and mounting details for
all installations;
G. All exterior lighting plans shall be photo-metric
consisting of a point by point foot - candle layout based upon
a ten (10) foot grid center and extended to twenty (20)
feet beyond the property line;
H. Lighting plans shall be prepared to scale, and shall
be accompanied by dimensioned detail sheets, materials
catalogues. and specifications to aid in the identification
and evaluation of proposed lighting system components.
The application for such lighting plans should be made
on the form provided by the department of community
development. A fee, as established by city council resolu-
tion, is required to accompany each application for a fighting
plan. (Ord. 266 12 (part), 1999)
1730.070 Design guidelines.
A. General Guidelines.
1. All lighting shall be stationary and directed away
from all adjacent properties and streets/rights-of-ways.
2. Lighting systems shall be energy efficient.
3. Lights shall be shielded or recessed to direct glare
and reflections within the boundaries of the property.
4. Lighting shall be consistent among fixtures used
throughout the project so that single fixtures or small groups
of fixtures shall not be of unusually high intensity or
brightness such that hot spots are crated.
5. All lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in scale,
intensity and height to the use to be served.
6. All walkway lighting, public space lighting, patio
area lighting shall be kept to human scale. Bollard style
lighting is preferred
7. Security lighting shall be provided at all entrances
and exits to buildings.
8. All lighting fixtures shall incorporate full cutoff
features such that the luminaire is not visible and that
spillover or direct light unissions do not extend beyond
the property line or into adjacent public right -of -way.
9. Concrete pedestals, bases or foundations intended
for the mounting of poles shall be restricted in height and
bulk to that necessary to provide adequate, safe anchorage
for poles and fixtures, but shall in no case exceed the
heights specified in Section 17.30.070D. All concrete
pedestals shall be painted or stucco coated to be compatible
with the project architectural elevations, or to blend with
the landscape areas in which they are constructed.
10. Unshielded pack lighting fixtures and area wide
flood lighting are prohibited.
B. Lighting pole height:
1. Residential: fourteen (14) feet;
2. Commercial: twenty (20) feet;
3. Industrial: twenty-five (25) feet;
346-1 tMoarpst 1-01)
17.30.070
4. Institutional: twenty (20) feet.
C. Lighting Values:
I. Exterior parking areas:
Seven (7) foot- candles maximum,
One (1) foot- candle minimum;
2. Interior parking areas:
Ten (10) foot - candles minimum;
3. Blue metal halide and high pressure sodium
electroliers: four hundred (400) watt maximum;
4. Fluorescent lighting units: one hundred (100) watts
per light fixture. Such units shall be shielded so that tubes
or lenses are not viewable outside the intended illuminated
area.
D. Pedestals. Pedestals used to provide ground mounting
foundations for lighting poles and fixtures shall not exceed
six (6) inches in height when placed adjacent to sidewalks,
within planters, or within parking lots. Light fixtures when
placed in a hardscape area shall be mounted flush with
the surrounding paving or hardscape.
E. Pole and pedestal clearances:
1. Curb face: three (3) feet;
2. Handicap parking space or ramp: five (5) feet;
3. Parking space:
side — two (2) feet,
head — three (3) feet;
4. Trash enclosure: three (3) feet from any vehicle
approach;
5. Drive aisles: three (3) feet;
6. Edge of sidewalk: two (2) feet.
F. Minimum fixture vertical clearance:
I. Over driveways/aisles: fourteen (14) feet;
2. Over walkways: eight (8) feet.
G. Shielding/Shrouds. All lighting fixtures shall be
designed and installed sucb that no light will be emitted
above the horizontal plane. Integral cut_ -off devices or
shields and/or the addition of external shrouds of compatible
architectural design to the buildings shall be used to limit
stray light.
H. Automatic Shutoff. All lighting systems shall be
designed to include an automatic shutoff control with
manual override capability such that only a minimum
number of fixtures remain on after the closing time of the
facility which they serve. It is the intent of this subsection
that significant reductions in nighttime light glow occur.
Reductions shall not be less than seventy -five percent (15%)
of the designed lighting output and fifty percent (50%)
of the energy load of the system after the hour of ten
(10:00) p.m., except for approved entertainment venues,
businesses for which conditions of approval permit operation
beyond ten (10:00) p.m. and twenty-four (24) hour business-
es, or unless otherwise approved by the director of commu-
nity development, upon recommendation of the city's
(Mompuk1 -0 r) 346-2
lighting engineer that a significant amount of energy will
not be saved or the existing level of light is needed for
safety or security around the premises. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part),
1999)
1730.080 Certification/testing.
Each lighting plan shall meet the standards of this chapter
and title, as well as those structural and electrical codes
adopted by the city which may apply.
The applicant's engineer shall prepare and certify that
the plan has been prepared in accordance with this chapter
and any design materials furnished by the city's lighting
engineer.
The city's lighting engineer shall review and approve
the plans and certify to their compliance with this chapter
and any applicable design guidelines. The city's lighting
engineer shall sign all zoning clearances necessary to issue
building permits for the implementation of the lighting
plans.
Prior to final inspection, or where applicable, issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, the city lighting engineer
shall cause to be performed a photometric field inspection
of the approved lighting system for the project. The inspec-
tion shall verify the proper construction and installation
of materials within the approved plan, determine the actual
light patterns and values through light meter testing and
observation, and determine the extent of any en-ant lighting.
Deviations and/or violations shall be corrected prior to the
final clearance for the project. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
1730.090 Exemptions.
The criteria of this chapter shall not apply to any of
the following:
A. One (1) incandescent bulb of one hundred (100)
watts or kss used in low density residential or nu-A lighting
areas, provided such fixture is shielded so as not to emit
light above the horizontal plane or beyond the property
line;
B. Athletic field lights within a public park, recreation
or school campus established pursuant to special plans
meeting recognized standards for such facilities constructed
in accordance with a photometric plan for these facilities.
Nonhorizontal fixtures are discouraged;
C. Navigation beacons, aircraft warning lighting upon
towers or similar structures, hazard markers, railroad signals
and crossing warning devices;
D. Security lighting for prison, jail facilities. medical
facilities or special health care facilities;
E. Traffic control devices;
F. Seasonal lighting displays used in conjunction with
special holidays or religious celebrations so long as the
glare is not sufficient to pose safety hazards to pedestrians
and motorists, or cause sufficient attraction to result in
creation of a nuisance or hazard to vehicular traffic;
G. Temporary sale or special event lighting as permitted
through the issuance of appropriate permits by the city;
H. Repair or replacement of individual lighting fixtures
existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified
in this chapter, provided that the fixture and/or the luminaire
repaired or replaced does not exceed the intensity of the
original lighting fixture and further provided that the repair
or replacement is subject to any required permits;
I. Safety or security lighting within single - family
residential neighborhoods recommended by police or spacial
security inspections as part of a neighborhood watch
program provided such lighting shall not create a nuisance
to abutting properties as a result of spillover. To the extent
that the prescribed lighting is not diminished in effective-
ness, all such lighting shall incorporate motion detectors,
photocells or similar devices to activate the special light
fixtures, but shall be provided with a manual switching
device to override the fixture when necessary. (Ord. 266
§ 2 (part), 1999)
1730.100 Violation— Penalties.
It shall be unlawful for any person to install, replace,
reconstruct or intensify any lighting system, for which a
permit is required, upon any commercial, industrial. institu-
tional or residential property within the city not in compli-
ance with the provisions of this chapter.
Any person who violates any provision of, or fails to
comply with any requirement of this chapter is guilty of
an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished
in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of this code.
It shall be the responsibility of each occupant, property
owner, home owners' association, tenant association. or
property management association having jurisdiction over
property to ensure compliance with the intent and provisions
of this chapter. Covenants and conditions for any property
association shall contain provisions for the design, review,
approval and continued maintenance of lighting systems
within the boundaries of such association. (Ord. 266 § 2
(part), 1999)
1730.110 Nonconforming systems.
Lighting systems, for which valid permits have been
issued, existing upon properties within any zone prior to
the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter
shall be considered legally nonconforming. As such, repair,
maintenance, and replacement with like fixtures of these
lighting systems shall be permitted, unless otherwise provid-
ed for within this chapter.
Replacement, repair or reconstruction of twenty-five
percent (25%) or more of the fixtures within an existing
17.30.090
legal nonconforming lighting system, as determined by
the director of community development, shall require that
the system be brought into conformity with the provisions
of this chapter.
Lighting systems within single - family projects found
to create a nuisance to abutting residences or upon the
public right -of -way, shall be corrected in such a manner
as to remove the nuisance.
Alterations to existing legal nonconforming lighting
systems shall not be permitted except for those which result
in a fighting system for the property which is more conform-
ing, with these provisions or which reduce the level of
nonconformity.
