Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 1105 CC REG ITEM 08Cpia • 3 (9) ITEM $ • Ce CITY OF MOO"ARK, CALIFORNU ftty Council Meeting of % 1 -1 "-Z— AGENDA REPORT ACTION; CITY OF MOORPARK f BY: TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community DevelopmenCO� Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Principal Planner DATE: October 27, 1997 (CC Meeting of 11/5/97) SUBJECT: CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97 -1, TO AMEND THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS; ZONE CHANGE NO. 97 -5, TO ESTABLISH ZONE DISTRICTS AND CONTROLLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; AND THE MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 95 -1, WHICH INCLUDES LAND USE AND ZONING MAPS, A STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM, PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 13, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97- 5, and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1. Attachment A is the Planning Commission's resolution, which includes a list of recommended revisions to the draft Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed Downtown Specific Plan Project consists of: (1) A General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 97 -1 to revise Section 5.2, Specific Plan Designation, to include a description of the Downtown Specific Plan and to revise Exhibit No. 3, Land Use Plan (City Area), to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area; and revise the General Plan Circulation Element Figure No. 3, Bikeway Element, to reflect the planned bikeway linkages that would be consistent with recommended revisions to Specific Plan Figure No. 15, to facilitate bikeway access to the Downtown; (2) A Zone Change No. 97 -5 to revise Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to establish zone districts and controlling development standards for the Downtown Specific Plan site, as identified in Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan, and to amend the City Zoning Map to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area; and (3) Adoption of the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan (SP- 95 -1), which includes land use and zoning DST CAI- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt 000249 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 2 maps, a streetscape beautification program, pedestrian and traffic circulation improvements, specific design guidelines and development standards, and implementation programs to guide future development within the Specific Plan area. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is intended to be adopted for the Downtown Specific Plan Project, including the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Specific Plan. Based upon an Initial Study and analysis of available information, there is substantial evidence that the significant effects of the proposed project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the adoption of mitigation measures. Processing Time Limits The proposed adoption of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change require legislative, rather than adjudicatory actions by the City Council; therefore, there is no time limit for adoption. Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee A Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Council in March 1997 to review the preliminary draft of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Committee had twelve members and included residents and business owners. The Council requested the Committee to develop a report with recommendations and suggestions regarding the plan, which would be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration during the public hearings on the Draft Specific Plan. The Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee prepared a report which identified 18 issues that addressed Specific Plan implementation, financing, land uses, design, and physical improvements. The Advisory Committee issues are addressed in the following Discussion section of this staff report and in Attachment B, the Planning Commission staff report for the August 11, 1997 meeting. The Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report was previously provided to the City Council and the transmittal memorandum was dated July 8, 1997. Planning Commission Based on the considerable amount of time and effort that the Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee spent studying and developing a list of issues and recommendations for the Downtown Specific Plan, the Planning Commission focused its review on the issues and recommendations of that DST CAI- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt 000050 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 3 Committee. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution (Attachment A) recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97 -5, and the Downtown Specific Plan on October 13, 1997. The following Discussion Section identifies the Citizens Advisory Committee's list of issues that pertain to the Specific Plan document and Zone Change No. 97- 5, and the Planning Commission's recommendation for each issue. The staff comments for each issue are included in Attachment B to this report (the Planning Commission staff report). The following Discussion Section also includes the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Specific Plan design guidelines, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report should be referenced for the Committee's design recommendations. Section 5 of the Planning Commission's resolution (Attachment A) identifies all of the Specific Plan revisions recommended by the Planning Commission after review of the Advisory Committee's Report. Other Issues Other issues raised during the development of the Downtown Specific Plan, that should be discussed by the City Council, include: • Should existing industrial properties east of Spring Road, in the identified Secondary Planning Area, be rezoned consistent with Exhibit 6 (reference the secondary planning area discussion on pages 15, 18, and 30 in the Specific Plan)? • Is there a need for higher residential densities in the Downtown area to further support the commercial businesses and in close proximity to the Metrolink Station? • Is the amount of Commercial Office (C -O) Zone proposed for Moorpark Avenue excessive (based on potential absorption and the limited uses allowed in that zone)? • The proposed residential, commercial, and industrial rezonings that are proposed will result in legal non - conforming uses. The issues identified above are addressed in the following discussion or in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B). DST C: \1- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt tK3t�252, Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 4 DISCUSSION Downtown Specific Plan (No. 95 -1) and Zone Change (No. 97 -5) Issues Identified by Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee 1. East Gateway Advisory Committee: • Must Resolve to Implement Plan • Perception = Reality = "Stay Away" • Consistent And Constant Enforcement • Needs Firm Commitment (a) Negotiated hours (b) Established location on property for laborers (c) Cultural- ethnic sensitivity (d) Assign resources officer as primary duty, assisted by bicycle patrol (e) Enforce City ordinance requiring cooperation of property owner (f) Reinstall landscaping and irrigation, and enforce regular maintenance to discourage loitering /standing in planter areas (g) Consider relocation to City /RDA property as an alternative if the above is not implemented Planning Commission: The Planning Commission's opinion was that the East Gateway concerns (day laborers) do not require an amendment to the Specific Plan, and further identified that the concerns listed regarding the East Gateway were issues for City Council consideration, and included issues outside the scope of the Specific Plan. 2. Implementation Plan Advisory Committee: • Add Eastern Properties to Plan Boundary (See Moratorium Item, Ordinance No. 224) (Exhibit -C(1) • DCC to be Activated Again to Review and Recommend, When Available • Design Review Committee, With Staff Support, To Be Formed To Function in "Pre- Application" Stages of Project Proposals (Advisory to Director, Planning Commission and City Council) DST C: \1- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.ipt 000252 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 5 Planning Commission: The Planning Commission agreed that the eastern properties should be addressed in the Specific Plan and concurred with the zoning shown on Figure 6 for the Secondary Planning Area. The Commission did not recommend a Design Review Committee, because they thought that another layer of review that lengthens the development approval process is not needed. The Commission did recommend that the City Council should encourage a group such as a Downtown Merchants Association that would actively promote the Downtown in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce. 3. Financing Plan Advisory Committee: • Gisler Field Money To Be Designated For Housing Projects In Downtown Specific Plan Area • Designate Significant "Tax Increment" Money to Downtown Specific Plan Area • DCC To Be Activated Again To Review and Recommend, When Available Planning Commission: The Planning Commission's recommendation was that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency should devote money to ensure that the Specific Plan is implemented. 4. Approval Authority Advisory Committee: • See Revised Resolution No. 95 -1135 - Once The City Council Has Adopted The Specific Plan, Then The Director And Planning Commission Can Implement (With The Design Review Committee Advisory Input) . City Council Must Approve Any Amendments To The Specific Plan, And The Appeals Process Can Be Employed By Anyone (Recommend 4 Hours \$344.00 Appeal Fee) - Exhibit -C(2) Planning Commission: The Planning Commission's opinion was that it is a City Council decision regarding what projects will be considered by the Planning Commission and the fee to be charged for an appeal. DST C: \l- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt 000253 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 6 5. Fees Advisory Committee: • 50% Reduction In Deposit Fees (And Commit To Process Within Deposit Fee), For Downtown Specific Plan Area. This Recognizes That The Process Is More Efficient Due To Established Detail and Guidelines In Specific Plan • The Recommended Approval Levels Revision Also Reduces Process Time, and Staff Time Planning Commission: The Planning Commission's opinion was that the City Council should determine the appropriate fees for the Downtown Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission did express a willingness to work with staff to recommend the appropriate entitlement fees. 6. Old Town Commercial Zone Uses List Advisory Committee: • Any Deletions Should Be Deleted From "C -1," "C -2" and CPD Zones in Downtown Specific Plan Area, Or All Zoning Should Be C -OT • See Uses Deleted (Table -5) Exhibit -C(4) Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recommended numerous revisions to Table 4, including some of the revisions recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee, and a revised Table 4 (incorporating the Commission's recommendations) is included with the Planning Commission's Resolution (Attachment A) . The Planning Commission concurred with RRM Design Group that the zoning for High Street should be C -OT and that Moorpark Avenue should have different zoning and design guidelines. 7. Police Resource Center Advisory Committee: • Relocate To Downtown -High Street Area, As Soon As Possible DST C: \1- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt X0254 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 7 Planning Commission: The Planning Commission concurred with the Citizens Advisory Committee that the Police Resource Center should be relocated to the Downtown High Street area. 8. Medians Advisory Committee: • High Street - No • Moorpark Avenue - Yes!, As Proposed Planning Commission: The Planning Commission concurred with the Citizens Advisory Committee that the raised median shown for High Street should be deleted, and that other pedestrian friendly measures could be incorporated for High Street, such as are discussed on page 138 of Specific Plan. The Planning Commission also concurred that the future raised median shown for Moorpark Avenue should be retained. The Commission did recommend that the discussion for Moorpark Avenue improvements be revised to clarify which improvements would be appropriate if the roadway is under the City jurisdiction versus Caltrans as a designated State Highway (reference Planning Commission resolution included as Attachment A to this report). 9. R -2 Zone Advisory Committee: • Recommend for Flory Avenue and 1st, 2nd, And 3rd Streets (Alley Access Areas). No "RPD" Zoning (CUP for 2nd Unit) Planning Commission: The Planning Commission did not concur with the recommendation for R -2 zoning. The Commission recommended that the west side of Flory Avenue should be rezoned from R -2 to R -1, for consistency with the other R -1 zoned residential development in that area, and did not recommend revising the zoning to allow second dwelling units on single - family lots less than 10,000 square feet, based on the City Council's prior action to require larger lot sizes for second dwelling units in the Downtown area (refer to Attachment B for DST C:11- m\staffrpticcdtnsp.rpt 000255 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 8 further discussion). The rezoning to R -1 will result in existing second dwelling units on Flory Avenue becoming legal non - conforming. 10. Filming Advisory Committee: • Significantly Increase Fees and Designate Money To Downtown Specific Plan Area (Less Staff Costs) Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recommended that the City's film permit fee be kept low enough so as to encourage filming, and that the Chamber of Commerce or similar group should market the Downtown area to the filming industry. 11. Plastic Signs Advisory Committee: • Recommend No Internally Illuminated "Cans" In Downtown Specific Plan Area. Logos O.K. (20% of Signed Area Maximum) Planning Commission: The Planning Commission did not see a need to amend the sign regulations in conjunction with adoption of the Specific Plan, although they concurred that sign regulations could be amended as a follow -up implementation measure. 12. Delete Magnolia Street Promenade Advisory Committee: • Should Not Be All "Senior Rental ". Recommend Food Court, Retail, Office, etc., With Vehicular Access To Charles Street Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recommended that language already included on Page 29, describing that the Vision Plans are intended to help guide future development but in no way are intended as mandatory configurations for implementation, should be added to Page 140, to clarify that the closure of Magnolia Street is not required. DST C: \1- m\staffipt \ccdtnsp.rpt owzss Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 9 13. Landscape Percentage Advisory Committee: • 20% For Specific Plan Area, Except High Street And Any Allowed "0"- Lot Line Projects Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recommended landscaped setbacks for Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road, as identified in the Commission's resolution (Attachment A). The Commission's opinion was that the recommended setbacks, in combination with existing zoning requirements for 10 percent site and parking area landscaping, would ensure adequate landscaping. 14. Star Of The Valley Advisory Committee: • Adopt Sub - Committee Recommendation For Marketing /Logo In MDSP Area Planning Commission: The Planning Commission's opinion was that any marketing logo was a City Council issue. 15. Overcrossing - SPRR Advisory Committee: • Recommend Additional And Enhanced Pedestrian At -Grade Crossings. "Metrolink Access" Is A Good Example • Recommend Abandoning Pursuit Of Pedestrian Overcrossing(s) Due To High Cost And Design Difficulty (Cost) In Meeting ADA Requirements, Unless A Proposed Project Can Demonstrate Functional And Economic Feasibility Planning Commission: The Planning Commission did not find that any change to the Specific Plan was needed related to railroad crossings. DST C: \1- m \staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt 00025'7 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 10 16. Density North of Charles Street 17. Advisory Committee: • Reinforce Single Family Residence Uses. Upgrades and Stabilize This Area • Recommend No Change Of Zone With Adoption Provide Policy Direction That A Specific Considered For Projects Consolidating Which Processed Specific Project. Exhibit -C(5) Planning Commission: Promote and Facilitate Of The MDSP. However, Plan Amendment Will Be Includes A Concurrently The Planning Commission recommended that Charles Street should remain a predominantly single - family residential area (with the exception of the the existing commercial zoned property at the southeast corner of Walnut and Charles Streets, the Tafoya Terrace Apartments at Magnolia Street, and the condominiums at the south east corner of Spring Road and Charles Street) . The Commission did concur with the Residential Planned Development (RPD) 7 -14 dwelling units (du) per acre zoning for a site on Everett Street near Moorpark Avenue. Moorpark Avenue Zoning Advisory Committee: • Retain "C -111 Zone for East Side • a.) Retains Only "Mixed Use" Area in MDSP • b.) Prohibit Parking In Front Yard Setback • c.) Will Not Create Additional "Non- Conforming" Uses. Rezone To "C -O" Would Create Additional Non - Conforming Uses • Retain "CPD" Zoning On West Side -Same Reasons Planning Commission: The Planning Commission agreed with the land use designations and zoning recommended in the Downtown Specific Plan for Moorpark Avenue, as shown on the exhibits attached to the Commission's Resolution (Attachment A). The Commission's opinion was that the C -O Zone is a good transition zone along the east side of Moorpark Avenue, adjacent to single - family residential uses, and that the list of permitted uses for the C -O Zone could be expanded so as to minimize the creation of more legal non - conforming uses. Based on the existing list of permitted uses in the C -O Zone, the restaurant DST C: \1- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt 000258 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 11 use (currently vacant) and personal service businesses such as a beauty salon would become legal non - conforming. As part of an already initiated update of Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code, the Commission is examining the list of permitted uses in commercial and industrial zones, and may recommend expanding the list of permitted uses for the C -O Zone. The Commission also thought that the C -1 Zone was more appropriate than the existing C -2 Zone for the west side of Moorpark Avenue, due to the adjacent residential uses. The C -1 Zone is more restrictive in regard to permitted uses. For example, a rezoning to C -1 would result in the existing automobile repair and feed store businesses becoming legal non - conforming. The existing recreational vehicle storage use is not allowed in any commercial zone (only in the M -2 Zone). If the Council does not agree with the C -1 Zone for the west side of Moorpark Avenue, then a Commercial Planned Development (CPD) Zone should be considered, since the C -2 Zone and the CPD Zone have the same list of permitted uses. The CPD Zone just more accurately identifies that a CPD Permit is required. Both the C -2 and CPD Zones have the same CPD Permit requirements. 