Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2002 0528 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2002 -424 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 28, 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: ----7---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -A-n--y -----m-embe--r ---- o-f --- t-he ----p-u-blic may address the Commission during the Public Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Presentation /Action /Discussion item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing or Presentations /Action /Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Presentations /Action /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 Presentation /Action /Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item of the Presentation /Action /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 Presentation /Action /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 Presentation /Action /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. S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agendas \020528 pca.doc Planning Commission Agenda May 28, 2002 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Regular Meeting Minutes of August 25, 1997. B. Regular Meeting Minutes of April 13, 1998. C. Regular Meeting Minutes of April 27, 1998. D. Regular Meeting Minutes of May 26, 1998. E. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 8, 1998. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Public Workshop to Consider Potential Modifications to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code related to Lighting Regulations. Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public workshop, accept public testimony, and discuss issues related to lighting regulations; and 2) Provide direction to staff for the possible preparation of amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code. B. Consider Recision of Ordinance No. 244. Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public comments, and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt PC Resolution No. 2002- recommending approval of the draft ordinance to rescind Ordinance No. 244. 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider Scheduling of the Summer Meeting Recess 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: 11. 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). ITEM � • �. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Meeting of August 25, 1997 Paae 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 25, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Bart Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Acosta, and Commissioners Lowenberg, Miller, Norcross, and Millhouse were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Principal Planner; Meg Williamson, RRM Consultant; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 5. REORDERING OF THE AGENDA None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eloise Brown, 13893 Annette Street, Moorpark. Ms. Brown referenced Ventura County Star (east county), August 24, 1997 - news article regarding the "Downtown Movement ". 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consider Specific Plan No. 95 -1 (Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan) General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97 -5 (City of Moorpark). Proposal: The proposed project consists of: (1) A General Plan Land Use Element Amendment to revise the land use designations shown on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 3) for various properties within the Specific Plan area and to amend the Land Use Element text pertaining to land use classifications; (2) A Zone Change to revise Title 17, F 1997 -08 -25 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Meeting of August 25, 1997 Paae 2 Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to include new zoning standards, revise the list of permitted uses, and to revise the City Zoning Map for the Specific Plan area; and (3) Adoption of the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan, which includes land use and zoning maps, a streetscape beautification program, pedestrian and traffic circulation improvements, and specific design guidelines and development standards to guide future development within the Specific Plan area. Location: The Specific Plan area includes High Street, at its core, along with other parts of Downtown Moorpark, such as residential neighborhoods to the north of High Street, the railroad right -of -way south of High Street, and the properties along Moorpark Avenue from City Hall south to Los Angeles Avenue. The Specific Plan area also extends east of Spring Road, between Flinn Avenue and High Street /Los Angeles Avenue. Staff Recommendation: 1. Close the public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97 -5, and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No. 95- 1, subject to incorporation of Specific Plan revisions as identified by the Planning Commission at the August 25, 1997 meeting. The Commission discussions involved the Ad Hoc Citizens Downtown Advisory Committee recommendations. The Commission recommended the following: ■ Item 5. Fees Recommendation: Reduce fees, define design guidelines, and provide Director approval authority. ■ Item 6. Old Town Commercial Zone Uses List Recommendation: Review and incorporate within the Commission's review of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 97 -04. Continue to the Planning Commission Special Meeting of August 28. ■ Item 7. Police Resource Center Recommendation: Relocate the Police Resource Center to the Downtown area. F 1997 -08 -25 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Meeting of August 25, 1997 Paae 3 ■ Item 8. Medians Recommendation: Concur with staff recommendation. ■ Item 9. R -2 Zone Recommendation: Concur with staff recommendation. ■ Item 10. Filming No change ■ Item 11. Plastic Signs Recommendation: Concur with staff recommendation. ■ Item 12. Delete Magnolia Street Recommendation: Concur with staff recommendation that zoning will control the actual uses that may be located in the Magnolia Street area (which is not mandated for closure as currently written). ■ Item 13. Landscape Percentage Concur with staff recommendation. ■ Item 14. Star of the Valley Concur with Committee recommendation to adopt Sub - Committee for Marketing /Logo in Moorpark Downtown Specific Area. ■ Item 15. Over- crossing - SPRR No change ■ Items 16 & 17 B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 97.04 - Consider revisions to Chapter 17.20, Uses by Zone, regarding the allowable uses in each zone and also revisions to Chapter 17.44, Entitlement Process and Procedures. Location Citywide. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission continue their review of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and upon completion direct staff to prepare a resolution to the City Council incorporating all recommended changes. MOTION: Chairman Acosta moved and Commissioner Miller seconded a motion to continue Item 9.A. and 9.B. to a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on August 28, 1997. Motion passed with a 5:0 voice vote. F 1997 -08 -25 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Meeting of August 25, 1997 Pacae 4 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS Carlsberg Specific Plan grading, dust control, and City's Hillside Ordinance were the topics discussed by the Commission. The Director, Nelson Miller informed the Commission of staff's intent to revisit Carlsberg development requirements. Special Devices Incorporated - The Commission asked when hydroseeding was expected for the graded areas. The Director informed the Commission that the work was currently out to bid. Received and filed. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS or FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ATTEST: harry x. Hogan, community Development Director William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman F 1997 -08 -25 pcm ITEM _ 6 . B . _ Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 13, 1998 Pacte 1 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 13, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1) Call to Order: The meeting called to order at 7:16 p.m. 2) Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Bart Miller led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 3) Roll Call: Chairman Gary Lowenberg, and Commissioners Ernesto Acosta Bart Miller, Mark DiCecco, and Keith Millhouse were present at the meeting. Staff attending included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager; Paul Porter, 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: MOTION: Commissioner Lowenberg moved and Commissioner Acosta seconded a motion to reorder the agenda to hear Item 9.B. prior to Item 9.A. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. 6) Approval of Minutes A) Planning Commission Meeting of March 9, 1998. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to approve the minutes of March 9, 1998. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. 7 ) Public Comments Eloise Brown, P.O. Box 3, Moorpark, California. Mrs. Brown said she expected all Commissioners to vote unless a conflict of interest was brought forward. SACommunity DevelopmenhEveryone\PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESTC Minutes Pending\F 1998 -04 -13 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 13, 1998 Pacae 2 8) Consent Calendar A) RESOLUTION NO. PC -98 -352 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97 -2 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON 43.32 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET WEST OF GABBERT ROAD AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS (APN. 500 -34 -22 AND -23) FROM "AG -I" (AGRICULTURAL LDU. /10 -40 ACRES) TO "I -2" (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL) AND ZONE CHANGE NO 97 -7 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY FROM AE (AGRICULTURAL EXCLUSIVE) TO M -2 (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) ON THE APPLICATION OF ANDERSON AND BURNS PROPERTIES AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner Miller seconded a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. PC -98 -352. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. 9) Public Hearings A. Entitlements: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5053 Residential Planned Development Permit No. 96 -1. Applicant: Pacific Communities Builder, Inc. 1000 Dove Street, Suite No. 100, Newport Beach, California 92660. Proposal: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5053 is for a subdivision of approximately 35.23 gross acres into 305 numbered lots and 5 lettered lots for an overall density of approximately 8.66 units per acre. Residential Planned Development Permit No. 96 -1 is a request for 305 residential units ranging from 966 square feet to 1980 square feet. Location: The project is located on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue (State Route 118) at 850 West Los Angeles Avenue south of Shasta Avenue and Goldman Avenue in the City of Moorpark. The Assessors Parcel Numbers are 506 -03 -135, 145, 155, 165 and 180. Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for the requested entitlements prior to making a recommendation to the City Council for approval or denial of the projects. SACommunity DevelopmenhEveryoneTLANNING COMMISSION MINLITESTC Minutes Pending\F 1998 -04 -13 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 13, 1998 Paae 3 Paul Porter presented staff's report on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5053 Residential Planned Development Permit No. 96 -1. Testimony received from the following: Nelson Chung, Pacific Communities Builders, 1000 Dove, Newport Beach, California. Mr. Chung spoke about his award for a previously built affordable housing project and claimed it was one of the best affordable housing projects built. (Forty -six affordable housing units proposed within this current proposal.) Elaine Freeman, Urban Strategies, 2509 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousand Oaks, California. Ms. Freeman provided background information concerning the project and its proposal to develop 305 residential units. Ms. Freeman asked for clarification of the following Conditions: • 28 page 10 • 40 page 15 • 49 page 17 • 58 page 20 • 59 page 21 • 60 page 21 • 70 page 22 Joe Ahearn, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, California. Mr. Ahearn spoke as the representative for the adjacent property owner to the east and asked for clarification of Condition No. 59 regarding the proposed private pedestrian access easement. Rick Bolte, applicant's engineer, 1700 Hamner Avenue, Norco, Calfornia. Mr. Bolte provided information related to the three stacking lanes on Shasta Avenue. He described them as being 300 feet of stacking and 130 feet to the entry gate. The Commission's discussions centered on what had been proposed for the property between the homeowners on Maureen Lane and the new Pacific Communities proposal. SACommunity DevelopmenAEveryoneTLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESTC Minutes PendingT 1998 -04 -13 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 13, 1998 Page 4 The Commission discussed the needs of landscape, the height of the proposed sound -wall, and whether the easement provided would be used for pedestrians or vehicle access. The Commission also discussed maters related to the following: • Driveway approach modification (3 -5 feet). A reference was made to the Mirabella tract, which was reduced from 20 feet to 16 feet. • Enforcing the vehicle parking code. • The size of the swimming pool in relation to 305 dwelling units proposed. • Homeowners Association areas of responsibility concerning the maintenance of the buffer zone. At this point in the meeting the consensus of the Commission was that the project was not complete and had several issues to workout, but the Commission was responsive to having the applicant return with solutions to Commission and staff concerns. MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner Millhouse seconded a motion to continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5053 Residential Planned Development Permit No. 96 -1 to the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1998, with the public hearing open. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. B. Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -5. Applicant: Cox Communications. Proposal: A request for approval to construct a 63' cellular communication antenna and accessory equipment cabinets at the Ventura County Waterworks District, College Water Tank Reservoir Facility #2. Planning Commission action on this application will be final unless appealed to the City Council. The proposal is located at the Ventura County Waterworks College Water Tank Reservoir Facility, north of Highway 118 and East of Moorpark College. (Assessor's Parcel Number: 500 -0- 280 -400). Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. Make the appropriate findings, which are specified in the attached resolution, including the SACommunity DevelopmenhEveryoneTLAN N ING COMMISSION MINUTESIPC Minutes PendingT 1998 -04 -13 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 13, 1998 Paae 5 environmental determination. Adopt the attached Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -5 subject to the conditions contained therein. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -5 to the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1998. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. 10) Discussion Items None 11) Announcements of Future Agenda Items None 12 ) Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m. William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman ATTEST: harry x. Hogan, uommuniLy Development Director SACommunity Development\Everyone\PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESIPC Minutes PendingT 1998 -04 -13 pcm.doc ITEM % • CO moommoft Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 27, 1998 Paae 1 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 27, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 :08 p.m. 2) Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Acosta led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3) Roll Call Chairman Lowenberg, Commissioners Acosta, Miller, and DiCecco were present at the meeting. Commissioner Millhouse was absent. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager; 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 8) Consent Calendar None 9) Public Hearings A) Entitlement: Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -5, Applicant: Cox Communications Resolution No. PC -98 -353. Proposal: A request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct six -14' cellular communication antennas and accessory equipment cabinets at the Ventura County Waterworks District, College Water Tank Reservoir Facility #2. Planning Commission action on this application will be final unless appealed to the City Council. Location: Ventura County Waterworks College Water Tank Reservoir Facility, North of Highway 118 and East of Moorpark College. (Assessor's Parcel Number: 500- 0- 280 -400). Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. Make the appropriate findings, which are SACommunity Development\EveryoneTLANNING COMMISSION MINLITESTC Minutes Pending\F 1998 -04 -27 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 27, 1998 Page 2 specified, in the attached Resolution, including the environmental determination. Adopt the attached Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -5 subject to the conditions contained therein. (Public hearing open.) Testimony received from the following: Vince Daly, representing the applicant, 26500 W. Agoura Road, #566, Calabasas, CA 91302. In support of the proposal and agreed to the conditions of approval. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Commissioner Bart Miller moved and Commissioner Acosta seconded a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -5 subject to the conditions of approval and requirement for additional landscaping at the south side of the development. Motion passed with a 4:0 voice vote. Commissioner Millhouse was absent. 10) Discussion Items A) Consider Planninq Commission Summer Recess Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to schedule a Planning Commission recess to correspond with City Council summer recess and cancel the meeting of July 27, 1998. Planning Commission reached consensus to recess and cancel the meeting of July 27, 1998. 11) Announcements of Future Agenda Items None 12) Adjournment Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. William F. Otto, Chair for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director SACommunity DevelopmentlEveryonelPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESTC Minutes PendingT 1998 -04 -27 pcm.doc ITEM . Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of May 26, 1998 Page 1 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on May 26, 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 7:06 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. Roll Call Chairman Gary Lowenberg, Commissioners Keith Millhouse, Ernesto Acosta, Bart Miller and Mark DiCecco were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; John Libiez, Principal Planner; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 3. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development introduced John Libiez, Principal Planner to the Commission. 4. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda None 5. Approval of Minutes None 6. Public Comments None 7. Consent Calendar None 8. Public Hearings None 9. Discussion Items Review of the Proposed Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan No. 8 Nelson Miller provided the staff presentation. F 199 8-05 -26 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of May 26, 1998 Page 2 Testimony received from the following: Gary Austin, the applicant's representative for Hidden Creek Ranch Partners, 959 South Coast Dr., Suite 490, Costa Mesa, CA 92926. Mr. Austin's presentation included discussion on the following items. • Specific Plan No. 8 Sphere Study • RNM Consultant work on hillside planning • Clustering • Reduced Community • School Facilities • Traffic and Circulation • DA 45 • Williamson Act Contracts • Guidelines for Orderly Development The Commission's discussions included: • Mineral rights • Advantages to Specific Plan development • Spring Road connector • Affordable Housing • Senior Housing • Golf Course built with Phase I development • Oil drilling Mr. Art Lenox, 15654 Harte Lane, Moorpark, provided comments regarding: • Containment from drilling • Drilling in Open Space • Valley Fever • Phase grading F 1998 -05-26 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of May 26, 1998 Page 3 CONSENSUS: The Commission directed staff to arrange for a field trip to the Hidden Creek Ranch (Specific Plan No. 8) project site. Commissioners Lowenberg and DiCecco attending on May 30 at 9:00 a.m. and Commissioners Millhouse and Miller attending on June 6 at 9:00 a.m. 10. Announcements of Future Agenda Items None 11. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director William F. Otto, Chair for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman F 1998 -05-26 pcm ITEM F. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 1 A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 8, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:14 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Bart Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. Roll Call Chairman Gary Lowenberg, Commissioners, Keith Millhouse, Ernesto Acosta, Bart Miller and Mark DiCecco were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director; Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager; Paul Porter, 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 None 7. Public Comments None 8. Consent Calendar None 9. Public Hearings A. Entitlement: Residential Planned Development Permit 96 -1 and Tentative Tract Map 5053 (Continued from May 11, 1998). Applicant: Pacific Communities Proposal: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5053 is for a subdivision of approximately 35.23 gross acres into 305 numbered lots and 5 lettered lots for an overall density of approximately 8.66 units per acre. RPD No. 96 -1 is a request for 305 residential units ranging from 966 square feet to 1980 square feet. Location: The project is located on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue (State Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 8, 1998 Paae 2 Route 118) at 850 West Los Angeles Avenue south of Shasta Avenue and Goldman Avenue in the City of Moorpark. Assessors Parcel Numbers: 506 -03 -135, 145, 155, 165 and 180. Staff Recommendation: Accept public testimony and close the public hearing. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for the requested entitlements. Adopt the Resolution No. PC 98- , recommending to the City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map, and Residential Planned Development Permit and Development Agreement. A staff presentation was provided. Testimony received from the following: Nelson Chung, 1000 Dove Street, Newport Beach. Representing Pacific Communities. Spoke in support The Commission covered several topics concerning the following: • Enforcing the NO PARKING regulations. • Entry gate located on Los Angles Avenue. • Increased density of dwelling units. • Project does not promote "shop Downtown." • Location of the Bus Stop. • Parking on collector streets. • Dust control. Public Hearing closed at 7:54 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to approve Residential Planned Development Permit 96 -1 and Tentative Tract Map 5053. Resolution No. PC- 98 -353 was modified to include a condition which may establish the bus stop at another location. Motion passed with a 3:2 voice vote. Commissioners Millhouse and Miller voting NO. B. Entitlement: Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -2 Location: 79 to 95 East High Street (Assessor's Parcel Number: 512- 0 -091 -060). Applicant: Javier Hernandez Ortiz. Proposal: Consider a request for operation of a nightclub. Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing and accept public Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 8, 1998 Pacre 3 testimony. Make the appropriate findings which are specified in Resolution No. PC 98- , including the environmental determination. Adopt Resolution No. PC 98- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -2 subject to the conditions of the Resolution. Staff provided the presentation. The public hearing opened at 8:27 p.m. Testimony received from the following: David Aguirre, 689 " "A" New Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark. Spoke in support of the proposal. Becky Ritchie, 4719 Maureen Lane, Moorpark. Spoke in opposition to the proposal. Lindy Topete, Speaker for Javier Hernandez, 1257 '-� Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark. Spoke in support of the proposal. Public hearing closed at 8:50 p.m. The Planning Commissions discussed the following concerns: • Emergency preparedness issues • Overcrowding • Surrounding residences • Whether appropriate for the Downtown Specific Plan Area • Insufficient parking • Police Enforcement MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner Acosta seconded a motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. CONSENSUS: By consensus of the Commission, the public hearing will be reopened to the public to allow the applicant to respond to the concerns of the Commission. C. Proposed Development Agreement. Applicant: Hidden Creek Ranch Partners (Messenger Development). Purpose: Consider Proposed Development Agreement for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 8 (Messenger Development). Staff Recommendation: Open the public 10. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 8, 1998 Paae 4 hearing and accept public testimony. Adopt Resolution No. PC 98- , recommending approval of the Proposed Development Agreement to City Council. Staff provided the presentation. Pubic hearing opened at 9:37 p.m. Testimony received from the following: Gary Austin, representing Hidden 959 South coast Drive, Suite 490. proposal. Lori Rutter, 11611 Pinedale Road. the proposal. Creek Ranch Partners, Spoke in support of the Spoke in opposition to Joseph F. Catrambone, 14423 E. Cambridge Street. Spoke in opposition to the proposal. Dr. Roseann Mikos, 14371 E. Cambridge Street. Spoke in opposition. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette. Spoke in support of the proposal. Joe Ahearn, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue. Spoke in support of the proposal. Margaret Kernig, 10725 Citrus Drive. Spoke in opposition of the proposal. John Kernig, 10725 Citrus Drive. Spoke in opposition to the proposal. Dawn Mortara, 6239 Seabiscuit Place. Spoke in opposition to the proposal. MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner Millhouse seconded a motion to direct staff to prepare a summary and provide this to the Commission on June 15, 1998, at an adjourned meeting. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. Discussion Items None Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 8, 1998 PaQe 5 11. Announcements of Future Agenda Items None 12. Adjournment MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner Millhouse seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting to June 15, 1998, the time being 10:45 p.m. William F. Otto, Chair for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director IrEM V*Nv um CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager Y, 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: Planning Commission Staff Report Lighting Regulation Workshop Page No. 2 Applicability of regulations - All new construction and repairs, replacements, or reconstruction where 250 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 750 of lighting output after closing time (10:00 PM unless otherwise permitted). Testing - 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. S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020526 Lighting Workshop Rpt.doc 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 S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020528 Lighting Workshop Rpt.doc 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 undex 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 \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020528 Lighting Workshop Rpt.doc 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 RECOMMENDATIONS 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 S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020528 Lighting Workshop Rpt.doc 17.30.010 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. 