Whenever a project site is the subject of a major modifi-
cation to the approved development plan as defined by
this code, the major modification application shall incorpo-
rate a revised lighting system plan in order to bring the
property into conformance with this chapter. (Ord. 266
§ 2 (part), 1999)
346-3 (Mamimic 1 -01)
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Acting Community Development
Director ,-%i 5-r
Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager,
DATE: April 9,•2002 (CC Meeting of May 2, 2002)
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -1, An Amendment to
Ordinance No. 195 "Carlsberg Specific Plan Land Use
Regulations" and Minor Modification No. 4 to Carlsberg
Specific Plan (SP 92 -1), Regarding Lighting Standards, on
the Application of Zelman Retail Partners, Inc.
SUMMARY
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -1 and Minor Modification No. 4
to the Carlsberg Specific Plan, prepared for Council consideration,
would permit the parking lot lighting previously proposed for the
Moorpark Marketplace at the southeast corner of New Los Angeles
Avenue and Miller Parkway. The lighting includes 25 -foot high
light poles, drop -down lenses on the fixtures, and light values up
to 8.2 foot - candles. On April 8, 2002, the Planning Commission
recommended conditional approval of the parking lot lighting.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On March 20, 2002, the City Council approved a Commercial Planned
Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Moorpark
Marketplace, a 357,621 square -foot commercial center with 1,429
parking spaces at the southeast corner of New Los Angeles Avenue
and Miller Parkway. As part of the resolution approving these
applications, Council directed the Planning Commission to initiate
study of modifications to the Zoning Ordinance and /or Ordinance No.
195 (Carlsberg Specific Plan Land Use Regulations) related to
revisions to lighting standards in order to allow the proposed
parking lot lighting.
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April
8, 2002 to consider proposed changes to the Carlsberg Specific Plan
Pr ATTACHMENT a
Honorable City Cou►...il
May 1, 2002 Meeting
Page No. 2
and Ordinance No. 195. The changes would create specific lighting
standards for the Sub - Regional Retail /Commercial /Business Park area
of the Carlsberg Specific Plan to allow 25 -foot high light poles,
light fixture lenses that drop down 2" from the fixture, and light
values up to 8.2 foot - candles.
The Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the
changes. Commissioners commented that the 25 -foot high light -poles
and drop -down lenses as part of decorative fixtures were
appropriate for this site. Commissioners also noted that raising
the height of the poles to 25 feet decreased the number of light
poles needed, allowing for increased landscaping, and decreased
energy use
The applicant requested more flexibility in a staff recommended
condition for actual measured light values to be within 10 percent
of those shown on the plan. The Commission discussed this issue
with Mr. Tom Doyle, a registered electrical engineer under contract
with the City for reviewing lighting plans. Mr. Doyle noted that
the difference between a 10 percent and a 15 percent tolerance in
measured foot - candles, as requested by the applicant, would not be
perceptible to the eye. The Commission concluded that a 15 percent
deviation in measured lighting values from those shown on the
photometric study was acceptable, given standard industry
tolerances in lamp and ballast specifications and the potential
effects of building light and street light spillover into the
parking lot. This change is reflected in the attached conditions
for Council consideration. The staff report to the Planning
Commission and the Resolution of the Planning Commission adopted on
April 8, 2002 are attached.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This proposed commercial center is consistent with the Amended
Carlsberg Specific Plan for which an EIR was certified. No further
review is necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, discuss
issues identified in the staff report, and close the public
hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2002- approving Minor Modification
No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan, subject to conditions of
approval.
3. Introduce Ordinance No. to first reading, amending
Sections 8119 -5.4 and 8119 -6.5 of Ordinance No. 195 "Carlsberg
Specific Plan Land Use Regulations ".
s: \Communit [2evelopment \Everyone \City Council Agenda Reports \CC 020501 ZOA2002 -1 Zelman
Lighting.do
Honorable City Co_icil
May 1, 2002 Meeting
Page No. 3
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Resolution to Amend the Carlsberg Specific
Plan with Conditions of Approval
2. Draft City of Moorpark Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 195
3. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated April 3, 2002
9. Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending Conditional
Approval
Under Separate Cover:
5. Ordinance 195
6. Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code
7. Photometric Study (Initial)
8. Photometric Study (Maintained)
9. Site Details
10. Lighting Specifications
S:\COMmunity Development \Everyone \City Council Agenda Reports \CC 020501 ZOA2002 -1 Zelman
Lighting.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO THE
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDING
SUBSECTIONS F.4 AND G.4 OF CHAPTER IV
CONCERNING EXTERIOR LIGHTING STANDARDS
IN THE SUB - REGIONAL RETAIL /COMMERCIAL
AND BUSINESS PARK ZONES
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City
of Moorpark requesting Minor Modification No. 4 to the
Carlsberg Specific Plan (SP 92 -1) in order to amend
Subsections -F.4. and G.4. of Chapter IV concerning exterior
lighting in the Carlsberg Specific Plan Sub - Regional
Retail /Commercial and Business Park zones; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a duly noticed
public hearing on April 8, 2002, adopted Resolution PC-
2002 -423 recommending that the City Council consider and
approve Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific
Plan (Exhibit A), subject to conditions of approval
(Exhibit B) ; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on 2002,
the City Council conducted a public hearing, took public
testimony, closed the hearing, and reached its decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The
following findings:
City Council hereby adopts the
1. Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific
Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and
the Carlsberg Specific Plan and will not materially
affect the overall purpose and intent of the specific
plan.
2. Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific
Plan is not extensive enough to be considered a
substantial or fundamental change in land use, would
not have a substantial adverse impact on the
surroundings, and would not change any of the findings
Resolution No. -J02-
Minor Mod 4 to SP 92 -1
Page 2
contained in the environmental document prepared for
the Carlsberg Specific Plan.
SECTION 2. The City Council approves Minor
Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan (Exhibit
A), subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B),
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified
resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2002.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
UeDoran 5. Trattensteot, city t;lerK
EXHIBITs
A: Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan
B: Conditions of Approval
a
j
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Resolutions and Conditions \cc 020501 minmod4 Amended
Carlsberg SP.doc
EXHIBIT A
City Council Resolution No. 2002-
Minor Modification No. 4 to SP -92 -1
Subsection F.4. (Page 57), Sub - Regional Retail /Commercial
(SR /C) Site Development Standards, of Chapter IV
Development Standards of the Carlsberg Specific Plan dated
September 7, 1994, are amended by adding the following
language:
e. Lighting:
1) Light poles in the parking areas shall not
exceed 25 feet in height measured from the
ground to the top of the light fixture. All
other exterior light poles shall conform to
standards of 'the Moorpark Municipal Code.
2) Drop -down lenses not to exceed two inches
may be used in the light fixtures, provided
that the lamps are fully recessed in the
fixture to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
3) Lighting values in the parking areas shall
not exceed 8.2 foot - candles under a
normally- maintained condition.
4) All other lighting regulations contained in
the Moorpark Municipal Code shall apply.
Subsection G.4. (Page 59), Business Park (BP) Site
Development Standards, of Chapter IV Development Standards
of the Carlsberg Specific Plan dated September 7, 1994, is
amended by adding new subsection "g." and renaming existing
subsection "g." to "h." as follows:
g. Lighting:
1) Light poles in the parking areas shall not
exceed 25 feet in height measured from the
ground to the top of the light fixture. All
other exterior light poles shall conform to
standards of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
Resolution No. —a02-
Minor Mod 4 to SP 92 -1
Page 2
2) Drop -down lenses not to exceed two inches
may be used in the light fixtures, provided
that the lamps are fully recessed in the
fixture to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
3) Lighting values in the parking areas shall
not exceed 8.2 foot - candles under a
normally- maintained condition.
4) All other lighting regulations contained in
the Moorpark Municipal Code shall apply.
All other applicable City codes /standards apply.
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Resolutions and Conditions \cc 020501 minmod4 Amended
Carlsberg SP.doc
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO THE
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 92 -1)
1. The parking lot lighting for the commercial center
shall be constructed in substantial conformance with
the photometric study plans and light specifications
received by the City of Moorpark on April 2, 2002.
2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
actual photometric values shall be measured in the
field by the City at the applicant's expense. Any
discrepancy in excess of 15 percent from the lighting
values shown on the plans shall be corrected to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3. No changes to any of the specified light poles, light
fixtures, lamps, or ballast units shall be made
without prior approval by the Community Development
Director.
'i
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 8119 -5.4 AND
8119 -6.5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 195 "CARLSBERG
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE REGULATIONS" RELATED TO
SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE SUB- REGIONAL
RETAIL /COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS PARK ZONES OF
THE CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a need exists
to provide adequate standards and regulations concerning
exterior lighting in the Carlsberg Specific Plan Sub - Regional
Retail /Commercial and Business Park zones; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that standards and
regulations affecting exterior lighting are necessary to ensure
the public health, safety and welfare within the various
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public
;.. hearing on April 8, 2002, adopted Resolution PC- 2002 -423
recommending that the City Council consider and adopt the
amendment to Ordinance No. 195 as contained in Exhibit A to that
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on 11 2002 conducted a
public hearing, took public testimony, closed the hearing, and
reached its decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 8119 -5.4 of Ordinance No. 195 "Site
Development Standards (Sub - Regional Retail /Commercial
Zone)" is amended by adding subsection "e" as follows:
Sec. 8119 -5.4 - Site Development Standards
e. Lighting:
1) Light poles in the parking areas shall not exceed
25 feet in height measured from the ground to the
top of the light fixture. All other exterior
light poles shall conform to standards of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
2) Drop -down lenses not to exceed two inches may be
used in the light fixtures, provided that the
lamps are fully recessed in the fixture to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
3) Lighting values in the parking areas shall not
exceed 8.2 foot - candles under a normally -
maintained condition.