18. Civic Center Site Advisory Committee: • Remove Playground Equipment. It Is Too Temporary And "Out Of Place" Appearing - Downtown Park Is In Place. Install Something Of Substance In Its Place Which Is More "Thematic" With MDSP • Designate The Property Generally Located NW /Moorpark Avenue And Everett Street (To Wicks Road) As Civic Center Expansion Area, To Include A Neighborhood Park Along The Eastern Boundary, To The East (Projected) Boundary Line Of Moorpark Avenue Frontage Properties S /Everett Street. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission's opinion was that use of the Civic Center was a City Council issue. Design Guidelines The Planning Commission agreed with the Citizens Advisory Committee that all Spanish Mission and Pueblo architecture references should be deleted from the Downtown Specific Plan, and the illustrations and photographs in the Downtown Specific Plan should be revised to eliminate examples of DST C: \1- m\staffipt \ccdtnsp.rpt 000Z38 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 12 these types of architecture and design features. The Planning Commission and the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that architectural styles to be encouraged should include Victorian, Western, Agrarian, Early American Commercial, Eastlake, Eastern Stick, and Spanish Colonial, and that an eclectic mix is preferred. The Citizens Advisory Committee also provided numerous comments on landscape species. The Planning Commission's opinion was that it would be more appropriate to allow different species to be considered at the project review stage, and recommended that the following note should be added to the Suggested Plant Palette Table: Additional plant species can be substituted for the species listed, if such species are consistent with the architectural themes encouraged in the Downtown Specific Plan area and will not result in damage to infrastructure or a maintenance problem for the public streets and sidewalk areas. Other design related recommendations of the Planning Commission included: • Language should be added to encourage the use of paseos on High Street. • For the Old Town Commercial Zone, standing seam metal roofs should not be allowed and corrugated metal should be allowed. • The recommendation in the Downtown Specific Plan for a stop sign for the High Street and Bard Street intersection should be changed to a pedestrian activated stop light (Santa Barbara downtown crossings were used as an example). The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding corrugated metal roofs was based on the fact that corrugated metal is a building material that has been used for several existing buildings in the Downtown area and is more reflective as a historically accurate material, while standing seam metal roofs are a modern innovation. Staff did not feel that historical accuracy was necessarily the goal of the Design Guidelines and does not recommend that the future plan for High Street should encourage continued use of corrugated metal. In regard to the Planning Commission's pedestrian- activated stop light recommendation, the costs and need for such improvements have not been evaluated by the consultant or Engineering staff. General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1 The Planning Commission's resolution summarizes the General Plan Amendment actions. An amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed to revise Section 5.2, Specific Plan Designation, to include a description DST C: \1- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt W260 ' Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 13 of the Downtown Specific Plan and to revise Exhibit No. 3, Land Use Plan (City Area), to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area. The intent is that the land use designation on the Land Use Element Exhibit 3 would be Downtown Specific Plan. The land use designations for each property within the Downtown Specific Plan area would be shown on an exhibit in the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission did recommend retaining the General Commercial land use designation and C -2 Zone for the Moorpark Mobile Home property on High Street. Staff's opinion is that the Draft Specific Plan land use designations of Old Town Commercial and Public Institutional, along with the proposed Old Town Commercial and Institutional Zones would be more appropriate for that site. The mobile home park is already a non- conforming use for the C -2 Zone. An amendment to the Circulation Element is also proposed to revise Figure 3, Bikeway Element, to reflect the planned bikeway linkages that would be consistent with recommended revisions to Specific Plan Figure No. 15. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation that improved Class II bikeway (painted bike lane) linkages to the Downtown were needed, including a Class II bikeway on Gabbert Road from Los Angeles Avenue to Poindexter Avenue and along the entire length of Poindexter Avenue, a Class II bikeway along Moorpark Avenue from Poindexter Avenue to High Street, a Class II bikeway along High Street and then continuing east along Los Angeles Avenue to Princeton Avenue, and a Class II bikeway along Spring Road from Los Angeles Avenue /New Los Angeles Avenue and continuing north of High Street. The Specific Plan consultant, RRM Design Group, has commented that painted bike lanes on High Street may not be completely consistent with the historic character of the street, and that some parking spaces could be lost as a result (maximum of approximately eight). These spaces could be regained through future improvements on the south side of High Street that would create additional parking areas. An advantage of revising Circulation Element Figure 3 to show the Class II bikeway linkages is that the City would then be eligible to apply for grants to build the bikeways (including but not limited to street widening, curb improvements, signage, and painted striping). Staff's opinion is that facilitating improved access to the Downtown has more potential positive than negative consequences. DST CAI- m\staffrpt \ccdtnsp.rpt 00026I, Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 14 Secondary Planning Area On February 19, 1997, the City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance No. 224 as an urgency measure to impose a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for new land uses for properties on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue and east side of Spring Road east of and adjacent to the proposed Downtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan consultant was also directed to include a secondary planning area in the Downtown Specific Plan and include recommendations for land use designations and zoning. Ordinance No. 229 was adopted on April 2, 1997, extending the moratorium to August 8, 1997. A subsequent extension of the moratorium was not approved. The draft Specific Plan does include a Secondary Planning Area, which is discussed on pages 15, 18, and 30, and shown on Figures 5 and 6. Figure 6 on page 33 shows the zoning recommended by the Specific Plan consultant (Old Town Commercial Zone east of Spring Road and south of the railroad tracks, and M -1 Zone south of Los Angeles Avenue and north of the railroad tracks). The Planning Commission concurred with the zoning recommended in the Specific Plan. Public testimony was received that the existing M -1 Zoning east of Spring Road and south of the railroad tracks should be retained. Mitigated Negative Declaration The Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study was provided to the City Council at the time of distribution for public review. The public review period began on July 9, 1997 and ended on August 11, 1997 (which exceeds the 30 -day review period requirement). The Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential effects of the Downtown Specific Plan Project upon the environment. Based upon the Initial Study and analysis of available information, there is substantial evidence that the significant effects of the proposed project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the adoption of mitigation measures. The recommendations of the Planning Commission for revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan, including zoning, would not affect the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, project description amendments would be appropriate. Prior to any City Council approval action, staff would need to incorporate any project description revisions into the Mitigated Negative Declaration and prepare the responses to comment letters received (Attachment C). DST C: %1- mistaffrpticcdtnsp.tpt 000262 Downtown Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 27, 1997 Page 15 1. Open the public hearing and take public testimony; 2. Discuss issues identified in staff report and Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report and provide direction to staff regarding any additional revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan; 3. Direct staff to prepare the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 4. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1 and the Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1, subject to incorporation of required revisions; 5. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance approving Zone Change No. 97 -5; and 6. If the Council decides to have only one regular meeting in December, continue the public hearing to December 17, 1997. Attachments: A. Planning Commission Resolution B. Planning Commission Staff Report for the 8 -11 -97 Meeting C. Comment Letters Received on Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents Previously Provided to City Council: 1. Draft Specific Plan dated June 30, 1997 2. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study dated July 1997 3. Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report DST CAI- mistaffrpticcdtnspapt 0002s3 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. PC -97 -345 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. PC -97 -342, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97 -1, ZONE CHANGE NO. 97 -5, AND THE MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 95 -1 WHEREAS, public notice having been given as required by law, the Planning Commission of a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 5, and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No. and subsequently continued the public hearing September 8, and September 16, 1997; and in time, form, and manner the City of Moorpark held 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97- 95-1, on August 11, 1997, to August 25, August 28, WHEREAS, the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Project is more specifically described as follows: General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1 - Amend the General Plan Land Use Element to revise Section 5.2, Specific Plan Designation, to include a description of the Downtown Specific Plan and to revise Exhibit No. 3, Land Use Plan (City Area), to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area; and amend the General Plan Circulation Element Figure No. 3, Bikeway Element, to reflect the planned bikeway linkages that would be consistent with recommended revisions to Specific Plan Figure No. 15, to facilitate bikeway access to the Downtown, including a Class II bikeway on Gabbert Road from Los Angeles Avenue to Poindexter Avenue and along the entire length of Poindexter Avenue, a Class II bikeway along Moorpark Avenue from Poindexter Avenue to High Street, a Class II bikeway along High Street and then continuing east along Los Angeles Avenue to Princeton Avenue, and a Class II bikeway along Spring Road from Los Angeles Avenue /New Los Angeles Avenue and continuing north of High Street; Zone Change No. 95 -3 - Adopt an ordinance amending Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to establish zone districts and controlling development standards for the Downtown Specific Plan site, as identified in Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan and except as revised by the recommendations included in Section 5 of this resolution, and to amend the City Zoning Map to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area; Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1 - Adopt the Downtown Specific Plan in compliance with California Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. c:\1-m\reso1\pcsp95-1.res 10 -13 -97 +00264 Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 2 and Implementation Measure No. 22 of the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, at its public hearings Commission took testimony from all those public hearing, and reached a decision General Plan Land Use Element Amendment a Downtown Specific Plan Project on August No. PC -97 -342; and on the Project, the Planning wishing to testify, closed the )n the recommendations for the �d Zone Change components of the 8, 1997, and adopted Resolution WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued its discussion on the General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and Downtown Specific Plan design and landscape guidelines on September 16, 1997, reached a decision, and directed staff to prepare a revised resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based upon the Project information presented to the Planning Commission, including but not limited to, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, Draft Specific Plan, staff reports, Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report, and staff and public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plan Project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Moorpark, as lead agency. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific. Plan Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California) and the City's CEQA Procedures. 3. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prior to making any recommendation decision for the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Project. c:\1-m\reso1\pcsp95-1.res f[113sElii 000265 Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 3 4. Based on the mitigation measures that are proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. General Plan Amendment Finding The approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1 is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and policies. Zone Change Finding The approval of Zone Change No. 97 -5 is consistent with the City's General Plan, subject to approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97- 1. Specific Plan Findings 1. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of recommended revisions, is consistent with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. 2. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of recommended revisions and imposition of mitigation measures, is consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, to revise the General Plan Land Use Element Section 5.2, Specific Plan Designation, to include a description of the Downtown Specific Plan and to revise Exhibit No. 3, Land Use Plan (City Area), to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area; and amend the General Plan Circulation Element Figure No. 3, Bikeway Element, to reflect the planned bikeway linkages that would be consistent with recommended revisions to Specific Plan Figure No. 15, to facilitate bikeway access to the Downtown, including a Class II bikeway on Gabbert Road from Los Angeles Avenue to Poindexter Avenue and along the entire length of Poindexter Avenue, a Class II bikeway along Moorpark Avenue from Poindexter Avenue to High Street, a Class II bikeway along High Street and then continuing east along Los Angeles Avenue to Princeton Avenue, and a Class II bikeway along Spring Road from Los Angeles c:\ I- m\resol \pcsp95- l .res 10-13-97 000266 Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 4 Avenue /New Los Angeles Avenue and continuing north of High Street (reference Attachment 1). SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to establish zone districts and controlling development standards for the Downtown Specific Plan site, as identified in Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan and except as revised by the recommendations included in Section 5 of this resolution, and to amend the City Zoning Map to identify the Downtown Specific Plan area. SECTION S. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 95 -1), subject to incorporation of the following list of revisions into the Specific Plan document: Page 22, Section 1.51, General Plan Consistency, Housing Element - Delete incorrect Land Use Element reference for the Housing Element consistency section. Page 23, Section 1.5.2, Consistency with City Zoning Code, paragraph 2, line 4 - Revise Figure 9 reference to Figure 6. Page 26, Section 2.1.1 - Add discussion to clarify that the General Plan Land Use Designation on Exhibit 3 of the Land Use Element will be Downtown Specific Plan and that Section 5.1, Land Use Classifications, of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan provides reference for the descriptions of land use classifications shown on the Specific Plan Land Use Map. Since the Old Town Commercial land use classification is not included in the current Land Use Element, definition of the Old Town Commercial land use classification is required in Section 2.1.1 of the Specific Plan. A discussion of the relationship of the Downtown Specific Plan to the General Plan Land Use Element should also be included in Section 2.1.1. Page 26, Section 2.1.1.A, Special Commercial and Industrial Zones, line 4 - Delete the last word, "the ,,, in line 4. Also delete reference to the expanded use list for the Neighborhood Commercial (C -1) Zone and the permitted use list for the Industrial Park (M -1) Zone. (Explanation: The Table 4 list of permitted uses for the C -1 Zone and all of Table 5, M -1 list of permitted uses, are recommended for deletion, because the Planning Commission is studying an c:\ 1- m\reso1 \pcsp95- l .res 10-13-97 00026'7 Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 5 amendment to Title 17, Zoning, that includes proposed revisions to the C -1 Zone and M -1 Zone list of permitted uses.) Page 26, Section 2.1.1.B, Residential and Office Zones - Delete Charles Street Office Overlay District reference. (Explanation: Planning Commission recommends maintaining Charles Street as a single- family residential neighborhood.) Pages 27 and 28, Table 4, Permitted Uses for Old Town Commercial (OTC) Zone - Incorporate revisions to table, as shown on Attachment 2. Page 30, Section 2.1.1.F, Secondary Planning Area - Revise Figure 9 reference in line 2 to Figure 6. Also revise text in paragraph 2 to delete reference to Light Industrial /Industrial Park (M -1) land use and Table 5. Pages 31 and 32, Table 5 - Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation that the property east of Spring Road and south of the railroad tracks be zoned as Old Town Commercial (OTC) versus Industrial Park (M -1), Table 5 should be deleted, any text reference should also be deleted, and all subsequent tables should be renumbered. (Explanation: Table 5 consists of a restricted list of permitted uses for the M -1 Zone, and that table was considered not needed in the Specific Plan if the area east of Spring Road is zoned OTC.) Page 33, Figure 6, Moorpark Secondary Planning Area Zoning - Revise the title to also reference land use designations, and show planned land use designations. Page 35, Figure 7, Specific Plan Land Use Map - Revise proposed land uses consistent with Attachment 3 to this resolution. Page 36, Figure 8, Specific Plan Zoning Map - Revise proposed zoning consistent with Attachment 4 to this resolution. Page 37, Figure 9, Charles Street Professional Office Overlay District - Delete this figure based on recommendation to retain existing R -1 Zone, and renumber subsequent figures. Pages 41 -116, Section 2.2, Development Standards and Guidelines for Specific Plan Zones - The heading for each described zone district must be consistent to include the full title and abbreviation, such c:\1 -m\reso1\pcsp95-1.res 10-13-97 0002 Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 6 as change "Medium Density Residential Zone: R -111 to Single Family Residential (R -1), consistent with Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Delete references to land use designations, which should not be described in Section 2.2. For Section 2.2, Design Guidelines, for all zones identified in the Downtown Specific Plan, delete Spanish Mission and Pueblo architecture references and revise all illustrations and photographs to eliminate examples of these types of architecture and design features. Architectural styles to be encouraged include Victorian, Western, Agrarian, Early American Commercial, Eastlake, Eastern Stick, and Spanish Colonial. An eclectic mix is preferred. Page 41, Section 2.2.1.A.3, R -1 Zone Building Setbacks - Revise text to reference Section 17.24.060.A of Title 17 of the Moorpark Municipal Code for allowed intrusions into required setbacks, including setback requirements for detached accessory structures, and Section 17.24.070 for other miscellaneous setback requirements. Page 41, Section 2.2.1.A.4, R -1 Zone Height - Revise text to identify that the maximum height of an accessory structure is 15 feet and that the maximum height of a patio cover and second story deck, not including railing height, shall be 12 feet. Section 17.24.080 of Title 17 should be referenced for exceptions to height limits. Page 49, Section 2.2.1.C, R -1 Zone Landscape Guidelines, revise reference to Suggested Plant Palette (currently Table 6) , and include the Suggested Plant Palette Table following Section 2.2.1.C.2 or in the Appendices. Page 51, Section 2.2.2, High to Very High Density Residential Zone, RPD - The discussion on this page should be rewritten to be consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendations for properties to be rezoned to RPD, and the allowed density range, consistent with Attachment 4 to this resolution. Page 60, Section 2.2.2.C, RPD Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette. Page 62, Section 2.2.3.A.1, Office Zone - C -0, Site Development Standards, Land Use and Permitted Uses - The discussion incorrectly identifies that rezoning from C -1 to C -0 will result in a number of existing auto retail /service uses along Moorpark Avenue becoming legal non - conforming uses with the establishment of the C -O Zone designation. Repair and reconditioning services and automobile body work and painting uses are not shown as permitted uses for the C -1 c:\I-m\resoI\pcsp95-I.res 10-13-97 0 0269 C Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 7 Zone in Table 17.20.060, Permitted Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones, in the current Zoning Code. The text should be revised to clarify that automobile repair uses are already non - conforming. Pages 69 to 71, Section 2.2.3.D, Office Zone - CO, Charles Street Professional Office Overlay District - This section should be deleted based on Planning Commission's recommendation to retain existing R -1 Zone. Page 72, Section 2.2.4.A, OTC Zone, Site Development Standards - Language should be added to encourage the use of paseos. Page 72, Section 2.2.4.A.2, OTC Zone Building Setbacks - If the property east of Spring Road and south of the railroad tracks is zoned OTC, the setback discussion should be revised to clarify that the landscaped setback requirements, for that area, would be consistent with Table 17.24.020.B of Title 17 (which requires a 30- foot landscaped setback adjacent to arterials and a 20 -foot landscaped setback for two -lane local and rural collectors). Page 74, Section 2.2.4.A.5.g, Old Town Commercial, Mixed Use Development - Second sentence has an editorial error and should read: "Access for parking and driveways shall be taken from adjoining alleys or alternative streets when available." Page 85, Section 2.2.4.B.9, OTC Zone Building Materials, Roofs - Delete standing seam metal roof and add corrugated metal. Page 85, Section 2.2.4.B.9, OTC Zone Building Materials, Building Walls - Delete split -faced block and add stone or brick wainscoting. Page 88, Section 2.2.4.C, OTC Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct• reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette. Page 89, Section 2.2.4.C.3, Plant Palette - Delete this section, because it mandates adherence to the plant palette table. Pages 89 and 90, Table 6, Downtown Specific Plan Suggested Plant Palette - Relocate table per previous recommendation. A note should be added to the table that additional plant species can be substituted for the species listed, if such species are consistent with the architectural themes encouraged in the Downtown Specific Plan area and will not result in damage to infrastructure or a maintenance problem for the public streets and sidewalk areas. c:\ 1- m\resol \pcsp95- l .res 10 -13 -97 000270 Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 8 Page 91, Section 2.2.S.A.1, Neighborhood Commercial (C -1) - Revise reference to Table 4 list of permitted uses to reference Table 17.20.060 of Title 17. (Explanation: Planning Commission has recommended that the C -1 Zone list of permitted uses on Table 4 be deleted.) Page 95, Section 2.2.5.C, C -1 Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette. Page 97, Section 2.2.6, Commercial Planned Development (CPD) - Revise front setback requirement from "None" to be consistent with Table 17.24.020.B of Title 17 (which requires a 30 -foot landscaped setback adjacent to arterials and a 20 -foot landscaped setback for two -lane local and rural collectors). Page 98, Section 2.2.6.C, CPD Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette. Page 99, Section 2.2.7, Institutional Zone - Revise front setback requirement from "None" to 20 feet of landscaping along Moorpark Avenue. Page 105, Section 2.2.4.B.4, Institutional Zone Design Guidelines, Building Materials, Walls - Delete split -faced block and add stone or brick wainscoting. Page 108, Section 2.2.7.C, Institutional Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette. Page 109, Section 2.2.8.A.1, Industrial Park /Light Industrial (M -1), Site Development Standards, Land Use - Revise the discussion to also reference the existing industrial development in the secondary planning area and to delete reference to Table 5. Section 2.2.8.A.2, Building Setbacks, and revise the front setback requirement from "None" to be consistent with Table 17.24.020.B of Title 17 (which requires a 30 -foot landscaped setback adjacent to arterials and a 20 -foot landscaped setback for two -lane local and rural collectors). Page 113, Section 2.2.8.B.4, M -1 Zone Design Guidelines, Building Materials, Walls - Delete split -faced block and add stone or brick wainscoting. Page 116, Section 2.2.8.C, M -1 Zone Landscape Guidelines - Correct reference to location of Suggested Plant Palette. c:11- mlreso1\pcsp95 -1.res 10-13-97 OW2'71. Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 9 Following Page 130, Figures 11 and 12, High Street Vision Plan Sheets A and B - Revise plan to delete raised, landscaped median. Page 134, Figure 15, Public Pathways and Plazas - Revise Figure 15 to show a Class II bikeway along Poindexter Avenue, a Class II bikeway along Moorpark Avenue from Poindexter Avenue to High Street, a Class II bikeway along High Street and then continuing east along Los Angeles Avenue, and a Class II bikeway along all of Spring Road including continuing north of Charles Street; and also revise Figure 15 to delete the Class II bikeway shown on Charles Street and change the Class II bikeway to a Class III on Moorpark Avenue beginning at High Street and continuing north to the Specific Plan boundary. (Explanation: The Planning Commission recommends that Class II bikeways be provided to facilitate access to the Downtown area of the City.) Page 135, Section 3.3.8, Medians - Revise discussion to delete proposal for a raised and planted median on High Street, and reference other potential pedestrian friendly improvements such as are discussed in Section 1.4.1 on Page 138. The second sentence of Section 3.3.8 should be revised to clarify that the construction of medians on Moorpark Avenue (State Route 23) may not be approved by Caltrans, due to the state highway designation; however, a median on Moorpark Avenue should be considered as a long -term objective if a State Route 23 bypass is constructed and the City assumes responsibility for Moorpark Avenue. Page 138, Section 3.4.1, Traffic Calming, second paragraph - Revise reference to a High Street median. Revise stop sign recommendation for the High Street and Bard Street intersection to a pedestrian activated stop light. Page 139, Figure 17, High Street Section - Revise the street section to delete the raised, landscaped median. Page 140, Section 3.4.4, Closure of Magnolia Street - Add clarification language that the Vision Plan showing the closure of Magnolia Street is intended to help guide future development, but in no way is intended as a mandatory configuration for implementation. Page 141, Section 3.5, Pedestrian /Bicycle Circulation - Revise planned bikeway system discussion to be consistent with Attachment 1 to this resolution. c:\1 -m\reso1\pcsp95-1.res 10-13-97 OOOZ7Z Resolution No. PC -97 -345 Page 10 Page 142, Section 3.5.1, Bicycle Racks and Bench /Rest Stops - Revise the last sentence due to missing text pertaining to where bicycle racks can be located. Page 171, Section 5.2.1.E, Program 1 - Revise reference to High Street median. Page 176, Table 13 - Revise High Street cost estimates pertaining to raised median construction. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission hereby rescinds Resolution No. PC -97 -342, which is superseded by this resolution incorporating all recommendations of the Commission on General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97 -5, and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No. 95 -1. The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Millhouse, Miller, and Lowenberg, and Chair Acosta NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Norcross PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997. Ernesto Acosta, Chair ATTEST: Celia La Fleur Secretary Attachments: 1. Revised Circulation Element Figure 3 2. Revised Specific Plan Table 4 3. Revised Specific Plan Figure 7 4. Revised Specific Plan Figure 8 c:\ 1- m\resol \pcsp95- l .res 10-13-97 000273 ATTACHMENT 1 TO FIlU10RE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - — - — - — - — is.. I i -,:.- 'j, STRFt� • I TO REGIONAL PARK I :• Y i ■ / it: .1 Cr " S•NeJAMPLIS ' N PARK / •• I T vA 1 1 IIF Jr IMI .lf'Y It.WA /. r SR.ItN I SP • � \����� \ \ \��S I 1 1 we* i fix L '�/ V0 T -- C.1 �\\-- ��— </ //. •: /■ ■ss`.■ \Lower ' • Wea/c 1 I l n. ymt/k ��■Iw♦ as v bm .m dm IIIIIIIIIIIIIII CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) - A facility designed fa exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a banner, grade separation or open spare. Cross -now& by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized CLASS 11 BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) - A paved arc^ of It roadwav designated for preferential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and stgnage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) . A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. there are no 'penal pavement walkways and Mcycle traffic shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway, system are idenuGed in the takcwav network. Roadways which are not designated with a (.lass It bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class 11 facthues or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class 111 bikeways. CITY LIMB BOUNDARY WA 0.Y,:::••••.... /............ Mason TIFRRA FIGURE 3 CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT BIKEWAY ELEMENT May 13. 1992 manna I CLASS .11 BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) - A pawed are^ of u roadway designated for preferential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and stgnage indicate the presence of ► bike lane on the roadway (New Class II Bikeways, upgraded from Class III Bikeways) 0002'74 ATTACHMENT 2 Pe- emitted u5�5 tj Town Cvftt~rei46 OTC) FOR ZONE SYMBOL KEY Add Ad►n , n i o-�i �� ', Temporary use permit ♦ Permitted by zone clearance —� Planning Commission-app roved planned development permit - -- p City Council-approved planned development permit 'Planning Commission-approved conditional use permit ■ City Council- Conditional Use Permit PIC0601;c QcL.I�eraq� �jQ)�y OTC ss do d "line old Town USE LIST F� 1 1 0 +k e r e l co I,o i a l• AN Commercial Amusement and recreational facilities see definitions in Chapter 17.08 Art gallerie s, museums, and botanical gardens Automobile repair, including component repair Automobile service stations Banks and related financial offices and institutions Barber, hairstylists, manicurists Tanning centers Bars, taverns and nightclubs Care facilities: For? or more persons (Day) IWO Churches, s na o ues and other buildings used for religious worship Club ro'ects temporary outdoor Clubhouses With alcoholic beverages Communications facilities Radio and television broadcasting 96Mkm g-l: Crop production Dog and cat grooming Dressmaking and tailor shops Dwelling for su erindendent or owner ■ Dwelling, caretaker Education and training sec school--, Festivals and similawevents, temporary s ac o Government buildings, excluding correctional institutions Fire stations Grading n in cori-iWIct!on WAH a de rv' Health club/ mnasium see definitions Health services such as Professional offices and out atient clinics Hotels motels and --a r, eok inn Kennels animal hospitals, boarding and grooming - small animals Laundry service Laundromats Laundry service flight) 910 Libraries and information center Less -Bar, 5,0ev CublC rrdg more -'r, 50,00 cubic LJ6Lrc{g Q Land Vse andZonirW 000275 77 M Table 4 (continued) �brfs, �f�on T 1..,.I.. -I .4..IMY 11 V77f1••VI Manufacturing and re air of hoto rahic and optical goods Martial arts and dance studios Motion picture and TV production, and related activities and structures Temporary maximum 47 days in an 180-day period) Offices: business, professional, and administrative, except health and veterinary Optical Goods Or anizations rofessional religious, political, labor, trade, youth, etc. Parks — u b Parkin lots Public utility facilities Offices only Pharmacy, accessory retail for prescription pharmaceuticals only Photocopy/quick printers Photofinishing 1 -hour photo) Produce stands retail 0 Repair of personal goods such as jewel shoes and saddlery Restaurants cafes and cafeterias Retails sales ar.td erdal-speciet'Ses (record, el t',wng,videaIeweM-- and 4ey ale �2S�nuYVr� a Gn�e5 Ou't51c� e- OA n O.YepQ Retail trade e O ra o 1 . e c Lumber and building materials sale ands a N�l9� 1 a M O -r O Schools: Elements and seconds nonboardin only) Schools: Professional vocational art craft and self-improvement Storage of building materials, temporary UCT cn Uses and structures accessory Outdoor sales and services temporary see definitions in Chapter 17.08 Title 17 Repair of products retailed Vaccination clinics temporary, for et animals Veterinary clinics, et animals only Water reduction, storage, and distribution facilities: private purveyors OA�dovr Sal �5 arcc� Q u- 04 f S a e s c► rc GL -t s 170 ra r S Ell Land Use andZoni — 1000276 74 ATTACHMENT 3 Clete i0rti R*+.i n C-2 MR Park c Genrra t cornr•+ore io.t ! - a tj 1 s' ❑ El 1 _.J L i-S 1 Flory _..