1730.050 Prohibited lighting. 1730.060 Plans required. 17.30.070 Design guidelines. 1730.080 Certification/testing. 17.30.090 Exemptions. 1730.100 Violation — Penalties. 17.30.110 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 art, 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. E. 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 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 lights, other than traffic or hazard lights or those permitted under the sign regulations contained in Chapter 17.40; (Moorpark 1 -0 1) 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 lighting plan. (Ord. 266 § 2 (part), 1999) 17.30.070 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 created. 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 emissions 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: I. Residential: fourteen (14) feet; 2. Commercial: twenty (20) feet; 3. Industrial: twenty-five (25) feet; 346-1 (Moorpark 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: 1. Over driveways/aisles: fourteen (14) feet; 2. Over walkways: eight (8) feet. G. Shielding/Shrouds. All lighting fixtures shall be designed and installed such 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 (75%) 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 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 errant 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 less used in low density residential or Waal 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 (Moorpark 1 -01) 346-2 N 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 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 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) 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 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 lighting 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 (Moorpark 1 -01) ITEM 9 • A * I MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Acting Community Development Director Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manageri DATE: April 9, 2002 (CC Meeting of May 11 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. SUb94ARY 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 PC ATTACHMENT Honorable City Coui.-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 RECObSONDATION 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 pevelopment \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 4. 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 , 20020, 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 City Council hereby adopts the following findings: 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: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk EXHIBITS A: Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan B: Conditions of Approval i 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. Al l 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. Al l other exterior light poles shall conform to standards of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Resolution No. -.,02 -_ 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. g--h- 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. 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, 200219 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 1 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. S: \Community Development \Everyone \Ordinances \cc 020501 ZOA2002 -1 zelman.doc Modified: 04/10/02 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 Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk S: \Community Development \Everyone \Ordinances \cc 020501 ZOA2002 -1 zelman.doc Modified: 04/10/02 2002. rFEM g A. 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 Planning Commission Staff Report ZOA 2002 -1, Minor Mod. 4 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 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 Zighting 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 020408 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 indicates that it would not contribute to off -site glare. �i 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: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020408 ZOA2002 -1 Lighting Rptl.doc Planning Commission Staff Report ZOA 2002 -1, Minor Mod. 4 April 8, 2002 Applicant: Zelman Retail Partners, Inc. Page No. 4 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 8. Lighting Specifications S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020408 ZOA2002 -1 Zelman Lighting Rptl.doc A — ©3 -202 2:49PM FROM r-L TAYLOR ASSOC 9492619778 Bahl, Taylor b Associotes, Int. LWA*%Atrwn+d Bn+" IS1w A*tf#%" 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. Bobardt: The following is my preliminary assessment of the photometric drawings and data that was delivered to Dahl, Taylor & 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 depreciating 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 light 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 wnrw.dobitoor.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 engineering @dohitoylor.com large differences between maximum and minimum foot - candles, you need more poles with less lumens per pole. Hayward • 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 Los Angeles building and would look acceptable. San Diego Sonta Ana P. 1 4- 03 -2 02 2:50PM FRC )AHL TAYLOR ASSOC 9492619778 Dahl, Taylor b Associates, Mc. Unh" r+1eNW L S&0 bWUM 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 analysis: a) It Is reasonable for a commercial site to have an average of between 3.0 and 6.0 footcandies. 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. 