4) All other lighting regulations contained in the
Moorpark Municipal Code shall apply.
SECTION 2. Section 8119 -6.5 of Ordinance No. 195 "Site
Development Standards (Business Park Zone)" is amended by
adding new subsection "g" and renaming existing subsection
% %g" to "h" as follows
Sec. 8119 -6.5 - Site Development Standards
g. Lighting:
1) Light poles in the parking areas shall not exceed
25 feet in height measured from the ground to the
top of the light fixture. All other exterior
light poles shall conform to standards of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
2) Drop -down lenses not to exceed two inches may be
used in the -light fixtures, provided that the
lamps are fully recessed in the fixture to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
3) Lighting values in the parking areas shall not
exceed 8.2 foot - candles under a normally -
maintained condition.
4) All other lighting regulations contained in the
Moorpark Municipal Code shall apply.
All other applicable City codes /standards apply.
R. 2 r.. . -..- --- __��..\n- �: - - -- %-- non en• v^R�An -, _1 .mil - A__
Ordinance No.
Page 3
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares
that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more section,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30)
days after its passage and adoption.
SECTION S. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of
original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of
the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and
shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption
thereof, cause the same to be published once in the Moorpark Star
a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of
the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby
designated for that purpose.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2002.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor _
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
S: \Coamuaity Development \everyone \Ordinances \cc 020501 20A2002 -2 zelman.doc
CITY OF MOORPARK
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Acting Community Development
Director
By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager
DATE: April 3, 2002 (PC Meeting of April 8, 2002)
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2002 -1, An Amendment to
Ordinance. No. 195 "Carlsberg Specific Plan Land Use
Regulations" and Minor Modification No. 4 to Carlsberg
Specific Plan (SP 92 -1), Regarding Lighting Standards, on
the Application of Zelman Retail Partners, Inc.
:•:' BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2002, the City Council approved a Commercial Planned
Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the
construction of a 357,621 square -foot commercial center with 1,429
parking spaces at the southeast corner of New Los Angeles Avenue
and Miller Parkway. As part of the resolution approving these
applications, Council directed the Planning Commission to initiate
study of modifications to Chapter 17.30 of the Zoning Ordinance
and /or Ordinance No. 195 related to revisions to lighting
standards. This action responded to a recommendation of the
Planning Commission to allow 25 -foot high light poles with drop -
down lenses and lighting values in excess of 7 foot - candles for
this project.
DISCUSSION
This staff report focuses on an amendment to Ordinance No. 195 as
previously discussed by the Planning Commission to address lighting
issues specific to the approved commercial center in the Carlsberg
Specific Plan area and respond to an application filed on March 26,
2002 by Zelman Retail Partners, Inc. The applicant is requesting
the amendment to Ordinance No. 195 to allow for the use of lighting
poles 25 feet in height, lenses that drop down about two inches
below the fixtures, and lighting values up to 8.2 foot - candles.
Potential amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal
+'i' J
Planning Commission Staff Report ZOA 2002 -1, Minor Mod
April 8, 2002
Applicant: Zelman Retail Partners, Inc.
Page No. 2
Code (Lighting Regulations) will be studied and presented to the
Planning Commission in the future as directed by Council.
Existing Code Standards
Comprehensive lighting regulations are contained in Chapter 17.30
of the Moorpark Municipal Code, attached to this report. Of
particular note for this project are the maximum height of lighting
poles for commercial uses (20 feet), the maximum light value for
exterior parking areas (7 foot - candles), and the requirement that
lights be shielded or recessed to direct glare and reflections
within the boundaries of the property.
Specific Plan Regulations
Ordinance No. 195, adopted on September 21, 1994, contains
development standards for the Carlsberg Specific Plan area,
including the (SR /C) Sub - Regional Retail /Commercial overlay zone,
where the project is located. Details or issues not specifically
covered in these regulations are subject to the regulations of the
City of Moorpark Zoning Code. In areas of conflict between the
7 City's zoning regulations and these provisions, the Specific Plan
takes precedence.
The Carlsberg Specific Plan development standards for the (SR /C)
Sub - Regional Retail /Commercial overlay zone establish minimum
setbacks, maximum building heights, and minimum site landscaping
requirements. Lighting is one of the issues not addressed by
Ordinance No. 195, and therefore is regulated by Chapter 17.30 of
the Moorpark Municipal Code.
Assessment of Proposed Lighting Plan
The conceptual lighting plan is not consistent with certain
elements of Chapter 17.30 (Lighting Regulations) of the Municipal
Code. The applicant is proposing 82 lighting poles in the parking
lot at 25 feet in height, lenses that drop down about two inches
below the fixtures, and lighting values up to 8.2 foot - candles
(maintained brightness).
Given the large size of the parking lot, the number of 25 -foot high
light poles needed to light the parking areas is substantially less
than the number of light poles needed if the poles were set at 20
feet in height, allowing for increased landscaping. According to
the applicant, a plan with 20 -foot high poles would require 152
poles to achieve similar lighting performance.. The higher
placement of the light fixtures provides more even distribution of
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020 408 ZOA2002 -1 Zelman
Lighting Rptl.doc
Planning Commission Staff Report ZOA 2002 -1, Minor Mod. 4
April 8, 2002
Applicant: Zelman Retail Partners, Inc.
Page No. 3
light in the parking lot. Finally, the use of 25 -foot high poles
is compatible with the scale of the architecture in this project,
with typical building heights of 23 to 31 feet.
The placement of lighting fixtures on higher poles could, however,
increase the potential for off -site light spillover. In order to
evaluate this potential, the City retained Tom Doyle, Chief
Electrical Engineer of Dahl, Taylor and Associates to provide an
expert opinion on the lighting proposal (attached). Mr. Doyle's
conclusion is that light cut off at the property line is at an
acceptable level. In addition, the parking lot varies from
approximately the same grade as New Los Angeles Avenue to 32 feet
below grade. Most of the light poles on the eastern half of the
project site would be less than 20 feet above the street grade.
The drop -down lens proposed is an integral component of the
proposed lighting fixtures. These lighting fixtures are a high -
quality lighting product compatible with the architecture of the
project. The lamp itself is recessed, but the lens drops about two
inches below the shield. Review of this proposed lens also
f� indicates that it would not contribute to off -site glare.
The request to exceed the lighting values contained in the Zoning
Code was also independently reviewed by Mr. Doyle. His conclusion
is that it is reasonable for a commercial site to have an average
lighting value of between 3.0 and 6.0 foot - candles (The average on
this proposal is 3.63 foot - candles). It should be noted that these
lighting values represent those values expected over the long -term
maintenance of the project. According to Mr. Doyle, it is standard
practice in the industry to measure lighting as it -would be
expected over time, with a 28 percent drop from initial brightness,
due to environmental effects on lamps, reflectors, and lenses, as
well as factory tolerances on lamps and ballast units.
As stated before the Planning Commission on February 11, 2002, it
is staff's opinion that a change to the maximum fixture height is
justified. This is based on the lower elevation of the site when
viewed from New Los Angeles Avenue and the need to decrease the
number of light poles and increase the number of trees in the
parking lot areas to achieve greater tree canopy coverage. The
drop -down lens is also within the intent of the Zoning Code and is
not expected to result in off -site glare. The lighting values are
reasonable for a retail commercial center. Conditions have been
added to the attached resolution for the Minor Modification to the
Specific Plan that would ensure that the project meets the
standards proposed in the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
S: \Comaunity Develonmen[ \Everyone \Planninn rnmmission Agenda Reports \PC 020408 ZOA2002 -1 _.
Planning Commission Staff
April 8, 2002
Applicant: Zelman Retail
Page No. 4
Report ZOA 2002 -1, Minor Mod. 4
Partners, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This proposed commercial center is consistent with the Amended
Carlsberg Specific Plan for which an EIR was certified. No further
review is necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, discuss
issues identified in the staff report, and close the public
- hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2002- recommending to the City
Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -1 and
Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan,
subject to conditions of approval.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Mr. Tom Doyle
: 2. Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval
Under Separate Cover:
3. Ordinance 195
4. Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code
5. Photometric Study (Initial)
6. Photometric Study (Maintained)
7. Site Details
B. Lighting Specifications
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020400 ZOA2002 -1 Zelran
-13-<02 2:49PM FROM -L TAYLOR ASSOC 9492619778
Dahl, Taylor b Associates, lot
!O.&M 4.1-1 N.Tr t q, - fq »
April 3, 2002
Mr. Dave Bobardt
Planning Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Re: Moorpark Marketplace Preliminary Assessment
# of pages:6
Dear Mr. Bobardl:
The following is my preliminary assessment of the photometric drawings and data that was
delivered to Dahl, Taylor 8 Associates on April 2, 2002. These drawings are a revision to a
previously delivered set and are a result of our conference call with the developer and
architect on March 28, 2002.