__... 1 Schol Los Angeles Avenue Not to Scale i Legend , a t P a tj 1 s' ❑ El 1 _.J L i-S 1 Flory _..__... 1 Schol Los Angeles Avenue Not to Scale i Legend 0 Medium Density Residential (46 du) High to Very High Density Residential (7 -15 du) Office Aad Very 144, Res ;c6mttc Old Town Commercial ® Crs-ZO du Neighborhood Commercial ® General Commercial ® Light Industrial ® Public Institutional ■ Parks Specific Plan Boundary Specific Plan Land Use Map Figure 7 Land Vse and Zoning O2►�r►7 35 014! Ste Rt'�sin C-2 ;Cor M H p6ork ATTACHMENT 4 RPD- 7 -14u ** � Imo/ iiiii 1 I■NE■ INNN■ \ 1 i • t♦ r, r w w w M w . 9w t Flory 9 School Angela Avenue R -I Vowntown Specific pCan R -) /— RPD-Q.k*vAA 20 N r� RPD -15u I�tttt�tt ttttt�ttttt�Y 11111111 - ! - -- Ir d Not to Scale ro Legend Y U (R - 1) Single Family Residential 0 ' (I ® (RPD) Residential Planned Development, 7 -14 units/acre* r I (C - 0) Office } _❑ ® (C - 1) Neighborhood Commercial l (( ■ (C - OT) Old Town Commercial I ' ® (CAD) Commercial Planned Development ® (1) Institutional f� * -- ® (M - I) Industrial Park Cat. Specific Plan Boundary * See Charles Street Office Overlay District ** Density bonus of up to 14du allowed with lot consolidation and replacement structures Specific Plan Zoning Map Figure s Land Vse and Zonin 36 ATTACHMENT B Item 9.A. AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION A. HEARING DATE: B. HEARING TIME: August 11, 1997 7:00 p.m. C. HEARING LOCATION: D. PROJECT: Moorpark City Hall Downtown Specific Plan City Council Chambers SP -95 -1 799 Moorpark Avenue General Plan Amendment 97 -1 Moorpark, CA 93021 Zone Change 97 -5 E. STAFF CONTACTS: // F. CONSULTANT CONTACT: Nelson Miller, Direct4z&^ LeeAnne Hagmaier of Community Development RRM Design Group 3026 S. Higuera Street Deborah S. Traffenstedt San Luis Obispo, CA 95354 Principal Planner G. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed Downtown Specific Plan Project consists of: (1) A General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 97 -1 to revise the land use designations shown on the Land Use Plan for various properties within the Specific Plan area and to amend the Land Use Element text pertaining to land use classifications; (2) A Zone Change No. 97 -5 to revise Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to include new zoning standards, revise the list of permitted uses, and to revise the City Zoning Map for the Specific Plan area; and (3) Adoption of the Moorpark Downtown, Specific Plan (SP- 95 -1), which includes land use and zoning maps, a streetscape beautification program, pedestrian and traffic circulation improvements, and specific design guidelines and development standards to guide future development within the Specific Plan area. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is intended to be adopted for the Downtown Specific Plan Project. Based upon an Initial Study and analysis DST cAl- m\staffrptlpcdtn.sp 000279 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 2 of available information, there significant effects of the proposed of insignificance with the adoption is substantial evidence that the project can be mitigated to a level of mitigation measures. A Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed an earlier draft of the Downtown Specific Plan, and prepared a report which identified 18 issues that addressed Specific Plan implementation, financing, land uses, design, and physical improvements. Advisory Committee identified issues are addressed in this staff report and in Attachment 1, Comments from RRM Design Group (the Specific Plan consultant) on the Steering Committee Recommendations. The Downtown Specific Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study, and Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee Report were provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover. Requested Action And Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony on the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change; and 2. Discuss issues identified in staff report and Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report, and continue public hearing to August 25, 1997; and 3. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution recommending approval of the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, subject to incorporation of Specific Plan revisions as identified by the Planning Commission. H. BACKGROUND: In 1989, the City hired the Planning Center to identify and address the issues of revitalization of the Downtown, which resulted in the preparation of the Downtown Plan. That Plan addressed opportunities for change, and includes a recommended land use concept for the Downtown, general design guidelines, and an implementation plan. One of the implementation measures identified was to initiate a regulatory type of specific plan having specific standards and design measures addressed in detail rather than policy statements. In May 1995, the City hired RRM Design Group to prepare a Downtown Specific Plan, to implement the 1989 Downtown Study recommendations. As part of the Specific Plan preparation, all of the recommendations in the 1989 study were reviewed and summarized by RRM Design Group to determine DST 01- m\Ctaffipt\pcdtn.sp Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 3 whether individual programs have been implemented, are currently being implemented, or have not yet been acted upon. The summary review of the 1989 Downtown Study is included in the Appendix for the Specific Plan, which was provided separately to the Planning Commission. The Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan was developed by RRM Design Group over a two -year time period (from May 1995 through July 1997) and involved public outreach and investigation through a series of methods, which included but were not limited to: 1) a market analysis study to estimate the amount of spending leakage leaving the City; 2) a resident survey that was sent to over 800 homeowners in the City and addressed issues of downtown image and architectural character, use of the Metrolink station and retail and business opportunities for the Downtown versus Los Angeles Avenue commercial areas; 3) joint City Council /Planning Commission workshops in 1995 and 1997; 4) a Downtown merchant survey that was distributed as a follow -up to a December 1995 joint City Council /Planning Commission workshop; and 5) appointment of a Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee to review a preliminary draft of the Downtown Specific Plan and develop recommendations for revitalizing the Downtown. The Committee's report is summarized and analyzed in Section M, Advisory Committee Issues, of this staff report and in Attachment 1. The Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan furthers the vision for the overall revitalization of the downtown and addresses design standards, guidelines, and a strategy for business attraction and development of the City /Redevelopment Agency owned parcels in the Downtown. I. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS: The proposed adoption of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change require legislative, rather than adjudicatory actions by the City Council; therefore, there is no time limit for adoption. The City Council, however, has directed staff to expedite Planning Commission review. The Council's stated preference was that the Planning Commission complete its review and provide a recommendation to the Council, so as to allow the City Council hearings to begin in September 1997. J. DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (PROJECT SITE): The Specific Plan area includes High Street, at its core, along with other parts of Downtown Moorpark, such as residential neighborhoods to the north of High Street, the railroad right -of -way south of High Street, and the properties along Moorpark Avenue from City Hall south to Los Angeles Avenue (reference Specific Plan Study Area shown on Attachment DST cAl- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp 000281 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 4 2) . The Specific Plan area also extends east of Spring Road, between Flinn Avenue and High Street /Los Angeles Avenue (reference Secondary Planning Area shown on Attachment 3). K. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS: 1. General Plan Amendment (GPA -97 -1) A General Plan Amendment is proposed to revise the land use designations shown on the Land Use Plan for various properties within the Specific Plan area and to amend the Land Use Element text pertaining to land use classifications (reference Attachment 4 to this report, which is a figure that shows the proposed Land Use Plan). General Plan consistency is addressed in Section 1.5.1 of the Specific Plan. 2. Zoning Code Amendment (ZC -97 -5) An amendment to Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code is proposed to include new zoning standards, revise the list of permitted uses, and to revise the City Zoning Map for the Specific Plan area (reference Attachment 5 to this report, which is a figure that shows the Zoning Map amendments). Pages 8 through 16 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration include a more complete description of the zoning amendments that are proposed. Consistency with Title 17 is also addressed in Section 1.5.2 of the Specific Plan. 3. Specific Plan (SP -95 -1) The City's General Plan requires the use of specific plans to systematically implement General Plan policies and priorities and identifies that the intent of a specific plan is to achieve a long- term cohesive development program which is responsive to the physical and economic opportunities and constraints of the specific plan area. As required by Section 65451 of the California Government Code, the content of a Specific Plan shall include the following: A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (a) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. DST cAl- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp 000282 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 5 Section 2, Land Use and Zoning, of the draft Specific Plan does address the distribution, location, and extent of the various proposed land uses, and also includes development standards, design guidelines, and regulations pertaining to private property maintenance, renovation, and expansion. (b) The proposed distribution, location, extent, and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. Discussion of existing and planned circulation and streetscape beautification is included in Section 3 of the draft Specific Plan, and public utilities, infrastructure, services, and safety is addressed in Section 4. (c) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and .standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. Section 2, Land Use and Zoning, includes Development Standards and Guidelines for Specific Plan Zones. Standards are regulations that are intended to be adopted as zoning code, and design and landscape guidelines are intended to complement the mandatory site development standards by providing good examples of potential design solutions and assist the project applicant in understanding the City'& goals and objectives for high quality development within the various zone districts. (d) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs a, b, and c. Section 5, Implementation and Administration of the Specific Plan includes discussion of potential funding sources, recommended implementation programs, public streetscape improvements, and specific plan administration, adoption and amendment procedures. DST cAl- mistaffrptlpcdtn.sp 000283 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 6 The Specific Plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. Section 1.5, Relationship to City Plans and Programs, addresses General Plan and City Zoning Code consistency. L. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover. The Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential effects of the Downtown Specific Plan Project upon the environment. Based on the data contained in the Initial Study, a determination was made that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was the appropriate environmental document, because mitigation measures have been proposed that will ensure that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Neither the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines nor the City's CEQA Procedures require a public hearing for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The public review period began on July 9, 1997 and will end at 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 1997 (which exceeds the 30 -day review period requirement). M. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ISSUES: A Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Council in March 1997 to review the preliminary draft of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Committee was comprised of twelve citizens from throughout the community and included residents and business owners. The Council requested the Committee to develop a report with recommendations and suggestions regarding the plan, which would be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration during the public hearings on the Draft Specific Plan. A copy of the Committee's report has been provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover. The Committee's list of issues is contained in Exhibit C of their report and are also listed below. Many of the Committee's recommendations identify issues which relate to general revitalization of the downtown area or recommended implementation measures to assist in revitalization and do not necessarily require revisions to the Specific Plan. These issues also relate to various issues the City "Council and the Redevelopment Agency are considering, or may wish to consider separately form the Downtown Specific Plan. DST c:\1- m\staffrpt \pcdtn.sp 000284 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 7 Staff has listed the Advisory Committee identified issues below and provided comments /recommendations following each issue. In addition, Attachment 1 is the RRM Design Group's comments on the Advisory Committee Report. Staff has not included additional comments in this staff report on the Advisory Committee's architectural/ aesthetic recommendations, since Attachment 1 provides comments on those recommendations. The Downtown Citizens Advisory. Committee recommendations regarding re- activating the Committee for various purposes are not addressed below, because additional Committee involvement would need to be determined by the City Council. 1. East Gateway Advisory Committee: Must Resolve to Implement Plan Perception = Reality = "Stay Away" Consistent And Constant Enforcement Needs Firm Commitment (a) Negotiated hours (b) Established location on property for laborers (c) Cultural - ethnic sensitivity (d) Assign resources officer as primary duty, assisted by bicycle patrol (e) Enforce City ordinance requiring cooperation of property owner (f) Reinstall landscaping and irrigation, and enforce regular maintenance to discourage loitering /standing in planter areas (g) Consider relocation to City /RDA property as an alternative if the above is not implemented Staff: Issues identified pertaining to Typsy Fox and day laborers do not require any revision to the Specific Plan, but were identified by Committee as concerns to be resolved to implement Downtown revitalization. 2. Implementation Plan Advisory Committee: DST c: \1- m\staffrpt \pcdtn.sp Add Eastern Properties to Plan Boundary (See Moratorium Item, Ordinance No. 224) (Exhihi - (i) 000285 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 8 DCC to be Activated Again to Review and Recommend, When Available Design Review Committee, With Staff Support, To Be Formed To Function in "Pre- Application" Stages of Project Proposals (Advisory to Director, Planning Commission and City Council) Staff : Eastern Properties identified in Ordinance No. 224 were added to the Specific Plan area and are identified as the secondary planning area. Advantages of a Design Review Committee are that it would promote citizen involvement and /or could be structured so as to include members with a broad range of expertise and backgrounds. Disadvantages are that the approval time period for projects could be lengthened (depending upon the responsibilities of the Design Review Committee) , and the Committee could require staff support, such as preparing agendas and reports, meeting notices, and minutes. Typically, staff would also need to attend Design Review Committee meetings to present information and answer questions. The parameters of Design Committee involvement would need to be clearly defined in the Specific Plan, such as what applications would be reviewed by the Committee and when. Any Design Review Committee should not duplicate the role of the Planning Commission, but would need to be advisory to the Commission and City Council. Also, should such a Committee be comprised of design professionals, or be more focused on residents and /or business owners in the area would need to be determined. ' As an example, the City of Simi Valley has four Neighborhood Councils and each Council has 13 members that reside in the designated district area. The Councils are provided project and environmental information after staff has determined an application complete, but before scheduling the project for Planning Commission hearing. The Neighborhood Council's recommendation is then advisory to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Neighborhood Councils are not formally involved before an application completeness determination by staff, because of the 30 -day statutory time limit for a determination of application completeness. The City of Simi Valley has had to provide staff support for the The staff time is billed to the however, additional staff was DST c: \1- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp to fund a full -time position four Neighborhood Councils. project application deposit; necessary to support this 000Z86 Z86 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 9 program. The need for additional staff time may conflict with the Advisory Committee's recommendation pertaining to a recommended 50 percent fee reduction (see No. 5, below). 