4/,xL__ Tom Doyle, PE bate Chief Electrical Engineer www.dohltoylorsom engineering @dohltoylor.com Hayward tos Angdes Son Diego Heodquarte6 Santa Ana 2960 Daimler Street Santa Ana, (A 91705 -5814 949.756.8654 WC261.9778 P. 2 4=03 -202 2:50PM FROM -iL TAYLOR ASSOC 9492619778 • t Understanding Outdoor Area Lighting Design A wide range of solutions can meet the diverse needs of site illumination. P. 3 Floodlight on pole ::.a,. � heigltt Dr DD s co c Shadow area 0 Building �---- D2 =2H D, =2 xmounting height Fig. 1. Length of shadow is directly proportional to the height of the lurninaire and the distance from the base of the pole. for a horizontal distance equal to twice the luminaire mounting height; the shadow will be twice the height of the shadow -casting object. By Joseph R. Knisley, Senior Editorial Consultant roperly preparing a lighting design for outdoor loading, storage, and fabricating areas is usually a difficult task. The lighting designer must consider whether stacked materials or heavy machinery will interfere with light 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 outdoor installation than with an indoor area, because fewer fixnues 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). Although you can install lighting equipment on any high swxrure, pole mounting offers the most versatility. Luminaires on poles can provide illumination in every direction at distances of two to two and half times the 28 October200o • EC &M • www.electricalzone.com 4-03 -202 2:51PM FR DAHL TAYLOR ASSOC 9492619778 40 mounting height from the pole. Thus, luminaires on a singe pole can serve an area of about four times the mounting height — squared. For example, a 50 -k tx)le can cover about 40,'al sq k and a 150 -ft pole about 369. �0(� sy ft. You can use narrow beam floodlioits to light a flat area extending w five times the mounting height from the rx-)le. However. at ditnances greater than two times the mounting height, uniformity and system efficiency drop off considerably. You can see the effectiveness of minimi =ing shadows with a given mounting height in Fig. 1, on page 28. This figure shows that the rela- tionship between the length of shad - ows and the luminaire mounting height foik-ms the law of similar triangles. For a horizontal distance from the Ix-,le of twice the mount - ing heighc. the length of the shadow will be twice the height of the ob- ject casting the shadow. Once you establish the luminaire locations and mounting heights. de- termine the quantity and tx pe of luminaire. if you select tall poles, 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 vvattage lamps, which are more efficient than lower wattage light sources. Generally, 1000W or 750W high - pressure so- dium (HPS) or metal - halide (MH) lamps are the choice for high mast 01 VW#*,, MVJJJ=y Ifl. FIEZ Mli QME31 ITT! 1; MM I M, F RIMM 1 Vy'hen using software, a contractor might find that Olx.,thi 1hibilation, 4 tie rpeasured illuminance differs from the cotnputei dKteQ:1lumi- nance ­W1 y? A number of factors may cause this va'iaUon_. First 'of 'all, site conditions frequently vary..from the assumptions used in preparing the design. Then, consider that a lamp can vary ± 5°!o in light output and still be within the manufacturer's tolerances. An HID ballast can vary ± 7V* and . still be within tolerance. Thus, it's possible fora lamp/ballast combination to be 12.5% under thipredicted output. You may find that the installer'skewed the lamp's arc tube'or mounted the fixture slightly out of alignment -- 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 conductors. A regulator -type ballast is available for such a situation. applications. In addition to choosing the lamp rype, wattage, and number and lo- cation of luminaires, a desio er 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 fight to a given area. Consider the beam bpread, or the ,:,indlepciwer distribution pattern the luminaire provides. High m.tg luminaires and R-Wligllts of cr svi nnctrical and asvninictricA hears spreads. Narumily. a high Inast P. 4 4-03 -202 2:52PM (' J s� FRa aHL TH1r i_OR ASSOC 949-26 i 97 T ei luminaire delivers most of its light directly downward. But, you can vary the beam spread of a high mast luminaire by vertically adjusting the lamp in the reflector assembly. You can also select reflector -f re- f -actor -type units, which cast light at a high angle. When you rotate the optical assembly of an asym- metrical -beam, a high mast luminaire allows you to shape the distribution pattern of a cluster of these luminaires. Typically installed on stnrcrtires and low poles, floodlights have a circular reflector, with the lamp mounted in the center. Floodlight beam spreads and their effective projection distances are classified by a joint IES/NEMA designation. The beam - spread patterns extend from Type 1 to Type 7. Fig. 2, on page 30, shows Type 2 to Type 7 beam patterns, which are the most widely used types. In all cases, as the distance from floodlight to the illu- minated area increases, the beam spread becomes wider. Type classification assumes a symmetrical beam shape, meaning that the beam spread angle in the vertical and horizontal axes are identical. Generally narrow pro- jection beams (Type 1, 2, 3, and 4), which are useful for directing 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) (U F) WF) Area where, fc — average maintained illumi- nation level in footcandles P. 5 Fig. 3. Isofootcandle curves show light pattern and light levels produced by particular luminaire. Information is presented in terms of mounting height ar distance from the pole. N = number of luminaires BL =beam lumens of the luminaire LET = utilization factor (percent- age of the beam lumens chat fall within the area being lighted) MF= maintenance factor (light loss factor) Area =area to be lighted in square feet or square meters. If the lighting project must saE- isfy only general criteria, such a simple calculation is sufficient. However, a better method of de- signing an outdoor lighting system is to use an isofootcandle plot. An isofborcandle plot graphi- cally represents the light distribu- tion pattern on a horizontal 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 32 October2000 • EC &M • www.electricalzone.com contour from the center out repre- sents approximately 50% of the value of the previous contour. The plot is placed over a grid, which you can use to indicate mounting height divisions. An isofootcandle plot can vary in shape from a circle, oval, or triangle, and may be sym- metrical or asyrnmerrical (see Fig. 3, above). Essentially, you can use an isofootcandle curve at the same scale as a plan view of the area to be lighted to determine the contri- bution of each luminaire to the entire area. Today, manufacturers have pow- erful and relatively inexpensive software programs to perform these calculations. Many of these pre grams perform lighting design cal- culations based on isofootcandle curves and footcandle tables for each luminaire type. WWW ircle 72 on Reader Service Card 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, 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 Modified: 04/09/02 RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -423 ZOA 2002 -11 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 S: \Community Development \Everyone \PC FINAL RESO \pc 423 reso zoa 2002 -01 mm 4 zelman.doc 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 adopt the amendment to Ordinance No. 195 as contained in Exhibit A to that resolution; and Whereas, the City Council on 1 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: \Community Development \Everyone \PC FINAL RESO \pc 423 zoa 2002 -01 zelman ord EXHIBIT A.doc Modified: 04/10/02 