General:
• These revised drawings are comprised of two different drawings. The first calculates
initial foot - candle levels by using a light loss factor (LLF) of 1.00. The second calculates
maintained foot - candle levels by using the 0.72 LLF. For the record, the LLF indicates
degradation of the foot - candle level over time in an installation due to depredating
lamp output, dirt buildup, and material degradation. The number 0.72 is an industry
standard for the LLF.
Light Spill:
• The analysis shows acceptable cut off per the City's requirements on all sides of the
property. On the north, west, and south sides, there are probably existing light fixtures
that will add to the overall footcandle levels. It appears that the East side is where light
cutoff is more critical. With the reduced 250 -watt fixture, acceptable fight cut off has
_ been achieved at that property line.
Drop Down Lenses:
• The proposed fixtures have a lens that does drop down below the sides of the fixture.
However:
a) The lamp itself is still recessed so the fixture would not be a glare problem that the
City's requirements forbid.
b) The lens drop is minimal and is part of the style of the fixture.
Fixture Height:
• The fixtures do not meet the City's requirement of maximum height of twenty feet for
commercial properties. However, that rule does break down a little when you are
w- mclohhoylor.com dealing with a property of this size for the following reasons:
• The quantity of poles needs to go up to meet the footcandle requirements. To avoid
enlineenng @dohhoyla.aom large differences between maximum and minimum foot - candles, you need more
poles with less lumens per pole.
I1"Id 0 Poles that are much shorter or much taller than the building involved appear out of
proportion. The twenty -five foot pole in this case is approximately the height of the
Las Angeles building and would look acceptable.
San Dien
P. 1
,;Y
_ 2:50PM FRC ..,rte TAYLOR ASSOC 9492619778
Footcandle Levels:
• During our conference call, I asked for the initial photometric drawing so that if and
when this Installation is complete, the City and I (plus the contractor) could verify the
numbers with a photometer and require the contractor to correct any discrepancies
outside of some percentage like 10 %. Attached is a simple explanation why the actual
installation can be up to 12.5% different than the design. The more important Issue is
the maintained analysis.
Regarding the maintained photometric analysts:
a) It Is reasonable for a commercial site to have an average of between 3.0 and 6.0
footcandles. A maximum of 8.2 foot - candles is not too far off the City's 7.0
maximum foot - candle requirement.
b) Retailers want a well -lit parking lot One of the reasons that I don't think has been
brought up is that retailers want to be brighter than their neighbors. I remember
reading that when given a choice, shoppers go to the brighter parking lot. I will look
for that article.
c) The `brightness' that people will see will be from the reflected objects such as cars.
Please call with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
DAHL, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6
Tom Doyle, PE ate
Chief Electrical Engineer
Wwwdohhoyluxom
enginee*Co dohliglor.com
Hur and
tos Angelis
Son Diego
Heodwmten
P. 2
4-03 -202 2c50PM FROM it I:,YLOR ASSOC 94926197 - P.3
Understanding
Outdoor Area
Lighting Design
A wide range
of solutions can
meet the diverse
needs of site
Illumination.
Floodlight on pole
ITngheigh Dr;
m
s
0o
Shadow area
0
Building _-
D, =2 amounting height
Fig. 1. Length of shadow is directly proportional to the height of the luminaire
and the distance from the base of the pole. for a horizontal distance equal to
twice the luminaire mounting Neigh C the shadow will be twice the height of the
shadow -casting object.
By Joseph R. Knisley, Senior Editorial Consultant
P toperly preparing a lighting design for outdoor loading, storage, and
fabricating areas is usually a difficult task. The lighting designer must
ider whether stacked materials or heavy machinery will interfere with
distribution, or whether work activities will obstruct or block some
of the light distribution.
Picking lighting equipment for the job is sometimes more difficult with
an ourdoor installation than with an indoor area, because fewer hxnacs
r contribute their light to a given area. Generally, this means there's little
\, margin for error in an outdoor lighting design (see sidebar on page 30).
Aidwugh you can install lighting equipment on any high mucture, pole
mounting offers the most versatility. Luminaires on poles can provide
rN. _. . ,. _I I .. .. • _..l-
03 -20< < S l PM FR •..A- 1 ai L(JR ASSOC 9492619778
mounting height from the role.
Thus, luminaires on a sit>Re pole
can serve an area of ;&txxit four times
the mtauit ing heighr —sqi iared. For
example, a 50 -ft txile call cover
about It),XV sq h and a 150 -ft tulle
alxotrr 369.t"W sy h. You can ttse
narrow team floodlights to light a
flat area extending w five time: the
mounting height from the pole.
I loweeer. at distances greater than
two times the mounting h6glu.
uniformity and system efficiency
drop off considerably.
You can see the effectiveness of
mmimi_ing shadows with a given
mounting height in Fie. 1, on page
28. This figure shows that the rela-
ttondiipbenvecti the length o shad -
m s and the luminaire mounting
height follows the la%v of similar
triangles. For a hixi:ontal distance
K" the pole of twice the intlunt•
ing height. the length of the shadow
Will lY r%-ke the height Of the ob-
ject casting the sh<a& -i-.
Once you establish the luminaire
locaritxrc and mounting heights. de-
termine the quantity and t% Me of
luminaire. if you select call toles,
Fig. 2. These six beam spreads serve most floodlighting needs. The effective
projection distances of each type are also given. A beam edge is defined as 10%
of maximum candlepower.
you can use higher tarrage lamt-s,
which are more efficient than lover
waaage light sources. Generally.
IOOOW or 75OW high- pressure so-
dium (HPS) or metal - halide (MH)
lamps are the choice for high mast
using software, a contractor might find tha aftec.thi "Radon,
e sured.dlurrunaince 'diffes from the Iumi-
tiaittie: lNhy7 A number of factors in twine this 4aiiab i. firTt of'ail,
�..:,.
site conditions frequently vary, from the assumptions used in preparing
the design:
Then, consider that a lamp can vary ±5% in light output and still be
within the manufacturer's tolerances. An HID ballast can vary ±7% and
still be within tolerance. Thus, it's possible fora lamp/ballest combination
to be 12.5% 'undei the* predicted output.
You may find that !he installer'skewed the lamp's arc tibe*or mounted
the fixture slightly out of alignrtient-- resulting in the distribution of light
at angles other than those intended.
Another factor could be a reflector or a refractor also mounted slightly
off axis, producing similar results. It takes only a few degrees of tilt to
produce significant change in the light distribution pattern.
Low voltage at the ballast of the fixtures could also be a problem,
resulting from excessive voltage drop in the feeder or branch - circuit
applications.
In addition to choosing the lamp
r�T-c, wattage, and numtvr and lo-
cation of luminaires, a designer must
Picking lighting
equipment for
the job is
sometimes more
difficult with an
outdoor installation
than with an indoor
area, because fewer
fixtures contribute
their light to
a given area.
ct+n1_1idt:r the beam >rrc.i.i, tie the
:andlctxiwcr .itstributioti pattcm
taw luminaire rrovidtz. High rr .v
luminaires and &wdli,hrs offer
P. d
4-03 -202 2:52PM r..
(
C
7"b -
luminaire dcli- !- �!) „, ,t :I•
directly dowry • :a ' E .. , .,
vary the beam ,p read or i high ina::r
luminaire by rtri,dl- L;,
the lamp in ch•,- rrileri- ....•7JJ11
You can also ,elect
fraetor-cype ww,, :.L.t i;g!t,
at a high angle 'ri' :�..
the optical assembly of an 33ti,n
metrical -beam, a htgh mast
luminaire allows y=eti w shape the
distribution pattern cif a cluster of
these luminai -cs
Typically installed on sr.nict Tres
and low poles. floodlights have a
circular re lecim, with the lamp
mounted in the center. Floodlight
beam spreads and chetr effective
projection distances are classified
by a joint IES/NEMA designation.
The beam- spread patterns extend
from Type 1 to Type /. Fig. 2, on
page 30, shows Type Z to Type 7
beam patters, which are the most
widely used cyl's. In all cases, as the
distance from floodlight to the illu-
minated aura increases, the beam
spread becomes wider.
Type classification assumes a
symmetrical beam ihape. meaning
that the beam spread angle ur the
vertical and horizontal axes are
identical. Generally narrow pto-
jectionbeams(Type 1, 2, 3, and 4),
which are useful for direct ing a long
throw of light, have a symmetrical
beam spread. However, outdoor
floodlights with Type 5, 6, and 7
beam spread have different beam
spread for the vertical and horizon-
tal axes, since they're generally used
to project their light output at me-
dium to close distances.
You can use the following simple
formula to rapidly figure the num-
ber of units needed for a given light
level or to determine the light level
provided by a certain number of
fixtures.
fc _ (N) (BL) (UF) WF)
Area
where,
fe =average maintained illumi-
nacion level in footcandles
a
r.t�u=uuiy height utt,
34 OU SU
Fig. 3. Isofoorcandle curves show light pattern and light lev=els pr6dueed by
particular luminaire. Information is presented in terms of mounting heighten
distance from the pole.