3. Financing Plan Advisory Committee: Gisler Field Money To Be Designated For Housing Projects In Downtown Specific Plan Area nesignatP Significant "Tax Increment" Money to Downtown Specific Plan Area DCC To Be Activated Again To Review and Recommend, When Available Staff : Recommendations pertaining to Gisler Field sale revenue and redevelopment tax increment money to be used /designated for Downtown Specific Plan area do not require any revisions to the Specific Plan; rather, they are subject to determination by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. 4. Approval Authority Advisory Committee: See Revised Resolution No. 95 -1135 - Once The City Council Has Adopted The Specific Plan, Then The Director And Planning Commission Can Implement (With The Design Review .Committee Advisory Input) . City Council Must Approve Any Amendments To The Specific Plan, And The Appeals Process Can Be Employed By Anyone (Recommend 4 Hours \$344.00 Appeal Fee) - F.xhih; - ( ) Staff : Exhibit C -2 of the Advisory Committee's Report identifies recommended revisions to the Resolution of the City Council that establishes certain permit approval processes (currently Resolution No. 95- 1135) . The Committee's suggested revisions are intended to apply to the Downtown Specific Plan area only and could be incorporated into the Specific Plan. Page 181 of the Draft Specific Plan already details the amendment procedure for the Specific Plan. Consistent with State Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. The legislative body for the City of Moorpark is the City Council. DST c: \1- m\staffTpt \pcdtn.sp 00028'7 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 10 The Committee also recommended allowing the Planning Commission to have more approval authority for commercial and industrial projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area (allow Planning Commission approval for proposals containing less than 40,000 square feet of gross floor area for all buildings involved versus 20,000 square feet as authorized by City Council Resolution No. 95 -1135. The Advisory Committee also suggests that the language that would require City Council approval for commercial and industrial Planned Development Permits within 300 feet of a residential zone or use would be deleted. If the Planning Commission concurs, a recommendation could be included in the Commission's resolution that the zoning section of the Specific Plan be amended to clarify permit approval authority for the Downtown Specific Plan area consistent with the Advisory Committee's recommendations. The Advisory Committee's recommendation regarding a $344 (4 hour) appeal fee does not require any revision to the Specific Plan, but would require a revision to the City Council fee resolution as an implementation action. 5. Fees Advisory Committee: 50% Reduction In Deposit Fees (And Commit To Process Within Deposit Fee), For Downtown Specific Plan Area. This Recognizes That The Process Is More Efficient Due To Established Detail and Guidelines In Specific Plan The Recommended Approval Levels Revision Also Reduces Process Time, and Staff Time Staff : The Advisory Committee has recommended a 50 percent reduction in the deposit amount for the Downtown Specific Plan area. As a follow -up implementation measure for the Specific Plan, staff could further investigate potential processing time efficiency for projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area and then provide a recommendation to the City Council in conjunction with the yearly fee schedule adoption. Any savings that may be gained due to the proposal to allow the Planning Commission more approval authority may be expended if additional staff involvement is required for a Design Review Committee. Also, many special circumstances relating to uses and structures in the Downtown area, especially relating to applicant's desires to reduce costs, minimize improvements or changds, frequently have lead to considerably greater amounts of staff time in these areas, rather than less. The City's policy has been for full cost recovery of all costs associated with processing of applications. The current fee schedule already incorporates a lesser fee for a commercial or industrial planned development permit for an existing building, which is frequently more applicable to the Downtown than other areas of the City. DST c: \1- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp 00028N. Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 11 6. Old Town Commercial Zone Uses List Advisory Committee: Any Deletions Should Be Deleted From "C -111, 11C -2" and CPD Zones in Downtown Specific Plan Area, Or All Zoning Should Be C -OT See Uses Deleted (Table -5) Exhibit -C(4) Staf f : As referenced above, the Committee's recommendations for the list of permitted uses in the C -1 and OTC Zones is included as Exhibit C(4) to their report. Attachment 6 to this staff report is a marked up copy of Specific Plan Table 4 that incorporates a combination of Committee and staff recommended revisions. The Committee has recommended deleting automobile repair as an allowed use for the C -1 Zone, since it is not currently permitted by the existing Zoning Code. Staff concurs. Other uses the Committee has recommended deleting include kennels, Laundromats, tanning centers, public utility facilities, lumber and building materials sales yards, and water production, storage, and distribution facilities (private purveyors). The Planning Commission should discuss the appropriateness of the recommended revisions. The CPD Zone only applies to the Town Center and adjacent property (which is already zoned CPD), a small area that is currently part of the Metrolink parking lot, and an area south of Los Angeles Avenue and east of Spring Road (which is also already zoned CPD). No changes to the list of allowed uses appears to be needed for CPD zoned properties. The reason for not zoning all Moorpark Avenue and High Street areas the same was to recognize that there is a need for different zone standards and design guidelines for two very different areas. i 7. Police Resource Center Advisory Committee: Relocate To Downtown -High Street Area, As Soon As Possible Staff : This is an Implementation measure that does not affect the Specific Plan. DST c:\I- m\staffrptlpcdtn.sp € 00289 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 12 8. Medians Advisory Committee: High Street - No Moorpark Avenue - Yes!, As Proposed Staff : Staff concurs with the recommendation to not have a raised median on High Street, due to past use of the street for parade and street fair type uses. other pedestrian friendly measures could be incorporated such as are discussed on page 138 of Specific Plan and in Attachment 1). 9. R -2 Zone Advisory Committee: Recommend for Flory Avenue and 1st, 2nd, And 3rd Streets (Alley Access Areas). No "RPD" Zoning (CUP for 2nd Unit) Staff: Disagree with use of R -2 zoning for the purpose of permitting a second dwelling unit. Based on Section 65852.2 of the State Government Code, a local government may, by ordinance, provide that a second unit is allowed in single- family and multi - family zones. Local governments can designate areas where second units may be permitted and may impose standards, including but not limited to parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size. Because of the overcrowding conditions in some of the single - family areas'of the City (including the Flory Avenue, and First through Third Streets, the City's Zoning Code was amended several years ago to require a minimum one - fourth acre or larger lot. The R -2 Zone is an old County of Ventura zone district designation that is no longer used. The R -1 Zone may be more appropriate for Flory Avenue versus the RPD Zone, which is used for new residential areas or areas that may convert to higher density, such as the proposal for Charles Street. 10. Filming Advisory Committee: Significantly Increase Fees and Designate Money To Downtown Specific Plan Area (Less Staff Costs) DST c:\1- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp 000290 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 13 Staff : This is an Implementation measure that does not affect the Specific Plan. 11. Plastic Signs Advisory Committee: Recommend No Internally Illuminated "Cans" In Downtown Specific Plan Area. Logos O.K. (20% of Signed Area Maximum) Staff : As a follow -up implementation measure, the City Council could initiate amendment of Chapter 17.40, Sign Requirements. The scope of work for the Specific Plan, as approved by the City Council, did not include sign code amendments. Only gateway signage is addressed in the Specific Plan. 12. Delete Magnolia Street Promenade Advisory Committee: Should Not Be All "Senior Rental ". Recommend Food Court, Retail, office, etc., With Vehicular Access To Charles Street Staff: The Committee's comments pertain to the conceptual uses shown on the Vision Plan for High Street. As discussed on page 29 of the Specific Plan, the Vision Plans "...are intended to help guide future development, but in no way are intended as mandatory configurations for implementation." The zoning will control the actual uses that eventually may locate in the Magnolia Street area. The closure of Magnolia Street is not mandated by the Specific Plan as currently written. 13. Landscape Percentage Advisory Committee: 20% For Specific Plan Area, Except High Street And Any Allowed "011- Lot Line Projects Staf f : The current Zoning Code requirement is 10 percent. The Committee's recommended percentage would impose considerable additional constraints, based on the lot sizes involved, although the Specific Plan requirement DST c: \1- m\staffrpt\pcdm.sp 000231 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 14 for a 20 -foot minimum setback for the C -O and C -1 Zones will allow the opportunity for landscaping along the street frontage. In addition, the criteria for conversion of residential structures, as identified on page 71, include requirements for a conditional use permit and the application of additional standards or controls and site development upgrades in order to maintain neighborhood compatibility. Increased landscaping and screening requirements are listed as examples of additional standards and controls that can be required. 14. Star Of The Valley Advisory Committee: Adopt Sub - Committee Recommendation For Marketing /Logo In MDSP Area Staff : This is an Implementation measure that does not affect the Specific Plan, but can be incorporated into the Recommended Implementation Programs section. 15. Overcrossing - SPRR Advisory Committee: Recommend Additional And Enhanced Pedestrian At -Grade Crossings. "Metrolink Access" Is A Good Example Recommend Abandoning Pursuit Of Pedestrian Overcrossing(s) Due To High Cost And Design Difficulty (Cost) In Meeting ADA Requirements, Unless A Proposed Project Can Demonstrate Functional And Economic Feasibility Staf f : Railroad crossings are already provided at existing access points to the neighborhood to the south of High Street. The second comment does not require any revision to the Specific Plan, which does not address pedestrian overcrossings. 16. Density North of Charles Street Advisory Committee: Reinforce Single Family Residence Upgrades and Stabilize This Area Recommend No Change Of Zone With Provide Policy Direction That A DST cAl- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp Uses. Promote and Facilitate Adoption Of The MDSP. However, Specific Plan Amendment Will Be 000292 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 15 Considered For Projects Consolidating Which Includes A Concurrently Processed Specific Project. Exhibit -C(5) Staff: The referenced Exhibit C -(5)is an economic feasibility analysis of intensified residential densities within the Downtown Specific Plan, which includes a conclusion that, with the exception of senior housing, any intensification of the zoning density would diminish the rural character of the downtown area. Charles Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road currently contains predominantly single- family residential uses with limited multi - family residential development, such as the Tafoya Terrace apartments . The proposed zoning will allow the opportunity for additional multi - family residential development with lot consolidation, which could change the character of the neighborhood over time. The Specific Plan consultant included the potential for higher residential densities to increase the population in close proximity to the Downtown commercial properties and to provide additional opportunity for affordable housing. If the Planning Commission and the City Council want to see the single - family residential use maintained, then the zoning should remain R -1. 17. Moorpark Avenue Zoning Advisory Committee: Retain "C -1" Zone for East Side a.) Retains Only "Mixed Use" Area in MDSP b.) Prohibit Parking In Front Yard Setback c.) Will Not Create Additional "Non - Conforming" Uses. Rezone To "C -O" Would Create Additional Non - Conforming Uses Retain "CPD" Zoning On West Side -Same Reasons Staff: The C -1 Zone does not identify residential or auto repair and reconditioning uses as permitted; therefore, those existing uses are already "non- conforming." Rezoning the east side of Moorpark Avenue to C- O will result in the former restaurant and beauty salon uses also becoming "non- conforming" (the restaurant and beauty salon buildings are not currently occupied). The reason given in the Specific Plan for the rezoning from C -1 to C -O is that the C -O Zone is intended to provide opportunity for conversion of existing residences to small professional and commercial offices, while preserving residential scale, and respecting the existing historic character of the neighborhood. The emphasis is on the office use versus retail. DST c:\]- m\staffrpt \pcdtn.sp 000293 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 16 The Specific Plan could be revised to allow restaurant and personal service establishments (such as beauty salons) in the C -O Zone, or the Planning Commission may consider recommending that the list of permitted uses for the C -O Zone (Table 17.20.060 of Title 17) be amended to also allow restaurant and personal service establishment uses, which would appear to be very compatible with office uses. Alternatively, the existing C -1 designation could be retained for the east side of Moorpark Avenue. This may be more appropriate, if a more defined hierarchy of uses is provided (as is currently under discussion by the Planning Commission with revisions to the list of uses in the Zoning Code). Parking is already prohibited in the front yard or street side setback, except that fully operative, licensed and registered vehicles may be parked in a driveway access to the required parking or on a paved area adjacent to the driveway, as an accessory use to the dwelling. At no time may more than 50 percent of the required front setback area be covered by asphalt, concrete, or other hardscape materials used for vehicle parking (reference Section 17.24.060.A.4.b). 18. Civic Center Site Advisory Committee: Remove Playground Equipment. It Is Too Temporary And "Out Of Place" Appearing - Downtown Park Is In Place. Install Something Of Substance In Its Place Which Is More "Thematic" With MDSP Designate The Property Generally Located NW /Moorpark Avenue And Everett Street (To Wicks Road) As Civic Center Expansion Area, To Include A Neighborhood Park Along The Eastern Boundary, To The East (Projected) Boundary Line Of Moorpark Avenue Frontage Properties S /Everett Street. Staff: The Civic Center area is planned and zoned for Institutional uses. Government buildings and parks are permitted uses in the Institutional Zone. The comment regarding the playground equipment does not require a revision to the Specific Plan. N. OTHER RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS: Staff is recommending other minor revisions/ corrections to the Specific Plan as follows: Page 22, Section 1.51, General Plan Consistency, Housing Element, delete Land Use Element reference for Housing Element consistency section. DST c:\1- mistaffrpt\pcdtn.sp 000234 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 17 Page 23, Section 1.5.2, Consistency with City Zoning Code, paragraph 2, line 4, revise Figure 9 reference to Figure 6. Page 26, Section 2.1.1.A, Special Commercial and Industrial Zones, line 4, delete the last word, "the ", in that line. Pages 27 and 28, Table 4, Permitted Uses for C -1 and OTC Zones, incorporate revisions to table, as shown on Attachment 6. Page 29, Section 2.1.1.D, Vision Plans - These exhibits are correctly referenced as Figures 11 through 14; however, during reproduction of the Specific Plan, they were inserted incorrectly following page 29, they should be inserted following page 129. Page 30, Section 2.1.1.F, Secondary Planning Area, line 2, revise Figure 9 reference to Figure 6. Pages 31 and 32, Table 5, incorporate revisions to table showing M -1 Zone permitted uses, as shown on Attachment 7. Page 62, Section 2.2.3.A.1, Office Zone - C -0, Site Development Standards, Land Use and Permitted Uses - The discussion incorrectly identifies that rezoning from C -1 to C -O will result in a number of existing auto retail /service uses along Moorpark Avenue becoming legal non - conforming uses with the establishment of the C -O Zone designation. Repair and reconditioning services and automobile body work and painting uses are not shown as permitted uses for the C -1 Zone in Table 17.20.060, Permitted Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones, in the current Zoning Code. The text should be revised to clarify that automobile repair uses are already non - conforming. Page 74, Section 2.2.4.A.5.g, Old Town Commercial, Mixed Use Development, second sentence has an editorial error and should read: "Access for parking and driveways shall be taken from adjoining alleys or alternative streets when available." Page 97, Section 2.2.6, Commercial Planned Development (CPD), revise front setback requirement from "None" to be consistent with Table 17.24.020.B of Title 17 (which requires a 30 -foot landscaped setback adjacent to arterials and a 20 -foot landscaped setback for two -lane local and rural collectors). Page 99, Section 2.2.7, Institutional (I -Civic Center) , revise front setback requirement from "None" to 20 feet of landscaping along Moorpark Avenue. Page 109, Section 2.2.8, Industrial Park /Light Industrial (M -1), subsection 1. Land Use, revise the first sentence to reference the existing development in the primary planning area, and for subsection 2. DST c: \1- m\staffrpt \pcdtn.sp 000235 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 18 Building Setbacks, revise the front setback requirement consistent with Table 17.24.020.B of Title 17 (which landscaped setback adjacent to arterials and a 20 -foot for two -lane local and rural collectors). O. FINDINGS: from "None" to be requires a 30 -foot landscaped setback California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plan Project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Moorpark, as lead agency. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plan Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California) and the City's CEQA Procedures. 3. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prior to making any recommendation decision for the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Project and has found that the Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed project. General Plan Amendment Finding The approval of General Plan Amendment No., 97 -1 is consistent with the City's General Plan, subject to incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. Zone Change Finding The approval of Zone Change No. 97 -5 is consistent with the City's General Plan, subject to approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97- 1, and imposition of mitigation measures. Specific Plan Findings 1. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of recommended revisions, is consistent with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. DST c:U- mistaffrpt\pcdtn.sp 000296 Downtown Specific Plan To: Planning Commission August 5, 1997 Page 19 2. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of recommended revisions and imposition of mitigation measures, is consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1. P. REQUESTED ACTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony on the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change; and 2. Discuss issues identified in the staff report Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report, and continue public hearing to August 25, 1997; and 3. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution recommending approval of the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, subject to incorporation of Specific Plan revisions as identified by the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Comments from RRM Design Group on the Steering Committee Recommendations 2. Specific Plan Study Area Map 3. Specific Plan Secondary Planning Area Zoning Map 4. Specific Plan Land Use Map 5. Specific Plan Zoning Map 6. Specific Plan Table 4 with Recommended Revisions 7. Specific Plan Table 5 with Recommended Revisions n DST c:\l- m\staffrpt\pcdtn.sp 00023 AnACHMENT.._ I.- Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan A U F 5 u,i Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations, RRM Design Group July 31, 1997 1. Exhibit A - Architecture and Aesthetics Subcommittee Comments Generally, the comments are thoughtful, helpful, imaginative and appropriate supplements to the other recommendations in the Specific Plan. Certain comments warrant some key clarifications, which are made below. ♦ No Spanish Mission or Pueblo architectural styles permitted on High St. Spanish Mission architecture is prevalent in Moorpark The Mayflower Market was approved in Spanish Mission style on a central, prominent High St. location. The approval of this style of architecture drove the decision to permit Spanish Mission styles on High St. If it is likely that the market is not to be reconstructed, or further design review can dictate the landowners willingness to change the design style to an Early American/Victorian architectural style, then it would be appropriate to allow /encourage only early American styles on High St. vs. Spanish Mission. Otherwise, the presence of predominately wood and stylized metal structures on High St. could conflict with the plaster /stucco finishes planned for use in the market. ♦ An eclectic architectural mix is preferred. Regarding encouraging an eclectic mix of architectural styles — the design guidelines expressly state that they are intended to set a framework for design, but that individuality in architecture is preferred. This is the reason for maintaining the design parameters as guidelines verses standards. The standards have been limited to issues of site planning (placement of the building on the site), height and massing (how the building relates to the street and surrounding uses). An array of architectural styles can be accommodated within the context of the design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan, and are encouraged. ♦ General design comments Good comments on design details (materials, colors, planting, etc.), which can be incorporated into the guidelines and standards. ♦ Omit medians on High Street. The median design on High Street in the Vision Plan involved consideration of traffic flow through permitting turning movements at consolidated intersections. Median planting was specified as small, lacy, colorful canopy trees to limit obscuring visibility to storefronts, and also provide a more intimate canopy to reduce the scale of the street, without detracting from the majestic Pepper trees. The comment however, that the medians would impede City parades is an excellent point, and possibly warrants their removal. Perhaps an at- grade, decorative median could be installed as opposed to a raised and planted median. While costly, it could provide a "safer crossing" to pedestrians, allow for free vehicle turning movements and parades, and beautify the street. If adobe brick is to be a common design theme on High Street, such material may help tie the street together. 000238 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations July 31, 1997 Page 2 • Omit proposed stop sign at High and Bard Streets and install user - activated stoplights at mid -block crossings (i.e. Santa Barbara). The Vision Plan does not propose a stop sign at the High/Bard Street intersection. Decorative paver /brick crossings are proposed to enhance pedestrian safety and connect both sides of High Street. Neither stop signs nor stoplights are recommended anywhere on High Street because; 1) they are not warranted by the number of vehicle trips, and 2) both stop signs and lights typically cause traffic stacking/congestion. The installation of at- grade, decorative paving allows for free traffic flow, but draws attention to crossings. ♦ Closure of Walnut Street verses Magnolia Street. The concept of closing Walnut Street is an excellent idea, particularly with the Epworth Church as a key terminus. The concern, however, is that a number of existing and planned businesses take access on Walnut .Street. For this reason, closure of Magnolia Street appears easier to facilitate, since it involves vacant properties that could be designed to enhance the new public space, and only one small business takes direct access onto the street. Further, senior housing is usually considered a compatible use near a downtown, since seniors tend to walk, shop, dine and have more leisure time to spend patronizing downtown public spaces and retail -type uses. ♦ Provide /substitute paseo's in proximity to High Street. This is another excellent idea, and the Plan can and should be modified to include policy language encouraging paseo design in new and refurbished structures. An important point to note is that the narrow depth of the parcels could limit the feasibility for paseo's to be designed as workable public spaces. Paseo's work beautifully in Santa Barbara, where large parcels connect to parking structures, or large public gathering spaces can be accommodated. It is likely that paseo design in Moorpark may liken more to Ojai, where many smaller, intimate interior plazas can be incorporated into building design. This is particularly applicable to the City-owned property, since the railroad impacts the use and depth of useable space. The primary limiting factor on the north side of High Street is the substantial grade change and change in zoning that occurs from commercial to residential use. ♦ Public.. Transit —Identity location for a bus stop. The Vision Plan shows a bus turnout immediately in front of the High Street plaza on the south side of the street ♦ Gateways and Signage are desirable. The DSP illustrates ideal locations for monument signs, identifies the need for freeway signage of the downtown, and notes that directional signage is needed. Very conceptual gateway signage was explored in the revised DSP, but could be significantly enhanced should the City request it. With respect to building signage, the City recently adopted comprehensive sign code amendments. Therefore, little consideration in the DSP was given to revisiting sign standards and guidelines. The Implementation Plan of the DSP 000299 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations July 31, 1997 Page 3 could include a policy /program stating that the City should readdress these code amendments and develop specific standards (materials, font style, etc.) for the downtown. 000300 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations July 31, 1997 Page 4 ♦ Landscaping —the DSP plant palette is insufficient and should require increased percentage of lot coverage (more than 10 %) Generally, the subcommittee's ideas are imaginative and could be incorporated into the Plan. See attached memo for response to their specific tree /vine suggestions. ♦ Issues of public safety, plaza amenities, permit streamlining, promotion (logos — "Star of the Valley", marketing, event planning, etc.). These issues have been addressed in the revised DSP and are referenced in the Public Streetscape and Implementation sections of the Specific Plan (Sections 3.0 and 5.0). ♦ Pedestrian Overcrossing The Vision Plan does not recommend a future overcrossing simply because the span and height necessary to accommodate both the Union Pacific line and the VCTC spur would require significant expense. Commercial development of any of the City's properties is not likely to support the cost for overpass construction. However, once the downtown is built - out and economically thriving, the feasibility of connecting both sides of these important commercial districts should be explored, and possible use of public funds, or a public - private funding partnership considered. ♦ No three -story buildings in the C -OT zone to maintain scale and hillside vistas. The 35' height limit in the DSP would allow for three story buildings. It is an issue of design and building massing that is essential to regulate to ensure that a three -story "wall" does not interrupt a pleasant, uniform street scene. If a building is designed to step, with variation in the roof form, parapet, or inclusion of balconies or well - ornamented facades, then the issue of height can be dramatically reduced. The three -story freight limit allows for creativity in building design and permits flexibility to accommodate often desired and /or required square footages that can lead to more investment in construction. ♦ Ideas to incorporate a Children's Museum, Performing Arts center, art co -op (i.e. Bergamont Station) and art in public/private places (mural projects, etc.). These are all wonderful ideas but require community commitment, investment and a plan to achieve. The Implementation Ran (Section 5.0 of revised DSP) begins to address programs that can be adopted to pursue such efforts and programs. Further development of these ideas could be considered in the DSP if desired. 00030$, Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations July 31, 1997 Page 5 2. Exhibit C — Supplemental Issues Related to Enforcement, Implementation, Financing and Zoning ♦ Establish a Design Review Committee and On -going Citizen's Review Committee. The Steering Committee recommends appointing both types of committees. These are good concepts, but could be complex and have serious ramifications for administration/staffing and streamlining the permit process. They can be quite positive for a downtown, but need evaluation with respect to many criteria, which warrants special consideration. ♦ Issues related to fee reductions, relocation of the police resource center, financing, ' and approval authority. These issues have been addressed in the revised DSP Implementation section, 5.0, with programs recommended. ♦ Allowable uses in the different commercial zones should be similar (our understanding of this issue may be inaccurate). The allowable use list for the C -OT zone has been overhauled in the revised DSP. Further, a new limited /expanded use list is being recommended in the revised DSP. These Plan modifications may satisfy this concern. ♦ Deletion of R -2 zone in favor of creating an RPD -7du zone is not preferred. The steering committee's comment that this would trigger a CUP for a second unit is correct. This was raised at the last PC /CC study session as the potential problem with this rezone. If the R -2 zoning were retained, then the DSP would need 'to be modified to include design standards and guidelines for this additional zone. Considering the City Council's recent action to limit second dwellings near the downtown, this would be in conflict with previous policy direction. Second dwellings are often a benefit near a downtown, but Moorpark has special conditions whereby second dwellings have resulted in the increased presence of substandard housing. ♦ The density of the Charles Street residential neighborhood should remain single - family, with allowance for a SP amendment with lot consolidation. The issue of lot consolidation in the Charles Street neighborhood was considered in the revised DSP, and a program for lot consolidation set forth in the Plan. The design standards and guidelines identify criteria that must be met when multi - family density projects are pursued. These standards and guidelines are intended to ensure compatibility in design with the adjacent single - family neighborhood. Because of the steep topography, narrow parcel sizes and existing building conditions in this area, the multi - family density is recommended to generate sufficient interest in lot consolidation and property reinvestment. 000302 Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Comments to Steering Committee Recommendations July 31, 1997 Page 6 Retain C -1 and CPD zoning along Moorpark Avenue. The 1989 draft Downtown Plan recommended changing the C -1 zoning to office zoning in order to create a use which is more compatible with the adjacent residential uses. With the City's realignment of State Hwy 23 to Spring Road in the Circulation Element, the rezoning of this area becomes even more pressing. The DSP suggests that the area east of Moorpark Avenue become a mix of office and OTC zoning. The office use is particularly appropriate with the presence of the alley for access and parking. Design standards and guidelines set forth in the DSP should preclude creating conditions which have been experienced with the recent three -story office structure on Moorpark Avenue, through encouraging building massing and architectural design that is compatible with the scale of the street and surrounding neighborhood. The issue of non - conforming use expansions is permitted under certain conditions in the DSP, thereby reducing the potential rezoning problem. The rezoning from CPD and C -2 to C -1 (with a special preferred use list) on the west side of Moorpark Avenue will allow for redevelopment and capture of uses identified as those leaking retail sales to other nearby cities. Since both of these areas are built -out, redevelopment into targeted uses appears to be the only means by which properties in this area will develop successfully. Remove the playground equipment at the Civic Center site. While the children's play area at the Civic Center is not the perfect area for children to congregate, it is heavily used and relatively safe. Considering the lack of parks for children to play in close proximity to the downtown, this play area appears to be much needed. Redesign of this area is ideal (including all the City's holdings) to reroute parking and increase useable public spaces, and possibly including site and building expansion. As an interim use, however, until the City can afford to redevelop the site and civic offices/uses, is probably a good use. The DSP encourages expansion and relocation /consolidation of civic uses in this existing location and throughout the downtown, . 000303 R R M D E S I G N G R O U P Architecture • Planning 1 Engineering • Surveying • Interiors 1 Landscape Architecture CREATING ENVIRONMENTS THAT PEOPLE ENJOY MEMORANDUM Date: August 4, 1997 To: LeeAnne From: Patrick Bolger Location: ■ San Luis Obispo Office Title: Landscape Architect 0 Oakdale Office job Name: Moorpark job No. P95420 Re: Plant List Response Below is a list of my opinions /comments regarding the following plant species. Bougainvillea spp. Positive attributes: Vibrant color, fast growing. Negative attributes: Thorns, likes heat, needs space. Norfolk Island Pine. Positive attributes: Fast growing, picturesque silhouette tree. Negative attributes: Requires large area to grow such as a park, large scale -up to 100' tall, not recommended for urban use. Bottle Tree. Positive attributes: Evergreen, common street tree, good shade tree, fresh green color. Negative attributes: Fruit drop may be a nuisance, large caliper trunk may be difficult to plant in tree grate. Apricot Positive attributes: Good historical tree, could be used in a plaza grove or trained as an espalier. i Negative attributes: Fruit drop may be a nuisance or hazard. Plant in softscape areas instead of sidewalks. Magnolia Peach Walnut Chinese Elm Positive attributes: Common street tree, evergreen, lush dark green foliage. Negative attributes: Roots may lift sidewalks without root barriers, leaf litter constant. Positive attributes: Good historical tree. Negative attributes: Intensive maintenance practices need to be performed, susceptible to peach leaf curl, requires good drainage, not recommended for street tree use. Positive attributes: Good historical tree. Negative attributes: Has aggressive root system, may inhibit growth of shrubs and groundcovers within dripline, leaf litter may be a problem as the tree goes dormant. Positive attributes: Excellent shade tree, beautiful mottled bark. Negative attributes: Susceptible to storm damage, branch crotches can easily split, susceptible to pests, roots are at the surface and may break up concrete. 