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 Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk 2002. S: \Community Development \Everyone \PC FINAL RESO \pc 423 zoa 2002 -01 zelman ord EXHIBIT A.doc Modified: 04/10/02 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 \PC FINAL RESO \pc 423 zoa 2002 -01 Zelman EXHIBIT B.doc Modified: 04/10/02 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: \Community Development \Everyone \PC FINAL RESO \pc 423 zoa 2002 -01 Zelman 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. S: \Community Development \Everyone \PC FINAL RESO \pc 423 zoa 2002 -01 zelman cond EXHIBIT C.doc Modified: 04/09/02 ITEM • '5 0 mmwl� CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager DATE: May 17, 2002 (PC Meeting of May 28, 2002) SUBJECT: Consider recision of Ordinance No. 244 that established development standards and zones for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (SP -8 /SP 93 -1) BACKGROUND On August 19, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 244, amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish development standards and zones for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan 8 /Specific Plan 93 -1). Measure "S ", adopted by Moorpark voters on January 12, 1999, amended the City's General Plan by removing the designations for and references to development of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan property. More importantly, Measure "S" removed the affected property from the City's Sphere of Influence, giving the City no land use jurisdiction over the property. On July 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99 -1637, directing the Planning Commission to study, set a public hearing, and provide a recommendation to the City Council pertaining to amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code to bring properties in the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan into consistency with Measure "S ". This report addresses amendments to the Zoning Code needed for consistency with Measure "S" and the General Plan. DISCUSSION Section 65860 of the Government Code requires City Zoning Ordinances to be consistent with the General Plan. Under Measure "S", the Hidden Creek Ranch property no longer has a designated use in the City's General Plan, and falls solely under the jurisdiction of the County General Plan, which has the property designated for Planning Commission Staff Report Recision of Ordinance No. 244 Page No. 2 open space uses. The County zoning for the property is Agricultural Exclusive, a zoning category consistent with the Open Space designation of the County General Plan. Although the development standards and zones established by Ordinance No. 244 have no legal effect at this time, this ordinance should be rescinded to maintain consistency between the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. A draft resolution is attached for Planning Commission consideration recommending to the City Council recision of Ordinance No. 244. Public Notification The public hearing before the Planning Commission was noticed with a 1/8 page publication in the Moorpark Star on Friday, May 17, 2002 in accordance with Sections 65854 and 65091 of the Government Code. Affected property owners were also sent a copy of the notice. Environmental Documentation The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, (CEQA) applies to projects that have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The action of rescinding an ordinance that has no legal effect does not meet the definition of a project under CEQA, and is therefore not subject to environmental review. STAFF RECOrbMNDATIONS 1. Open the public hearing, accept public comments, and close the public hearing; and 2. Adopt PC Resolution No. 2002- recommending approval of the draft ordinance to rescind Ordinance No. 244. Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution Recommending to the City Council Recision of Ordinance No. 244 2. City Council Resolution No. 99 -1637 3. Ordinance No. 244 (including map of affected property) S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \PC 020528 Ord. 244 Recision.doc 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 RESCIND ORDINANCE NO. 244, WHICH ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN 8 /SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -1) WHEREAS, on July 15, 1998, Resolution No. 98 -1487 was adopted, approving the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan and related amendments to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 1998, Ordinance No. 244 was adopted establishing specific plan zoning designations and development standards for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 1999, Initiative Measure "S" was adopted by the voters of the City of Moorpark, removing the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan from the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, Initiative Measure "S" also established a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB), coterminous with the City's Sphere of Influence in effect on January 1, 1998, that excluded the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan property; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 1999 the City Council directed the Planning Commission to study, set a public hearing, and provide a recommendation pertaining to amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code to bring the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan properties into consistency with Initiative Measure "S "; and WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the Government Code requires that City Zoning Ordinances be consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on May 28, 2002, the Planning Commission considered a Resolution recommending to the City Council the recision of Ordinance No. 244; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 28, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings.. and received public testimony, and after receiving oral and written public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. S: \Community Development \Everyone \Resolutions and Conditions \pc 020528 reso rescind Ord. 244(2).doc Modified: 05/22/02 PC ATTACHMENT ,� RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002- Recision of Ord. 244 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of an Ordinance to rescind Ordinance No. 244. SECTION 2. 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. 