N = number of huninatres
BI. = beam lurnem; of the
Iurninaire
UF= uulizauou hct,)r (pciccrit.
age of rite beam lUlner�S (,taL frill
within the area being lighted)
MF =mainretiartce faCUA (light
lus factor)
Arta =area to Ee Itghrcd in
sq =.rare feet or xluate nicrers.
If the lighting project mtm sar
isfy only gevt,ral triune. �uCl: :t
simple calculation is sufficient.
However, a better medicd of de
signing an outdoor lighting s•istettt
is to tuce an isofuatcandle plot.
An isoloorcandle plot g:aphi
tally represents the light distribu-
tion pattern un a hon:o ntal sur-
face. The graph consists of a series
of lines, or contours, that represent
the same illuminance anywhere on
the line, with each line represent
ing a different footcandle. Each
conmrur from the center out repre-
s,:nrs approximately 50% of the
value of the previ<xu cunrour. The
plor is placed over a grid, which
you can use to in iiLam mounting
height divisions. An isofooteandle
plot can vary in shape from a circle,
t gal, or triangle, and may be sym-
rncc�ical =r anTntmrr: al (see Fig.
i abt)ve).
Essentially, yo.0 ::an use an
r .,fa >tLancilc LUP<i at the same
scale as a plari view of the area to be
lighted to determine the contri-
bution of each I,:nv.natre to the
c-ntve area.
Today, manufac hurt: rs have pow-
erful and relatively inexpensive
s<)ftware programs to perform these
calculations. Many of these pre
grains perform lighting design cal-
culations based on isofootcandle
curves and frx)rcan; le rabies for
each luminaire type. SCAM
, .. _ _.r.. eirvirr rise b
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -423
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -1 AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO.
4 TO THE CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN SP 92 -1
REGARDING LIGHTING STANDARDS FOR AN
APPROXIMATELY 29 -ACRE SITE ON THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND MILLER
PARKWAY, ON THE APPLICATION OF ZELMAN RETAIL
PARTNERS, INC. (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 512- 0 -260-
015, 085, AND 105)
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on April 8, 2002,
the Planning Commission considered Zoning Ordinance Amendment
No. 2002 -1 and Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg
Specific Plan SP 92 -1 regarding lighting standards for an
approximately 29 -acre site on the southeast corner of New Los
Angeles Avenue and Miller Parkway, on the application of Zelman
Retail Partners, Inc. (Assessor Parcel No. 512 -0- 260 -015, 085,
and 105); and
WHEREAS
.1: the proposed project is more specifically
described as follows:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -1: A request for a
change to Ordinance No. 195 "Carlsberg Specific Plan Land
Use Regulations" by adding lighting requirements to allow
for 25 -foot high light poles, drop -down lenses, and light
values up to 8.2 foot - candles;
Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan 92-
1: A request for a change to the Specific Plan to permit
25 -foot high light poles, drop -down lenses, and light
values up to 8.2 foot - candles; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 8, 2002, the Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing, received public
testimony, and reached a decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission does hereby find
that Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -1 and Minor
Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan 92 -1 are
consistent with the City's General Plan and the Carlsberg
S: \Community Development \E elman.doc
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -423
ZOA 2002 -1, MINOR MOD-4 to SP 92 -1
Page 2
Specific Plan 92 -1 and that the proposed modifications will not
materially affect the overall purpose and intent of the Specific
Plan.
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission further finds that
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -1 and Minor Modification No.
4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan 92 -1 are consistent with the
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Specific Plan.
SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission recommends to the
City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -1
(Exhibit A).
SECTION 4. That the Planning Commission recommends to the
City Council approval of Minor Modification No. 4 to the
Carlsberg Specific Plan 92 -1 (Exhibit B), subject to conditions
of approval (Exhibit C).
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Parvin, Vice -chair Landis, Commissioner
Dicecco, Commissioner Haller and Chair Otto
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2002.
William F. Otto, Chair
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
Acting Community Development Director
EXHIBITS:
A. Draft Ordinance Amending Sections 8119 -5.4 and 8119 -6.5 of
Ordinance No. 195
B. Amended Language to Chapter IV, Development Standards,
Specific Plan 92 -1
C. Draft Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 8119 -5.4 AND
8119 -6.5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 195 "CARLSBERG
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE REGULATIONS" RELATED TO
SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE SUB- REGIONAL
RETAIL/COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS PARK ZONES OF
THE CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a need exists
to provide adequate standards and regulations concerning
exterior lighting in the Carlsberg Specific Plan Sub - Regional
Retail /Commercial and Business Park zones; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that standards and
regulations affecting exterior lighting are necessary to ensure
the public health, safety and welfare within the various
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public
hearing on April 8, 2002, adopted Resolution PC -2002-
recommending that the City Council consider and atdopt the
amendment to Ordinance No. 195 as contained in Exhibit A to that
resolution; and
Whereas, the City Council on , 2002 conducted a
public hearing, took public testimony, closed the hearing, and
reached its decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 8119 -5.4 of Ordinance No. 195 "Site
Development Standards (Sub - Regional Retail /Commercial
Zone)" is amended by adding subsection "e" as follows:
Sec. 8119 -5.4 - Site Development Standards
e. Lighting:
1) Light poles in the parking areas shall not exceed
25 feet in height measured from the ground to the
top of the light fixture. All other exterior
Ordinance No.
Page 2
light poles shall conform to standards of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
2) Drop -down lenses not to exceed two inches may be
used in the light fixtures, provided that the
lamps are fully recessed in the fixture to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
3) Lighting values in the parking areas shall not
exceed 8.2 foot - candles under a normally -
maintained condition. _
4) All other lighting regulations contained in the
Moorpark Municipal Code shall apply.
SECTION 2. Section 8119 -6.5 of Ordinance No. 195 "Site
Development Standards (Business Park Zone)" is amended by
adding new subsection °g" and renaming existing subsection
"g." to "h." as follows:
Sec. 8119 -6.5 - Site Development Standards
g. Lighting:
1) Light poles in the parking areas shall not exceed
25 feet in height measured from the ground to the
top of the light fixture. All other exterior
light poles shall _conform to standards of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
2) Drop -down lenses not to exceed two inches may be
used in the light fixtures, provided that the
lamps are fully recessed in the fixture to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
3) Lighting values in the parking areas shall not
exceed 8.2 foot - candles under a normally -
maintained condition.
4) All other lighting regulations contained in the
Moorpark Municipal Code shall apply.
g=h. All other applicable City codes /standards apply.
S : \Cowunity r:wir orcn\ - A» — 'Jnn'�.nl —1— A V_ . 1_.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares
that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more section,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30)
days after its passage and adoption.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of
original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of
the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and
shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption
thereof, cause the same to be published once in the Moorpark Star
a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of
the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby
designated for that purpose.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2002.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
S: \Community Development \Evervone \PC FINAL RF4Zn \.v- Ala — enno ns --A -_ -- - . -
EXHIBIT B
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC- 2002 -423
Minor Modification No. 4 to SP -92 -1
Subsection F.4. (Page 57), Sub - Regional Retail /Commercial (SR /C)
Site Development Standards, of Chapter IV Development Standards
of the Carlsberg Specific Plan dated September 7, 1994, are
amended by adding the following language:
e. Lighting:
1) Light poles in the parking areas shall not exceed
25 feet in height measured from the ground to the
top of the light fixture. All other exterior
light poles shall conform to standards of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
2) Drop -down lenses not to exceed two inches may be
used in the light fixtures, provided that the
lamps are fully recessed in the fixture to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
3) Lighting values in the parking areas shall not
exceed 8.2 foot - candles under a normally -
maintained condition.
4) All other lighting regulations contained in the
Moorpark Municipal Code shall apply.
Subsection G.4. (Page 59), Business Park (BP) Site Development
Standards, of Chapter IV Development Standards of the Carlsberg
Specific Plan dated September 7, 1994, is amended by adding new
subsection "g" and renaming existing subsection "g." to "h." as
follows:
g. Lighting:
1) Light poles in the parking areas shall not exceed
25 feet in height measured from the ground to the
top of the light fixture. All other exterior
light poles shall conform to standards of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
S: \Community Development \Everyone \FC FINAL RESO \oc 423 zoa 2002 -01 Zelman EXHIBIT B.doc
Resolution No. PC -2002 -423
EXHIBIT B
Page 2
2) Drop -down lenses not to exceed two inches may be
used in the light fixtures, provided that the
lamps are fully recessed in the fixture to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
3) Lighting values in the parking areas shall not
exceed 8.2 foot - candles under a normally -
maintained condition.
4) All other lighting regulations contained in the
Moorpark Municipal Code shall apply.
g-rh. All other applicable City-codes/standards apply.
S: \Caatiwnity Development \Everyone \PC FINAL RESO \pc 423 soa 2002 -01 ielman EXHIBIT B.doc
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -243
ZOA 2002 -1, MINOR MOD.4 to SP 92 -1
EXHIBIT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO THE
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 92 -1)
1. The parking lot lighting for the commercial center shall be
constructed in substantial conformance with the photometric
study plans and light specifications received by the City of
Moorpark on April 2, 2002.