3026 South Higuera Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 Phone: 805/543 -1794 • FAX: 805/543 -4609 131 South Second Ave. • Oakdale, CA 95361 • Phone: 209/847 -1794 • FAX: 209/847 -2511 , ` t' �30 A C1Lifo Capmtm / Vtdor Mon jvmrry, Archited - [.imme Number C011090 / le1ry Midwt RCE 136195 - LS 06276 /Jeff Ferber, U OU" V V ATTACHMENT _2_ 9H rk_Downtown s _IJ LJL: Atli' ter j L r LkLJ'. ..... . A .... ....... [Zy ... . ....... JI LI �J! j Cn: In Lag=% H.Igh Street LI C F I y3; no L, i in 4 4 IMM ............ . . ........ .... 33: 11 j 7 ;;1 0. Angeles Avenue ;��r 7 r! I.=TS_C TR� L _-T (�j NP . LO pLn Not to Scale Specific Plan Boundary Applicable Properties- Design Guidelines/Standards I Specific Plan Study Area Figure 2 Introduction MMN— 000305 o ac�, � R Flory School Angeles Avenue ;��r 7 r! I.=TS_C TR� L _-T (�j NP . LO pLn Not to Scale Specific Plan Boundary Applicable Properties- Design Guidelines/Standards I Specific Plan Study Area Figure 2 Introduction MMN— 000305 ATTACHMENT_ 3— Downtown S; Planned extension of ._.._.._,._.._..� Spring Road to the north L- (See Figure 10) �''1I : •��, ?'T i -- is O 1 �7..r••1 Highway 118 zi Los ��•�.Ar.. •''':':� °':'':;::: >:;: _ —. -- High sweet ,•.•.,.,.,: Industrial 1 -- n _ , � Park - -• -- -- . - - -� - -- �- "m Old Town Commercial T r-_ -- 1 O ap 7 x`7:7- ,S7:a �` j' 1 :1 C j -, L9 c Los Angeles Avenue Multi- Family Residential Legend Industrial Park Not to Scale i �•t• Specific Plan Boundary mow+ Industrial Park (M -1) Old Town Commercial (OTC) Moorpark Secondary Planning Area Zoning Fligure 6 LandVse and Zoning 33 ATTACHMENT__ j___ Downtown S Cs L J. L ry 1-io IL 0 v CC's: 0,; a --,. 8 0- -J �A .13 r Not to Scale p(a n Specific Plan Land Use Map Figure 7 -...,WL Land Vse and Legend Medium Density Residential (46 du) High to Very High Density Residential (7-15 du) Office LrJ Old Town Commercial �-�, , ( ® Neighborhood Commercial EBGeneral Commercial L Light Industrial Flory Public Institutional School Parks .08 Angeles Avenue Specific Plan Boundary p(a n Specific Plan Land Use Map Figure 7 -...,WL Land Vse and ATTACHMENT! r RPD- 7 -14u* * Hi h Stroet 1 � JKoorpark(Downtown Specific plan i RPD -7u RPD- 7 -14u* * RPD -15 u 4�F Rj C3 � Not to Scale 0 Lo: amuzl� 11 t � y �n Los Angeles Avenue RPD -7u • See Charles Street Office Overlay District *• Density bonus of up to 14du allowed with lot consolidation and replacement structures Specific Plan Zoning Map Figure a Land Vse andZoninq 36 Legend (R • 1) Single Family Residential (RPD) Residential Planned Development, 7 -14 units/acre* (C - 0) Office ® (C - 1) Neighborhood Commercial - ' C! ' `1'; ■ (C - OT) Old Town Commercial ( } ® (CPD) Commercial Planned Development ❑ 4. �i ® ..._ (1) Institutional Flory School C (M - 1) Industrial Park J a Specific Plan Boundary Los Angeles Avenue RPD -7u • See Charles Street Office Overlay District *• Density bonus of up to 14du allowed with lot consolidation and replacement structures Specific Plan Zoning Map Figure a Land Vse andZoninq 36 9 p , tied US� Table 4 GY Vf'1 • • OTC ZONES SYMBOLKEY A6 . Temporary use permit ♦ Permitted by zone clearance Planning Commission-approved planned development permit City Council-approved planned development permit Plan nin Commission-approved conditional use permit - -- ■ ! City Council - Conditional Use Permit -- EXPANDED USE UST C-1 OTC oid Town comm•rdal Amusement and recreational facilities see definitions in Chapter 17.08 Art galleries, museums and botanical gardens Automobile repair, including component repair Automobile service stations Banks and related financial offices and institutions ■ Barber, hairstylists, manicurists Tanning centers Bars taverns and ni htclubs Care facilities: For 7 or more persons Da ■ Churches s na o ues and other buildings used for religious worship Club projects, temporary outdoor Clubhouses With alcoholic beverages Communications facilities Radio and television broadcastina stations Crop production Doa and cat grooming .Dressmaldna and tailor shops .Dwelling for superindendent or owner ■ .DwellinQ, caretaker Education and training Festivals and similar events temporary outdoor 4& Government buildings, excludina correctional institutions ■ Fire stations Gradin Health club / ninesium see definitions Health services such as Professional offices and outpatient clinics Hotels motels and boardina houses Kennels animal hospitals, boarding and orooming - small animals .Laundry service Laundromats p .Laundry. service (light) Libraries and information center ■ Land Vse and Zoni — y 27 k(Dounctourn s plan Table 4 (continued) mantt ck�ri a�.4oe�dted WI+k cra-4 mans CfICI�d; ass.�+bl ,exF+�bi{s,de..e,. Manufacturina and re air of photograhic and optical qoods ,(�t►ort Land We and Zonin 28 T l Martial arts and dance studios Motion picture and TV production, and related activities and structures Temporary maximum 47 days in any 180-day eriod 4 Offices: business professional, and administrative except health and veterinary Optical Goods Oroanizations (professional, reli ious litical labor, trade youth, etc. Parks Parkina lots Public utility facilities 0 CI Offices only Pharmacy, accessory retail for prescription pharmaceuticals only Photocopy/quick erinters Photofinishin 1 -hour photo) Produce stands retail AL AL Repair of personal 000ds such as jewelry, shoes and saddlery Restaurants cafes and cafeterias temporary outside eating and ley 8IeFe* Retail trade • ETC e l Saytfiffift e Lumber and building materials sal Yardsp RQWnokp jpInAA , . �S'!1'sdT�• 1 MO! O Schools: Elementary and secondary nonboarding on ■ Schools: Professional vocational art craft and self-improvement Storage of buildina materials to ra ry 0ift- aft-sfira "rotruct4an caip Uses and structures accessory Outdoor sales and services temporary see definitions in ChapteK. 17.08 Title 1 Repair of products retailed It Vaccination clinics temporary, for pot animals AL AL Veterinary clinics animals only Water preduction, storage, and dishibution facilities: private purveyom Land We and Zonin 28 T ATTACHMENT-2— o0umtoum s Table 5 INDUSTRIAL PERMITTED USES IN THE M-1 A.','J • SYMBOL KEY [Wank] Not permifted Peffnftd by zorre dearanoe Plann ing Caw Planned DoWopmnt Permit O %minc Corn roved Conditional Use Pemrt Ab s ov a Amusement and recreational faditties see definitions Amuswrwt parks and Baftft cam and aW drivina ranoss, indoor O. radno tracks outdoor Hearth dub/ um see definitions Martial arts and dance studos Bars taverns and niahtclubs O Clubhouses O Wfth ak*hdk; bwmram O Conference center /convention center O Dw and cat groomirw Education and Vainino Coll and universitiees Schools: Elementary and secondary nonboardn on Schools: Professional vocational craft and seff4mprovemem Festivals and similar events temporary outdoor Govemment buildinas, excludina correctional institutions Fire stations p Grachno Within an overly zone see Chapter 17.38 Health services such as professional offices and outpagent dinics O Ambulance services Howltals O Phannacy, acoemory retall for prescrtylion phaffnaceuDcals only Hotels motels and boardina houses Laboratories: research and scientific Medcal and dental Libraries and informatlon center Manufacturi industries— outdoor use ancillary only AwarM and related Products DressnwkWm and t 0w shops Chemicals, asses and related products see definitions excludina nerve gas Drugs, armaceutkais perfumes, cosmetics and the like deterwft and cleaners Electrical and electronic machinery, equipment and supplies Household appilarms O Food and related products O Ak*holic beverages Bakery acts Fumiture and related fixtures Instruments: measurino. analyzino and controllin Jewelry, silverware and plated ware Leather and leather products Land l)se and'Z 31 1► Sit Table S (continued) Lumber and wood products and processes. Cabinet work Machinery, except electrical Office and accound machines Musical instruments induding pianos and organs Paper and related pmducts Products from poor and paperboard, includina containers Pens Is and other office and artists materials Personal goods Pho medical and oplical goods, and watches and dodos PrInIna, pubRahby and related industries Print to 1,500 ft of gross floor area Rubber and plasft products Slam and advertisi Stone clay and oka products Glass pmductB. made of purchased ghm 49 Toys and amwwmnt spordna and athlelk 000ds TmnsportaWn swOwt and related partB Motion picbjm and N and related acdv "and smicturea O T maWmtsm 47 days in ow 1 80-day perkd) Of d& Offices: business rofessional and administmM exosot heafth and ve Parldna lots Public udifty fadlitles Ofd Recordina studios and sound s Rental and leasing of durable goods O Bicycle rental Sedtical and elea mic mach and equipment Instruments including musical instruments Office and a000undng machines Photoomphlc and oplical goods RwWr of personW goods such as WwOry, shoes and - Restaurants cafes and cafeterias hwoomm outside eadna Retail trade see definitlons Lumber and bukkv materials sales vamls Nurseries Service estabtbfunents Business see doWdons Personal see definidons Frees off -site advertisi Uses and structures Dwellina, for superintendent or owner O Dwelling, caretaker O Game machines: three or fewer Recreational fadddes restaurants and cafes: for employees only Retail sate of products manufactured on -site Tempomry buildings during construcdon Vaocination clinics teffvmrv, for W animals Veterinary clinics t animals only Zoological gardens, animal exhibits and commercial aquariums LandVse and Zoning 32 uv�,•...�� ATTACHMENT C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning Coatmission FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Principal Planner "T DATE: August 20, 1997 SUBJECT: COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION /INITIAL STUDY FOR THE MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Attached, for your information, is a copy of the comment letters received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) /Initial Study for the Downtown Specific Plan. Responses to comment letters will be prepared and provided to the City Council for its consideration prior to final action on the Specific Plan. No changes to the MND /Initial Study are proposed to be made at this time, since any City Council directed revisions to the Specific Plan may require a corresponding change to the MND /Initial Study. If you have any questions, we can respond to them at the August 25 continued public hearing. Attachment: Letters received on MND /Initial Study CC: Honorable City Council Steve Kueny, City Manager Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development 000313 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oovemor's OfNoo of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 August 12, 1997 DEBORAH TREFFENSTEDT CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVE MOORPARK, CA 93021 Subject: CITY OF MOORPARK DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN SCH #: 97071033 Dear DEBORAH TREFFENSTEDT: PETE WILSON, Gawffpo► The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghous4 has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. It These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse Enclosures R E C C i E D CC: Resources Agency -D AUG 14 1997 STAre OF CAtWORN1A —WSOMS AP-0 TRANSPTATION ACENCY rfTe vmsON. Co..,, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION oestato 7. 120 SO. SIRING ST. Am LOS APACHES. CA 90012%ldit • Too (2131 Wy- "10 July 21, 1997 DEBORAH TRAFFENSTEDT City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: IGR/CEQA #970725/NP Mitigated Negative Declaration Moorpark Downtown Speci - plan - -- City of Moorpark Ven. 118- 17.49/023 -11.43 Dear Ms. Traffenstedt: - ��LEU S(AiE CLEARR040USE ,bill 11or EW-a �C'`� t C S Thank you for the opportunity to provide carrmrent4on the above -named Specific Plan. The project land uses are mixed general commercial, offices, light industrial, single family and multi- family residential, and public/institutional buildings. We have the following comments to text on pages listed below: 1) Page 145, Section 3.7, Fig. 13 - Caltrans Policy does not provide for decorative textured cross - walks bulbouts, and gateway signs on State highways. 2) Page 131 dt 140 - Hwy. 23 was built to accommodate truck traffic. We cannot prohibit trucks on this roadway. 3) Page 135 - We have concerns about placing a raised median island on Hwy. 23 as it is a fixed object that can be hit by motorists. We would prefer a two -way left turn lane. 4) Page 139 - Lane widths should not be less than 12' on Hwy. 23. • If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact the undersigned at (213) 897 -4429 and refer to our IGR/CEQA #9707251NP. Sincerely,. STEPHEN J. BUSWELL Program Manager IGR/CEQA cc: ,/ Chris Belsky State Clearinghouse 0 ()0 ,31LZi 40 CITY OF MOO"ARK NOTICE OF COMrLKnowrt 97071033 Mail ter. State ClorM000se.1*0 Tn* Street, Saaammto. CA 95814 (916) 4"13 Project TWw ,City of aamena.t t]n iere.reUnee_iae Pus Dept. Review to Agency. Lead Agency- rtnr of Moomfid- Coolest Person: Deborah Tafferattedt Strew Address: Pbow: 805/5299 -6864- en_ 236 City: Moomart State: Zip Code: 93021 County: Ventura Project Location County: Ventura City /Nearest Community: Moomarlr Cross Street to ch A-- High _SU - Moo=k Ave.- Slid" Rd_ Zip Code: 93021 Tool Acres-. _ Assessor's Pucei No. Vinous Section: TWP: Range: Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 23 and 119 Waterways: Auporm N/A Railways: Soudhern Pacific Schools: Flory Elementary Documeatadon Type CKQAt NOP Supplement/Subsequent t 1401 rFrtal Document Early Coro S EM (Prior to SOL No.) EA Document Ne g Doe Other Dolt EIS Draft EM Location Action Type Omersl Plan Updos specific Plan Roar Armatadas General Plan Amendment Mawr Plan Pwar Redevdopmew Germ — Plan Elenmt . Planned Unit Devdop. Use Peg tdt Other Commtoity Plan Sites Plan Land Division (Subdivision, Patcd Map. Tnet Map, rte.) Typo Reidential: UN]•!•S And_ Residential: Woe Facilities: TYPE MCD Office: , + Ft. Acm__ F.mployaes TrmsparAdw TYPE: Commensal: Sq. PL_ Aetna_ Empktyea_ Missim MOIERAL: tndmMal; Sq. Pt_ Acre_ Employees_ Ptstse TYPE: Educational Wastswa, Trmomt: TYPE. Recreational Hasardom Wants: TYPE ® Otme Downtown Specific EN — Project lamas Diseowd In Document AathaticIVlsual Flood PlsiaffAoodin Se6aoWUniversitJa Woe Quality Agricultural Land Fags Lmdl to Rarad septic systems Woe supplylGtouedwater Air Quality GaoloodSesede Sewer Capacity . WedsodAl 1pariaa Arepseoloppy MineeaY SodEmdoaiC;*mp*cdW1 WildlifY Historical ❑ Coastal Iarr ® Noise ® DrainsWAbsorptiost Gradif ® solid war ❑ Growth Inducing Present Land Usa/I.eWswroenes•al PIu Uue Mixed C Mail lodustriW State Clearinghouse Contact: Mr. Chris Belsky Please note SCH Number on all Comments 1?N1111033 Please forward late comments directly to the Lead Agency 4QMD APCD 3 (Resources: /,z) Project Sent to the following State Agencies Resources _ Boating _ Coastal Comm _ Coastal Consv •_ Colorado Rvr Bd —,oK Conservation _ X Fish & Game 0 _ Delta Protection Forestry =Parks & Rec/OHP Reclamation _ BCDC DWR OES Bus Transp Hous _ Aeronautics _ Clip - Caltrans N _ Trans Planning X Housing & Devel Health & Welfare _ Drinking H2O Medical Waste State/Consumer Svcs _ General Services CsVEPA ARB _ CA Waste Mgmt Bd _ SWRCB: Grants SWRCB: Delta _ SWRCB: Wtr Quality _ SWRCB: Wir Richts X Reg. WQCB a C DTSC /CTC T Vlh/Adlt Corrections Corrections Independent Comm _ Energy Gomm __NAHC _ PUC _ Santa vin Muu X State Lands Comm Tahoe R__I Phn Other: (916)445 -0613 State Review Began: -� Dept. Review to Agency. - Agency Rev to SCH - SCH COMPLIANCE -� Please note SCH Number on all Comments 1?N1111033 Please forward late comments directly to the Lead Agency 4QMD APCD 3 (Resources: /,z) Project Sent to the following State Agencies Resources _ Boating _ Coastal Comm _ Coastal Consv •_ Colorado Rvr Bd —,oK Conservation _ X Fish & Game 0 _ Delta Protection Forestry =Parks & Rec/OHP Reclamation _ BCDC DWR OES Bus Transp Hous _ Aeronautics _ Clip - Caltrans N _ Trans Planning X Housing & Devel Health & Welfare _ Drinking H2O Medical Waste State/Consumer Svcs _ General Services CsVEPA ARB _ CA Waste Mgmt Bd _ SWRCB: Grants SWRCB: Delta _ SWRCB: Wtr Quality _ SWRCB: Wir Richts X Reg. WQCB a C DTSC /CTC T Vlh/Adlt Corrections Corrections Independent Comm _ Energy Gomm __NAHC _ PUC _ Santa vin Muu X State Lands Comm Tahoe R__I Phn Other: --A! county of venture Solid Waste Management Department 800 S. Victoria Avenue. Ventura, CA 93009 -1650 (805) 6542889 FAX (805) 648 -9233 trOFy J� 0 , �QFOR� KAY MARTIN Director DATE: August 8, 1997 R E C E 1Y E D TO: Deborah TraMnstedt, Scnior Planner, City of Moorpark AUG 14 199 7 FROM AS9aran K. Reifer, Ventura County Solid Waste Managment Department city of <ca.pa; k Comm, u ^I;% SUBJECT: Review of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan. The Solid Waste Managemect Department offers the following comments for your review and consideration. The draft Negative Declaration does not adequately provide information related to the amount of waste generated from the proposed project, nor identify cumulative solid waste disposal impacts. This information is relevant in judging the overall impact to regional landfills and compliance with the provisions of the County's Source Reduction Recycling Element (SARE) (pursuant to the mandates of AB939, California Statutes of 1989). Taken from total building footage listed in table 11 and 12 on page 149 of the specific plan, SWMD assumes the following square footage's in order to calculate overall diversion tonnage. Our solid waste project impact calculations (see attached) indicate that 1,544 tons per year will be generated ley the development of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan. In addition to conditins provided on page 155 of the specific plan, it is recommended that the City of Moorpark also incorporate the following conditions: 1. Require recycling to the extent feasible, construction and demolition waste. Wood waste, if separated on-site, should be recycled by mulching and chipping for use in landscaping, weed control, water conservation, etc. Metals can be recycled through local hauling companies. Concrete, shall be recycled into aggregate for road beds, walkways, etc. If the applicant requires technical assistance they should contact the Moorpark Solid Waste Department or Ventura County Solid Waste Managment Department for solid waste reduction information. 