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 \Everyone \Resolutions and Conditions \pc 020528 reso rescind Ord. 244(2).doc Modified: 05/22/02 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1637 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY, SET A PUBLIC HEARING AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL PERTAINING TO AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE RELATED TO THOSE PROPERTIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8 /HIDDEN CREEK RANCH NECESSARY TO BRING SAID PROPERTIES INTO CONSISTENCY WITH INITIATIVE MEASURE "S" ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK ON JANUARY 12, 1999 WHEREAS, Section 65350 et. seq. of Article Six of the Government Code of' the State of California provides the authority to cities to amend an adopted General Plan, subject to the procedure as contained in such Article; and WHEREAS, Section 17.60.020 of the Municipal Code provides that the City Council may initiate proceedings to consider amendments to the Zoning Code by the adoption of a resolution of intention requesting the Planning Commission to set the matter for study, public hearing, and recommendation within a reasonable time. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby authorize the initiation of proceedings to consider amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code of the City of Moorpark, for the purpose of considering and establishing land use designations, zoning districts and other appropriate provisions consistent with the voter adopted initiative, Measure "S" (SOAR) , that may be necessary to implement Measure "S" as it may apply to those properties situated within the boundary of Specific Plan No. 8, Hidden Creek Ranch. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission is hereby directed to study, set a public hearing, and provide a recommendation to the City Council pertaining to those amendments to the City of Moorpark General Plan and Zoning Code, as specified within Section 1 above, necessary to implement the voter adopted initiative measure, Measure "S" (SOAR) upon all properties situated within the boundary of Specific Plan No. 8, Hidden Creek Ranch. PC ATTACHMENT o3 Resolution No. 99 -1637 Page 2 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 21st day of .Tilly_ IQQQ ATTEST: S. Deborah S. Traffenste City Clerk Resolution No. 99 -1637 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 99 -1637 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 21st day of July, 1999, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Evans, Harper, Wozniak and Mayor Hunter NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Rodgers ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 12th day of February, 2001. Deborah S. Traffenste , City Clerk (seal) ORDINANCE NO. 244 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN 8 ZONING DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, (SPECIFIC PLAN &SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -1); AND, ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SAID PROPERTIES; AND, AMENDING TITLE 17, ZONING, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK TO PLACE SUCH REGULATIONS AS CHAPTER 17.70 WITHIN SAID CODE; AND, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK TO REFLECT THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. Whereas, at a duly noticed public hearing on October 1, 1997, continued public hearings on October 8, 22, November 12, and December 3, 10, 1997, January 7, 21, March 25, April 1, May 6, 20, 27, June 3, 10, 17 and July 1 and 15, 1998, the City Council considered the application filed by Hidden Creek Ranch Partners, L.P., also known as Messenger Investment Company, for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project, consisting of Specific Plan No. 8 /Specific Plan 93 -1, General Plan Amendment 93 -1, and Zone Change 93 -3, for an approximately 4323 acre site located within the City of Moorpark Area of Interest in Ventura County contiguous to the City northerly boundary near Moorpark College and the Campus Park and Varsity Park residential areas, and easterly and southerly of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and incorporating more or less Assessor Parcel Numbers: 500- 0120 -035, -55, -065; 500 -0 -170 -135, -205, -255, -285, -295, -305, -315, -325, -335, -345, -355, -365, -375; 500- 0- 180 -045, -055, -075, -105, -115; 500 -0- 281 -035, -045, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215; 500 -0- 292 -065, -135, -145; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; and, 615 -0- 150 -185; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark did adopt Resolution 96 -325 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 8 /Specific Plan 93 -1, General Plan Amendment 93 -1, Zone Change 93 -3, and certification of the project EIR, subject to findings and amendments incorporated into that resolution; and, Whereas, the City Council on January 21, 1998, adopted Resolution 98 -1425 to certify a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA procedures and meeting all findings required by CEQA; and, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code of the City of Moorpark, California is amended by adding thereto Chapter 17.70 as contained and more fully described in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; PC ATTACHMENT 3 Ordinance No. 244 Page 2 Sections: 17.70.010 17.70.020 17.70.030 17.70.040 17.70.050 17.70.060 TITLE 17.70 SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -1 /SPECIFIC PLAN 8 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH Purpose and Intent Definitions General Provisions Residential Development Standards Commercial Planned Development Public and Institutional 17.70.070 Parks and Open Space 17.70.080 Sign Regulations 17.70.090 Parking Regulations 17.70.100 Historic, Native Oak and Mature Trees 17.70.110 Outdoor Lighting Controls Section 2. Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code of the City of Moorpark, California is amended by amending the official zoning map of the city as referenced in Section 17.04.020 of the Moorpark Municipal Code by adding thereto the designation SP 93- 1 /SP -8 and by applying said designation to the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan area as shown in Attachment B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. Whenever a conflict shall arise between provisions of the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code as to the meaning of terms, uses permitted, standards applicable or administration thereof, the Specific Plan shall prevail. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF AUGUST, 1998 Ordinance No. 244 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Chapter 17.70(added) Moorpark Zoning Code 2. Zoning Map Amendment - Specific Plan 93 -1 /Specific Plan 8 Boundary Designation I M 90 0. . Im CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Di -rector Prepared By: Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst DATE: May 21, 2002 (PC Meeting of 5/28/02) SUBJECT: Consider Scheduling of the Summer Meeting Recess BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission determine the summer 2002 recess schedule. Staff is recommending cancellation of the July 8 and August 12 meetings. The regular meetings of July 22 and August 26 are not proposed to be cancelled. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to post a notice of meeting cancellation for the July 8 and August 12, 2002, regular meetings. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports\ pcmemo .summermeetingrecess.020528.doc