2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the actual
photometric numbers shall be measured in the field by the City
at the applicant's expense. Any discrepancy in excess of 15
percent from the lighting values shown on the plans shall be
corrected to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3.No changes to any of the specified light poles, light
fixtures, lamps, or ballast units shall be made without prior
approval by the Community Development Director.
••.�- - •.._.__..___�..n n.•.•. ........•__
41l - 7IIfl7_ni 7.1w.. •• ...A WVUTATT C.doC
Chapter 17.30
LIGHTING REGULATIONS
Sections:
17.30.010
Purpose and intent.
17.30.020
Definitions.
17.30.030
Applicability.
17.30.040
General requirements.
17.30.050
Prohibited lighting.
17.30.060
Plans required.
17.30.065
Design standards
17.30.070
Design guidelines.
17.30.080
Certification/testing.
17.30.090
Exemptions.
17.30.100
Violation -- Penalties.
17.30.110
Nonconforming systems.
Section 17.30.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide regulation of lighting systems
constructed on properties within the various zones in the city.
The city recognizes that lighting has both a practical and aesthetic value and is an integral
portion of any development. The city also recognizes that improperly installed lighting, illegal
lighting, or improperly maintained lighting, creates impacts upon astronomical resources within
the community and creates conflicts and nuisance impacts upon abutting properties and is
wasteful of energy resources by causing energy to be expended without producing additional
useful light. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.020 Definitions.
Words and terms as used in this chapter shall have the
meanings set forth in this section. Words or terms not defined herein shall have the generally
accepted meaning as defined elsewhere within this title.
"Candlepower-" means the total li& output axpr-essed in eandelas.
"Correlated color temperature" is the temperature, measured in Kelvin (k), to which one
would have to heat a "black body" source to produce light of similar spectral characteristics. Low
color temperature implies warmer (more yellow /red) light while high color temperature implies a
colder more blue) light.
"Drop down lens" means a light directing diffuser or lens which is shaped so that it lays
or falls below the horizontal plane of the bottom of the fixture, than resulting in air-eet viewing e
the lens 49m above the herizenta; plane.
"Glare" means the effect produced by lighting sufficient to cause annoyance, discomfort,
or loss in visual performance and visibility. For the purposes of this chapter, glare occurs when
the l s"""ir° ( ^r asseeiated lens` of a light fixture a lamp is directly viewable from a location off
the property that it serves.
"Human scale" means the proportional relationship of a particular building, structure, or
streetscape element to human form and function.
"Initial ligh, tiny- values" refer to the lumens or foot - candles predicted or measured from a
lamp or lighting system at initial installation.
" Lamp" means the light-producing element or light source of a
PC ATTACHMENT 2
'i•�'� a luminaire. Examples are bulbs and tubes.
"Luminaire" is the complete lighting unit, often referred to as a light fixture. It consists
of the lamp, optical reflector and housing, and electrical components for safely starting and
operating the lamp.
"Maintained lialitiny, values" refer to the lumens or foot - candles predicted or measured
from a lamp or lighting system at the mid -life of the lamp, and shall account for the expected
drop in lumen output from the lamp, as well as normal dust on the lens of the luminaire.
. "Spillover" occurs when the
illumination intensity outside the property boundaries exceeds one (1) foot - candle. (Ord. 266 § 2
(part), 1999)
Section 17.30.030 Applicability.
The regulations contained within this chapter shall apply in all zones and specific plan areas
within the city. , ' ,
Within specific plan areas,
Tthese regulations shall apply to all speoifie plan areas a are intended to augment lighting
standards and regulations eentainedwit of any adopted specific plan. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.040 General requirements.
A. Lighting permitted shall be limited to those levels necessary to provide safety and
security to the site.
B. Use of low intensity lighting for aesthetic purposes in order to enhance or accent
building features, public art, or landscape architectural features of a project is encouraged. Such
lighting shall not spill over onto, or extend beyond the property -line or into adjacent public right -
of -way.
C. All lighting systems shall meet adopted uniform codes and standards of the city.
D. All lighting system components shall be kept in good repair and service. Periodic
cleaning, painting and servicing of supports, globes, fixtures and foundations is required. Poor
maintenance shall be considered a public nuisance.
.4-1-1 lighting • ents shall be •1°,., r-atiye and shall ba eempatible ..:rh the
Style 4 the buildings within the pr-ejeet Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.050 Prohibited lighting.
The following types of lighting shall be prohibited within the city:
A. Any outdoor lighting system erected, installed, modified or reconstructed without
proper plans and permit approvals;
B. Flashing, alternating, or- blinking, or moving lights, other than traffic or hazard
lights or those permitted under the sign regulations contained in Chapter 17.40;
C. , exeept when it has; been detefmiflod by the
dir-A-A-W-F Of 60MMUffity EI0-.'0I@PM@Ht that 1--PS US@ in PFOXiMity to a light Sensitive land use, 6
-
other-wise lim-it +h° -inn: ., of the light °° °: *:,, °' .,
,1 use Unshielded pack lighting and areawide
flood lighting;
2
D. High intensity discharge mercury vapor seeerit}F lights (with fixture not proper-'•
implemented ie shield d4eet viewing ef the lafninair-e or- the light shaping lensMiffictser ffem o
the - preperty) in other than rural residential or open space /agricultural areas- zones;
E. Any luminaim that is viewed dir-eetbl with no inteFveaing lens or shielding
element, other- than bffe bulbs, tube lighting, or- approved neen lighting Searchlights or laser
lights aimed skyward used for the purposes of commercial advertising;
F. Drop down lenses, except where the lenses are clear, non - diffusing, and do not
permit viewing of the lamp at or above the horizontal plane located at the bottom of the fixture ;.
G. Any lighting that causes glare or spillover as defined by this chapter. (Ord. 266 §
2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.060 Plans required.
All commercial , industrial, and institutional projects with twenty (20) or more parking
gces; and multi - family residential projects of five (5) or more units, emeept additi ,
after the °ff etive date of the eFdinanee eedifi°a in this °h° shall have plans for the outdoor
lighting system , approved by the city's
community development director or designated ted lighting engineer prior to issuance of building
permits for that project.
this ehapter shall eemply with th if this ehapter- to the eAent feasible, eensistent with
Seetien 17.30.110.
Each lighting plan shall ' detail the
provision of lighting systems for exteriors of all buildings, parking lots, loading areas, walkways,
public use areas, public art displays, fountains, or landscape areas.
Lighting plans shall be prepared, signed and certified by a civil or electrical engineer or
other person licensed and/or registered within the state of California to prepare and certify
lighting system designs /plans.
Lighting plans shall, as a minimum, include and exhibit the following:
A. Style, size, height and location of any poles used to support lighting fie• •°° ^�
eleetreli luminaires;
B. Style, size, height and location of any foundation systems (i.e. pedestals) upon
which light poles may be erected;
C. Style, type, location and quantity of fi'''res an& ^r- eleetfolie luminaires,
whether pole mounted, bollard mounted or building mounted;
D. Number- and Tyne, wattage, lumens, and correlated color temperature of
lamps, light eler- temperature (eqt iyalent Kelvin blaekbed5
ever- the r-aRge of 400 700 nanemeter-s;
E. Shields, cut -off mechanisms, or diffusers used with each €rxtu luminaire;
F. Construction structural and mounting details for all installations;
G. All exterior lighting plans shall be include photo-metric calculations consisting of
a point by point foot- candle layout based upon a 0) minimum twenty -five (25) foot grid
center eed extended to twenty -five (20 25) feet beyond the property line for both initial lighting
values and maintained lighting values;
H. Lighting plans shall be prepared to scale, and shall be accompanied by
dimensioned detail sheets, materials catalogues, and specifications to aid in the identification and
evaluation of proposed lighting system components.
The application for such lighting plans should be made on the form provided by the
depaFtment 9 community development department. A fee, as established by city council
resolution, is required to accompany each application for a lighting plan. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part),
1999)
Section 17.30.065 Design standards
A. Lamps shall be shielded or recessed within the luminaire to prevent visibility or
the emission of light at or above the horizontal plane located at the bottom of the fixture.
B. Luminaires shall be directed away from all adiacent properties and streets /rights-
of -way to avoid glare and spillover as defined in this chapter.
C. Maintained lighting values for outdoor parking areas shall not exceed seven (7)
foot - candles on 95% or more of the ,grid points within the parking area on the photometric plan.
D. Light poles shall not exceed 25 -feet in height in all commercial, industrial, and
institutional zones, except within 100 feet of residential zones, where the maximum height shall
be 20 feet. Light poles in residential zones shall not exceed 14 feet in height except in the RPD
zone where light poles for multi - family residences may be up to 20 feet in height if permitted by
the City Council.