2. Recycling or reducing green waste collected from the proposed project through xeriscaping, grasscycling, mulching or small-scale composting activities. 9 Dedicated to Recovering and Recycling our Natural Resources �)�Q3 89 Dwelling Units 3.304 persons/DU - Residential ffigh Street 209.000 - Commercial Moorpark Avenue 100,700 - Commercial 241,150 - Office 8,000 - Institutional Our solid waste project impact calculations (see attached) indicate that 1,544 tons per year will be generated ley the development of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan. In addition to conditins provided on page 155 of the specific plan, it is recommended that the City of Moorpark also incorporate the following conditions: 1. Require recycling to the extent feasible, construction and demolition waste. Wood waste, if separated on-site, should be recycled by mulching and chipping for use in landscaping, weed control, water conservation, etc. Metals can be recycled through local hauling companies. Concrete, shall be recycled into aggregate for road beds, walkways, etc. If the applicant requires technical assistance they should contact the Moorpark Solid Waste Department or Ventura County Solid Waste Managment Department for solid waste reduction information. 2. Recycling or reducing green waste collected from the proposed project through xeriscaping, grasscycling, mulching or small-scale composting activities. 9 Dedicated to Recovering and Recycling our Natural Resources �)�Q3 1. Arran&& v*b s loser# traWrecyclables haulin g company for materials collection or the aPPlic" a" arrange far self - Mauling to as authorized facility which accepts recyclable maternal:: Thank you for the opportunity to review this environmental document. Please call me at (805) 648 -9225 if you should have any questions. c: Carole Trigg, PWA Jill Myers, City of Moorpark 000318 0- AIJG -I1 -1997 1429 RMA PLANNING 805 654 3683 P.02 I RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY county of ventu ra THOMAS Wra ftww-y D"aw Monday, August 11, 1997 Deborah Traffenstedt Moorpark FAX 529 -8270 Subject: Downtown Specific Plan Dear Ms. Traffenstedt: Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject documents. These notices were circulated for review. The responses are attached. Please forward your reply to our comments as appropriate. Please call Kim Hocking if you have questions and he will direct you to the appropriate person, 805- 654 -2414. Yours truly, —0"V� Thomas Berg, Director Reference No. 97-48 cc: Trigg, PWA - L# 1600 Attachment GawnmemCvor.- F*ofAd{ Nsuem, tt7700 800 S. VcWiia Ave., Vftb . Ck (41�0 TA-2661 FAX 645 -Ml 2 0003ILS AUG-11 -1997 14:30 RMA PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Traffic and Planning & Administration MEMORANDUM August 6, 1997 TO: Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Attention: Kim Hocking FROM: Robert B. Brownie, Principal Engineer SUBJECT: Review of Document 97-48 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Moorpark Downtown Draft Specific Plan Within the City of MOORPARK 805 654 3683 P.02 -? �M! The Transportation Department has reviewed the subject Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Moorpark Downtown Draft Specific Plan. We offer the following comments: 1) We concur with the comments in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for those areas under the purview of the Transportation Department with the exception of Section 3.4.5. Truck traffic should not be diverted to the County portion of Grimes Canyon Road. Grimes Canyon Road is a niral road. It is not recommended that significant volumes of commercial or residential traffic be diverted to Grimes Canyon Road unless the City of Moorpark is willing to participate in the cost of upgrading the road to current road standards. Additionally, we again recommend that the City of Moorpark consider participation in a reciprocal traffic agreement with the County. 2) The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration show that this project will not have a significant adverse project impact on the County's Regional Road Network However, the cumulative impacts of this and other projects in the City have not been addressed and our previous comments regarding a reciprocal traffic agreement are still valid. 3) Our review of this project is limited to the impacts this project may have on the County's Regional Road Network. Please call me at extension 2080 with questions. c: Richard Herrera Duane Flaten Carole Trigg RBB4tR1tW -.sa 9743 men 000320 AUC-11 -1997 14:31 RMA PLANNING 805 654 3683 P.03 August 4, 1997 TO: EIR Review Coordinator FROM: Kim Hocking, Cultural Heritage Program Staff SUBJECT: Moorpark Downtown Specfic Plan NO, (9748) Please note that the Pepper Trees along High Street are County Landmark No. 72. This is not noted In Section XIV, Cultural Resources. The tyres are mentioned appropriately In Sec. VII, Biological Resources, however. ►00321 TOTAL P.03 n� 1' • s nn i . -in OA. C CCA ZCOT 06r.c fill 1 July 31, 1997 To: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development Moorpark Planning Commission Moorpark City Council Fr: Lori Rutter Member, Ad Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee for Draft Downtown Specific Plan Re: Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study and Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Pr-0%RT1J /ED AUG 0 4 1997 City Q, iviuorpark I will keep my comments brief and referenced only to those matters where I have strong disagreement or concern. I. Land Use and Planning (p. 13) I feel that the medium scale local- serving household uses, such as home furnishings, appliances, and hardware are either already adequately available (K -Mart is only a block or more away) or better served by a consistent C -OT zoning in this area. I feel that C -1 zoning is incompatible with a busy thoroughfare and with the C -O zoning located across the street. Area 14 (p. 14) - I do not wish to see CPD allowed uses on this site, such as car repair, car washes or gas stations. C -OT should be applied consistently here to keep only compatible uses within the DSP area. Secondary Planning Area (p. 15) - If you agree that residential density is desirable in the DSP area, and that existing residential zones along Charles and Everetts Streets may not develop as planned for, I would suggest that this area is very well suited to high density residential development given its proximity to the complexes adjacent to the south (WoodCreek ?). I think it's ideal for senior housing or condominiums, and should be well - screened and landscaped as a buffer from busy Spring Street and the railroad tracks. Charles Street Office Overlay District (p. 16) - If I understand this proposal correctly, the underlying RPD 7 -14DU zone would prevail and the overlay district would permit conditional office uses. Would the owner of a future condominium on one of these sites also be permitted to apply for office use? I would rather see the City put their efforts into rehabilitating these Charles Street residences, perhaps converting them into C -OT business uses, than creating office space within an essentially residential area. If the inventory of offices is so low, then why not zone the 000322 previous Secondary Planning Area (see above) for offices instead of C -OT? II. Population and Housing (p. 22) Does the proposal displace existing residents or housing, especially affordable housing? No impact ?? While the DSP may create a potential for additional housing density to occur, this is not sufficient mitigation for those who will most certainly be displaced. Anticipation of a net increase in the number of dwellling units also does not mitigate their certain displacement. I think the City should look more carefully at the needs of existing residents who will certainly need affordable replacement housing! III. Geologic Problems (p. 24) I disagree that no unique geologic /physical features exist beyond the hillside area at the northern portion- -there is a lovely canyon at Charles and Spring Streets where the Department of Fish and Game have found endangered gnatcatchers. Is this property not within the DSP area? I believe that it was initially when the Citizens Ad Hoc Committee reviewed it. IV. Water (p. 25) To say that there would be no increase in surface runoff, and that median planters may increase the amount of pervious surface and improve runoff impacts is a ridiculous statement. What about the extensive paving for the dozen or so new rear parking lots? This is not less than significant. If you've ever seen the watering patterns for medians along Tierra Rejada, you would know that the runoff is significant and wasteful. All the more reason to consider my suggestion not to pave the parking areas at the rear, but rather to finish the surface with crushed rock or gravel (photo example supplied to the Council). V. Air Quality (p. 27) The City's own Circulation Element of the General Plan requires the implementation of alternate systems of travel and specifically describes an equestrian trail network in conjunction with new development in the northern area of town. I believe that the DSP should have included design elements for equestrian- oriented transportation via the property near Charles and Spring Streets. Would the proposal expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less than significant impact ?? Children are highly susceptible "receptors" to pollutants. To say that the DSP design policies will mitigate the obvious effects of "normal growth- induced air quality impacts" is unsubstantiated at best. You only have to look at reports of increased death rates due to respiratory causes to find these mitigation factors are wholly inadequate. Not to A. 000323 mention that our Hillside Management Standards allow for the stripping bare of every inch of native habitat, otherwise known as "grading ". Air quality is not measured nor limited to the DSP - -our air quality is impacted every time we approve a Carlsberg project, or a Messenger project, or SDI, etc. VI. Transportation/Circulation (p. 29) Will the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? The obvious flaw in these analyses is that projects approved and/or under construction will have unintended impacts. Should we not consider the TMC's 1200 truck trips down SR 23 each day? How congested will Moorpark Avenue be when the majority of parents arrive to drop off and pick up their students at Casey Road School? The Circulation and Streetscape Beautification Design measures are not reasonable responses. Reasonable people know this. It was not the desire or recommendation of the Citizens Ad Hoc Downtown Advisory Committee to have medians on High Street. Decorative paved crosswalks without pedestrian- activated signals may be inducing a false sense of security (per Senior Deputy Tumbleson and Mary Lindley). Is there actual proof that sidewalk bulbouts actually improve pedestrian safety? I Ow believe it's just the latest in street design that serves a very limited purpose and unnecessarily to the cost of the downtown improvements. The CAHDAC also did not endorse the DSP's proposal to close Magnolia Street and create a promenade. It serves no important purpose and reduces cross traffic and circulation from three streets to two, on an otherwise long thoroughfare with no southerly circulation. The draft Downtown Specific Plan neglected to provide for the installation of any equestrian access. This is an oversight that needs correction. Moorpark has many equestrian- oriented businesses and residents, access to a substantial County park on its northern border, and professes to cherish its country roots. VII. Biological Resources (p. 38) Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats? No impact! No known significant biological habitats. I wonder if the Department of Fish and Game, which found the gnatcatcher on the Morrison property, would agree that this bird's habitat does not include any part of the DSP area? X. Noise (p. 41) Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels? 000324 Levels of 70 dBA are comparable to a vacuum cleaner operating four feet away -- hardly possible to have a conversation between two people standing 15 -20 feet apart! Trees, shrubbery, and landscaped medians are not efficient noise absorbers according to Gary Roller with the CHP. And he also states that vehicular traffic noise levels can only be effectively measured at constant rates of speed above 50 mph. " er i ec I believe that large delivery trucks will be the main source of increased noise pollution. I think the City needs to look very carefully at businesses which will generate substantial truck trips into the High Street area and put very clear guidelines into place to mitigate their impact upon nearby residential uses. For example, in Sonoma, there is a truck delivery "zone" marked off in the middle of the streets surrounding their plaza retail center (refer to photos provided by the Citizens Committee). This would keep trucks out of public parking lots and away from residences north and south of High Street. XI. Public Services (p. 43) Would the proposal result in a need for new or altered police protection? "Less than Significant Impact" response addresses only the current perception of policing and ignores the obvious impact of increased business activity in the area. Retail areas are always targets for crime, loitering, etc. In fact the Citizens Committee recommended relocating the Police Resource Center back to the DSP area precisely because this area has been vulnerable in the past and will certainly generate more of these same issues. Also, the DSP will add more residential density to the area which�dem ndsn„greater police services. Would the proposal result in a need for new or altered schools? Unfortunately, it is well - documented that impact fees paid for by new construction projects are inadequate in the long term. It is essential that public service impacts generated by the DSP be adequately accounted for long term. Communities can ill afford to deal with these fiscal issues after the fact, and the trend of approving more and more massive projects to cover the City's fiscal obligations (often leftover from some other ill- conceived project) will obviously ruin the desirability of Moorpark. Would this proposal result in new or altered maintenance of public facilities? Again, this analysis is ludicrous given the Mayor's announcement just this week that the City will ask voters this Fall to approve Measure P, asking for additional park maintenance funding. The Citizens Committee vetoed the medians plan for High Street in the DSP. I would think the City of Moorpark should only consider additional plazas and/or pocket green areas that retain their natural character (not manicured, sprinkled, etc.), thereby reducing maintenance costs by 10 X. 000325 XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance (p.49) Why is there no response to question "a "? Does the Department of Fish and Game's findings re: the gnatcatcher affect the DSP proposal in any way? I think a yes or no answer should be indicated. XVIII. Reference List Is the EIR for Moorpark Land Use and Circulation Element Update also dated 1991? I was under the impression from the recently completed General Plan Annual Report that these updates actually pre -date 1991. With what specific authority, title, or knowledge does Senior Deputy Tumbleson speak to the issues in the MND? I think it is important to substantiate between his opinions and his expertise. I feel that in many instances his comments are more opinion than expertise, and I have disagreed with him wholeheartedly on several issues in the past, unrelated to the DSP. In fact, the DSP makes recommendations that I know he would personally take issue with (e.g. pedestrian "safe crosses "). Determination: I seem to find no clear choice as to whether an EIR will be prepared for the DSP. Five options are stated, and none indicated? Is this an oversight? Additional remarks: The notice states that verbal or written comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on August 11, yet the hearing doesn't take place until 7:00 p.m. This would seem to preclude consideration of any public comments made verbally at the meeting - -true? 00032s PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY county of ventura Director Arthur E. Goulet Representing Ex- officio: Ventura County Flood Control District Ventura County Waterworks Districts No. 1, 16, 17, and 19 Lake Sherwood Community Services District Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency July 24, 1997 City of Moorpark ATM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt 799 Moorpark Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Comments to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Draft Moorpark Specific Plan Dear Ms. Traffenstedt: Deputy Directors William B. Britt Transportation John C. Crowley Water Resources & Development Robert E. Quinn, Jr. Engineering Services Paul W. Ruffin Central Services Alex Sheydayi Flood Control The Ventura County Flood Control District has reviewed the above referenced•documents and offers the following comments: 1. Negative Declaration, Page 25, Water, item c: Please add that new development would be required to comply with the requirements of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS063339, and any other NPDES permit issued by the State of California. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have further questions, please contact Kathy Kefauver at (805) 654 -3942. Very yours, Sheydayi Deputy Director of Public Works Flood Control Department cc: Kim Hocking, RMA DWNINSP.DOC 0 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 -1600 FAX (805) 654 -3952 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 1997 r, "corcark Ccmrsu(!liy` ✓CVal�r ^.e�,t ;. ^�;��, .�,t 00032'