E. The following minimum horizontal clearances shall be maintained from light
poles and pedestals:
1. From sidewalks or parking space sides (when not in curbed planter): two (2) feet.
2. From curb faces, drive aisles, parking space heads (when not in curbed planter),
or trash enclosure approaches: three (3) feet:
3. From handicap parking spaces or ramps: five (5) feet,
F. The following minimum vertical clearances shall be maintained by luminaires
and light pole arms:
1. Over driveways /aisles: fourteen (14) feet:
2. Over walkways: eight(8) feet.
G. All lamps over 100 watts shall emit 60 lumens or more of light per watt of
electrical power.
H. All outdoor lighting systems shall be designed to include an automatic shutoff
control with manual override capability to reduce at least fifty percent (50 %) of the energy usage
of the system from 12:00 AM until one hour before daylight, unless otherwise approved by the
community development director for safety or security reasons.
Section 17.30.070 Design guidelines.
Compliance with the followine euidelines shall be determined by the community development
director:
1 MI l;gl. +;,, . shall 1,0 +a+: ,,,a.., and l:ro +a a away from 11 l: o „+ properties and
str-eots4ights of ways,
2. Lighting systems shall be energy efficient.
Lights; shall l.o shielded ev reeassed +., .tired glare ., „.1 re- fle..+:,.., .,,: +l,in 444
boundaries of the pFopefty;
4.A. Lighting shall be consistent among fixtures used throughout the project so that
single fixtures or small groups of fixtures shall not be of unusually high intensity or brightness
such that hot spots are created.
S.B. All lighting fixtures, including luminaires, poles, and pedestals shall be
decorative, compatible with, and appropriate in scale, intensity and height to the architecture and
use of the building(s) on the site and in the surrounding area to beamed.
C. The correlated color temperature of the lamas shall compatible with the
architecture and use of the buildings) on the site and in the surrounding area.
6-D. All walkway lighting, public space lighting, and patio area lighting shall be kept
to human scale. Bollard style lighting is preferred.
7. Se .•:ty lighting shall be provided at all .+tr o and exits to buildings,
adequate, 9 4 11 lighting flymaFes shall inGofper-ate full Guteff featufes surh that the, himinaire
is not visible and that spillover- or- Elirao light waissions do not extend beyend the pr-ep@Ft5'lifI@ E)
9. Goar.Fete pedestals, bases or 99undations intended for the Mounting of poles shall
be reswieted in height and bulk to that Reressar-y to provide safe aneher-age for- poles
e or- to bland with the laadsGape areas in whiGh the), are GanstfuG I
•
•
.��
ft
. ..... . ............
an
" "
=10 �
NO -
,.
•
I
NOW
• -
JIM
IN
01-M
1.9
RMMMM�Im
- (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.080 Certification/testing.
Each lighting plan shall meet the standards and guidelines of this chapter and title, as well
as those structural and electrical codes adopted by the city which may apply.
The applicant's engineer shall prepare and certify that the plan has been prepared in
accordance with this chapter and any design ma*°^ -al° 4- imish °a by the eity's ligh*:,,.. °
The city's lighting engineer shall review and approve the plans and certify to their
compliance with this chapter and any applicable design guidelines. The city's lighting engineer
shall sign all zoning clearances necessary to issue building permits for the implementation of the
lighting plans.
Prior to final inspection, or where applicable, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the
city lighting engineer shall cause to be performed a phetemotr-ie field inspection of the approved
lighting system for the project. The inspection shall verify the proper construction and installation
of materials within the approved plan, detoFmine the aetu l light pattems and values *h"^ h 4 h*
motor- testing and , and determine the extent of any errant lighting. Deviations and/or
violations shall be corrected prior to the final clearance for the project. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.090 Exemptions.
The criteria of this chapter shall not apply to any of the following:
A. One (1) ilncandescent bulb of lamps totaling one hundred (100) watts or less or
comparable compact fluorescent lamps used in decorative fixtures at entrances /exits of residences
in 10-AA, donsity r-@Sjdg;Ifi;41 or Awal lighting areas, pr-evided sueh fixture is shielded so as not to
emit light above the her-izental plane or- beyead the pr-ep@145, li*e;
B. Low - intensitlighting used for aesthetic purposes in order to enhance or accent
building features, public art, or landscape architectural features, provided that such lighting does
not result in glare or spillover as defined by this chapter and is not part of a project for which a
lighting plan is required.
&C. Athletic field lights within a public park; r-esreatien or school campus established
pursuant to special plans meeting recognized standards for such facilities constructed in
accordance with a photometric plan for these facilities. ;
C.D. Navigation beacons, aircraft warning lighting upon towers or similar structures,
hazard markers, railroad signals and crossing warning devices;
D-E. Security lighting for prisons, jail facilities, medical facilities or special health
care facilities;
£.F. Traffic control devices;
FL. G. Seasonal lighting displays used in conjunction with special holidays or religious
celebrations so long as the glare is not sufficient to pose safety hazards to pedestrians and
motorists, or cause sufficient attraction to result in creation of a nuisance or hazard to vehicular
traffic;
...
_
_ -
...
MEL
- (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.080 Certification/testing.
Each lighting plan shall meet the standards and guidelines of this chapter and title, as well
as those structural and electrical codes adopted by the city which may apply.
The applicant's engineer shall prepare and certify that the plan has been prepared in
accordance with this chapter and any design ma*°^ -al° 4- imish °a by the eity's ligh*:,,.. °
The city's lighting engineer shall review and approve the plans and certify to their
compliance with this chapter and any applicable design guidelines. The city's lighting engineer
shall sign all zoning clearances necessary to issue building permits for the implementation of the
lighting plans.
Prior to final inspection, or where applicable, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the
city lighting engineer shall cause to be performed a phetemotr-ie field inspection of the approved
lighting system for the project. The inspection shall verify the proper construction and installation
of materials within the approved plan, detoFmine the aetu l light pattems and values *h"^ h 4 h*
motor- testing and , and determine the extent of any errant lighting. Deviations and/or
violations shall be corrected prior to the final clearance for the project. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.090 Exemptions.
The criteria of this chapter shall not apply to any of the following:
A. One (1) ilncandescent bulb of lamps totaling one hundred (100) watts or less or
comparable compact fluorescent lamps used in decorative fixtures at entrances /exits of residences
in 10-AA, donsity r-@Sjdg;Ifi;41 or Awal lighting areas, pr-evided sueh fixture is shielded so as not to
emit light above the her-izental plane or- beyead the pr-ep@145, li*e;
B. Low - intensitlighting used for aesthetic purposes in order to enhance or accent
building features, public art, or landscape architectural features, provided that such lighting does
not result in glare or spillover as defined by this chapter and is not part of a project for which a
lighting plan is required.
&C. Athletic field lights within a public park; r-esreatien or school campus established
pursuant to special plans meeting recognized standards for such facilities constructed in
accordance with a photometric plan for these facilities. ;
C.D. Navigation beacons, aircraft warning lighting upon towers or similar structures,
hazard markers, railroad signals and crossing warning devices;
D-E. Security lighting for prisons, jail facilities, medical facilities or special health
care facilities;
£.F. Traffic control devices;
FL. G. Seasonal lighting displays used in conjunction with special holidays or religious
celebrations so long as the glare is not sufficient to pose safety hazards to pedestrians and
motorists, or cause sufficient attraction to result in creation of a nuisance or hazard to vehicular
traffic;
G-.H. Temporary sale or special event lighting as permitted through the issuance of
appropriate permits by the city, provided such lighting does not include searchlights or laser
lights aimed skyE ard;
H-:1. Repair or replacement of individual lighting fixtures existi^^ or- to th
provided that the fixture and/or the
luminaire repaired or replaced does not exceed the intensity of the original lighting fixture and
-1-. J. Safety or security lighting within single - family residential neighborhoods
recommended by police or special security inspections as part of a neighborhood watch program
provided such lighting shall not create a nuisance to abutting properties as a result of spillover. To
the extent that the prescribed lighting is not diminished in effectiveness, all such lighting shall
incorporate motion detectors, photocells or similar devices to activate the special light fixtures,
but shall be provided with a manual switching device to override the fixture when necessary.
(Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
Section 17.30.100 Violation -- Penalties.
It shall be unlawful for any person to install, replace, reconstruct or intensify any lighting
system, for which a permit is required, upon any commercial, industrial, institutional or residential
property within the city not in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Any person who violates any provision of, or fails to comply with any requirement of this
chapter is guilty of an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished in accordance
with Chapter 1.12 of this code.
It shall be the responsibility of each occupant, property owner, home owners' association,
tenant association, or property management association having jurisdiction over property to
ensure compliance with the intent and provisions of this chapter. Covenants and conditions for
any property association shall contain provisions for the design, review, approval and continued
maintenance of lighting systems within the boundaries of such association. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part),
1999)
Section 17.30.110 Nonconforming systems.
Lighting systems, for which valid permits have been issued, existing upon properties within
any zone prior to the effective date of the ordinances codified in this chapter shall be considered
legally nonconforming. As such, repair, maintenance, and replacement with like fixtures of these
lighting systems shall be permitted, unless otherwise provided for within this chapter.
Replacement, repair or reconstruction of twenty -five percent (25 %) or more of the
fixtures within an existing legal nonconforming lighting system, as determined by the dirv6ter A
community development director, shall require that the system be brought into conformity with
the provisions of this chapter.
Lighting systems within single - family projects found to create a nuisance to abutting
residences, adjacent open -space areas, or upon the public right -of -way, shall be corrected in such
a manner as to remove the nuisance.
Alterations to existing legal nonconforming lighting systems shall not be permitted
except for those which result in a lighting system for the property which is more conforming,
with these provisions or which reduce the level of nonconformity.
Whenever a project site is the subject of a major modification to the approved
development plan as defined by this code, the major modification application shall incorporate a
revised lighting system plan in order to bring the property into conformance with this chapter.
(Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999)
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO
AMEND CHAPTER 17.30 OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATED TO LIGHTING REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2002 the City Council directed the
Planning Commission to study, set a public hearing, and provide
a recommendation pertaining to amendments to the Zoning Code
related to lighting regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan
includes policies for lighting restrictions in commercial and
industrial development to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent
uses (Policies 8.2 and 10.2); and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2002, the Planning Commission held a
public workshop on the lighting regulations contained in Chapter
17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and gave direction to
Community Development staff on potential amendments to the
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department drafted
proposed amendments to the lighting regulations in response to
direction from the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after conducting an Initial Study on proposed
amendments to the lighting regulations, a proposed Negative
Declaration has been prepared and noticed for public review in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of July 22, 2002, the Planning
Commission conducted a duly- noticed public hearing on proposed
amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code
pertaining to lighting regulations, received public testimony on
the proposed amendments, and after receiving oral and written
public testimony, closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read, reviewed and
considered the staff recommendation, the proposed Negative
Declaration with the Initial Study, and all comments received on
the proposed amendments to the lighting regulations.
S: \Community Development \z O A \2002 -04 \Resolutions \PC 020722 Lighting Reso.doc
Modified: 07/17/02
PC ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
LIGHTING REGULATIONS
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The proposed amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark
Municipal Code (Lighting Regulations) are consistent with the
City's General Plan, in particular Land Use Element policies 8.2
and 10.2 which call for lighting restrictions in commercial and
industrial development to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent
uses.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark
Municipal Code would not have a significant effect on the
environment as defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS:
The proposed amendments
enforceability of the lighting
quality standards in line with
lighting regulations to avoid
properties and astronomical resc
of energy.
improve the clarity and
regulations and maintain high
the intent and purpose of the
nuisance impacts on abutting
)urces and to avoid wasteful use
SECTION 4. RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
adoption of an ordinance to amend Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark
Municipal Code as recommended by staff.
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION:
The Community Development Director shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution and shall cause a cause a certified
resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
S: \Community Development \Z O A \2002 -04 \Reso1utions \PC 020722 Lighting Reso.doc
Modified: 07/17/02
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
LIGHTING REGULATIONS
Page 3
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 2002.
William F. Otto, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \Z O A \2002 -09 \Resolutions \PC 020722 Lighting Reso.doc
Modified: 07/17/02
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
Project Title: Amendments to Lighting Regulations Case No.: ZOA 2002 -04
Contact Person and Phone No.: David A. Bobardt (805) 517 -6281
Name of Applicant: City of Moorpark
Address and Phone No.: 799 Moorpark Ave, Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6281
Project Location: Citywide
General Plan Designation: n/a Zoning: n/a
Project Description: Minor amendments to Chapter -17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code related to
lighting regulations addressing lighting values, pole heights, types of permitted and prohibited lamps and
luminaires, and energy efficiency.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: n/a
North:
South:
East:
West:
Responsible and Trustee Agencies: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this pro%ect, involving at least one impact tat is a Potentially
Si nifrcant Impact "or "Potentially Significant Unless Mtigated, "as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use /Planning
Mineral Resources Noise Population /Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance X None
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project could not have
a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Prepared by: / ^ Reviewed by:
Date: �( ��t/�o� Date: i�
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
A. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but X
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) Substantially degrade the eAsting visual character or X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Response: The revisions to the lighting ordinance include standards to avoid light and glare spillover
from a project site. Increased light pole heights would be permitted, along with restricted use
of drop -down lenses, however, cutoff of light emission at or above the horizontal plane
located at the bottom of the light fixture would be required, thus avoiding adverse light or
glare impacts.
Sources: Outdoor Lighting Code Handbook, Version 1.13, January 2002, International Dark -Sky
Association;
Mitigation: None required.
B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, the City of Moorpark may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
agency, to non - agricultural use?
2) Conflict with epsting zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Response: This ordinance does not affect agricultural resources.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
C. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an ersbng or projected air quality
violation?
2
3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
X
X
X
Response: By limiting the maximum amount of outdoor lighting, this ordinance has the potential to
reduce energy consumption, along with related emissions. No adverse air quality impact is
expected.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
X
through habitat modiications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or bythe
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
X
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or bythe California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
X
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
Response: This ordinance does not affect biological resources
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
K?
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifcance of X
a historic resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifcance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
X
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Response: This ordinance does not affect cultural resources.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
X
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
Involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? X
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B X
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Response: This ordinance does not affect geology or soils
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
1
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitioation Impact Impact
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an edsbng or proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
X
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
8) Expose people or structures to a signifcant risk of loss,
X
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Response: This ordinance does not affect hazards or hazardous materials
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre - e)isting nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or of -site?
X
X
X
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or oft -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other food hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudlow?
Response: This ordinance does not affect hydrology or water quality
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community? x
2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, speclfc
plan, local coastal program, or inning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
Response: This ordinance would modify existing lighting regulations contained in the Municipal Code,
however, the revised standards are consistent with the stated purpose and intent of these
regulations, to avoid impacts on astronomical resources and abutting properties, and to avoid
the wasteful use of energy. This ordinance is consistent with Goal 8 of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, "Provide for new commercial development which is compatible with
surrounding land uses" and Policy 8.2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
"Commercial development shall incorporate design features such as walls, landscaping and
setbacks, and include height and lighting restrictions so as to minimize adverse impacts to
adjacent uses and enhance the visual characteristics of the area." The ordinance would
prohibit light and glare spillover, thus implementing this general plan policy.
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, City of Moorpark Zoning Ordinance
Mitigation: None required.
D
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
J. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important X
mineral resource reoovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Response: This ordinance does not affect mineral resources.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
K. NOISE — Would the project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
4) A substantial temporaryor periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinityabove levels existing
without the project?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Response: This ordinance has no potential to create noise impacts.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly ( for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly ( for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Response: This ordinance does not affect population and housing
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other perbrmance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
X
X
X
Parks? X
Other public facilities?
X
Response: This ordinance does not change the maximum lighting levels currently established. These
levels allow sufficient light for security and do not prevent a project from meeting
recommended average maintained foot - candle levels of the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America ( IESNA).
Sources: GE Lighting Systems Technical Data 9030, Dec. 1995: Illumination Recommendations -
Outdoor (extracted from IESNA Lighting Handbook)
Mitigation: None required.
N. RECREATION
1) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X
the construction or wpansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Response: This ordinance exempts sports fields from the outdoor lighting standards, recognizing that
such special uses require unique lighting design. No effect on recreational resources is
expected.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
0
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant Less Than
With Significant No
Mitigation Impact Impact
O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
X
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacityratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
X
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
3) Result in a change in air tral is patterns, including either X
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
6) Result in inadequate parting capacity? X
7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Response: Recommended maximum lighting levels are sufficient for traffic safety, and will prevent glare
to motorists.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
2) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
5) Result in a determination bythe wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
6) Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid Neste disposal
needs?
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lighting Regulations
ZOA 2002 -04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
Response: This ordinance will not affect water supplies, wastewater, or solid waste.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None required.
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a Ash or wildlife population
to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history of prehistory?
2) Does the project have impacts that are individuallylimited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effect of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and effects of probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Response: This ordinance is limited in scope to amending lighting regulations.
Sources: n/a
Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study
None
Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study
One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and
are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the Response Section of the Initial
Study Checklist.
The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended.
2. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended.
3. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 92 -872
4. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. & California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section
15000 et. seq.
5. Draft changes to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code (Lighting Regulations).
10
K -- NEGATIVE DECLARATION
• CITY OF MOORPARK
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
The following Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of
Moorpark.
Public Review Period: July 12, 2002 - August 1, 2002
Project Title /Case No.: Amendments to Lighting Regulations in Moorpark Municipal Code
Project Location:
Project Description
Project Type:
Project Applicant:
Moorpark, Ventura County
Minor amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code related
to lighting regulations addressing lighting values, pole heights, types of
permitted and prohibited lamps and luminaires, and energy efficiency.
Private Project
City of Moorpark
X Public Project
Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above- referenced project, it is found that
there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of
Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(Initial Study Attached)
Responsible Agencies: None.
Trustee Agencies: None.
Attachments: Initial Study
Contact Person: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California, 93021
(805) 517 -6281
PC ATTACHMENT 4
SACommunity Development\Z 0 A\2002 -04 \Environmental \Proposed ND ZOA 2002 -04.doc