Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0721 CC REG ITEM 09AMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of -7-8 a00 d ACTION: l�.�,.,a i�i,a �,. �+1 Pw BY: TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo DATE: July 7, 2004 (CC Meeting of 7/21/04) SUBJECT: Consider Whether Appliance Sales, Distribution and Warehousing are Commercial Uses in Compliance With the Existing SDI Development Agreement for the Land Located on the East Side of SR 23, Immediately North and South of New Los Angeles Avenue (Lots 1 and 2 of Tract 5004) BACKGROUND This matter was originally scheduled for the City Council of May 19, 2004. At the request of the property owner, Selleck Development Group, Inc., the item was continued to the meeting of June 2, 2004, so they could provide additional information to the City Council. At the June 2, 2004 meeting, the City Council was unable to reach consensus on the matter. By Council rules, the item was automatically continued for two weeks to the meeting of June 16, 2004. After some discussion, the Council was still unable to reach a decision and the matter was continued to the July 21, 2004 meeting. Staff was directed to provide the Council with action options. DISCUSSION There are three options available to the City Council relative to this item. The options are: Option 1: Determine that the proposed distribution use is not similar to those uses listed in the Development Agreement, the uses listed in the C -2 /CPD zone and the requirements of the Moorpark General Plan land use for General Commercial, in particular, the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 0.25. Comment: This option would not meet the applicant's objective and would negate the proposed project. S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C P D \Selleck- Warehouse Appliance \cc 040721.agenda report.doc 000014 Honorable City Council July 21, 2004 Page 2 Option 2: Determine that the proposed distribution use is within the definition of commercial uses in the Development Agreement and the uses in C -2 /CPD zone in that the use is essentially a retail operation which has a warehouse and distribution component. Direct staff to work with the applicant on an application that will meet all requirements of the Moorpark General Plan Commercial Planned Development land use designation, including but not limited to the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 0.25, and all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including, but not limited to parking, setbacks, height, landscaping, design. Comment: This option would require the applicant to further reduce the proposed building square footage in order to meet the FAR of the General Plan and would not likely meet the applicant's objectives. Option 3: Determine that the distribution use is commercial within the definition of uses described in the Development Agreement in that the use is essentially a retail operation which has a warehouse and distribution component, waive the filing requirements for Pre - Screening of a General Plan Amendment application, direct staff to accept and process a complete application for a General Plan Amendment to allow for an increased FAR in the General Commercial land use designation for commercial uses that include distribution, direct the applicant to submit a project that meets the City's submittal requirements for a Commercial Planned Development and General Plan Amendment. Direct the applicant to apply for an amendment to Section 6.i. of the Development Agreement. Section 6.i. states, "Developer agrees not to request any concession, waiver, modification or reduction of any fee, regulation, requirement, policy or standard condition for development of Lots 1 and 2 of VTM No. 5004, and further agrees to pay all fees imposed by City for future buildings, so long as said fees are also imposed in a similar manner on similar projects." Comment: This option would appear to meet the applicant's objectives. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Adopt Option 1. 000015 Honorable City Council July 21, 2004 Page 3 Attachment: June 2, 2004 Agenda Report with all attachments. 000016 MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director DATE: May 21, 2004 (CC Meeting of 6/02/04) SUBJECT: Consider Whether Appliance Sales, Distribution and Warehousing are Commercial Uses in Compliance With the Existing SDI Development Agreement for the Land Located on the East Side of SR 23, Immediately North and South of New Los Angeles Avenue (Lots 1 and 2 of Tract 5004) BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION This matter was originally scheduled for the City Council of May 19, 2004. At the request of the property owner, Selleck Development Group, Inc., the item was continued to the meeting of June 2, 2004, so they could provide additional information to the City Council. Attached is a May 20, 2004 letter from Daniel F. Selleck. The May 19, 2004 Agenda Report is also attached. The Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee (Mayor Hunter and Councilmember Mikos) reviewed this and forwarded it to the City Council to look at the usage of the property for Warehouse Appliance Center for a quick "read" on the use and its compliance with the existing Development Agreement. Since that time additional information continues to come in as shown in the attached letter. This is no longer a quick "read" and should therefore follow the process set forth in the Development Agreement Section 13. Section 13 Administration of Agreement, states as follows: All decisions by City staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement CC ATTACHMENT C: \Documents and Settings \grice \Desktop \cc 040602 agenda report.doc 000017 Honorable City Council June 2, 2004 Page 2 and development of the Property in accordance herewith are appealable by Developer to' the City Council, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk of the City within ten (10) days after Developer is notified of the staff decision. The City -- Council shall render its decision to affirm, reverse or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) days after the appeal was filed. Developer shall not seek judicial review of any staff decision without first having exhausted its remedies pursuant to this section. The Developer should request a decision on the use with all information on the use presented to the Director, pay the required fees for the Director's determination, and if the Developer does not agree with the Director's determination, then appeal the determination within the prescribed time period outlined in section 13 of the Development Agreement. The developer could also file a Commercial Planned Development application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Remove from calendar and request Selleck Development Group, Inc. to follow the process provided for in the Development Agreement and other applicable City procedures. Attachments: 1. May 20, 2004 letter from Selleck Development Group, Inc. 2. May 19, 2004 City Council Agenda Report 000018 SELLECK DEVELOPMENT GROUP, May 20, 2004 Barry Hogan Community Development Director City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave Moorpark CA 93021 — (copy via email bhogan@ci.moorpark.ca.us) RE: Response to Staff Report Proposed Warehouse Discount Center Dear Barry: INC. Below, I have responded to the staff report I received on Monday. Please send a copy of this response to the City Council for the hearing on June 2, 2004. The Proposed Use of the Property is Not Industrial as Inferred in the Staff Report The staff report suggests that the Applicant's proposed retail furniture, appliances furniture and fixtures business is industrial in nature, not commercial, and on the basis of this finding, staff is recommending that the proposed use is inconsistent with the Development Agreement land uses specified in Section 6.K. The logic of staff's analysis appears to be that "distribution" is both the dominant and primary use proposed by the applicant, which is not the case. The staff report further recites that because the inventory area of the building exceeds the showroom space, product storage makes the building into an industrial use. We believe that this conclusion misrepresents the proposal before the Council for several reasons as stated below. First, the nature of this use and its customer attraction is retail, not industrial. The customer base is drawn from individual purchase oriented retail sales by use of a well stocked showroom with ample backup inventory on site. This retail outlet also serves contractors, who purchase appliances and other big ticket items for their clients. As with any retail multi -store operation, there are additional retail locations, which spread product 2660 Townsgate Road Suite 250, Westlake Village, CA 91361 805/495 -5400; Fax 805/495 -5300; email selleckinc @aol.com 000019 inventory throughout the region, with such products being available to satisfy customer preferences with short delivery times. For example, one can shop at Saks Fifth Avenue in Pasadena, be unable to find a certain item in that store and have Saks personnel call to Saks in Santa Barbara to determine stocking and intra -store shipping. What is proposed in this case is very similar, but the scale of the products'are march larger (ranges, refrigerators, etc.). Second, the square footages of showroom, office and inventory recited in the staff report are incorrect which is probably due to a lack of clarity on our part as applicants. The project includes two retail structures: a stand -alone retail building that is approximately 25,500 square feet and a warehouse retail/office facility of approximately 115,000 square feet. The 25,500 square foot stand alone building is designed to help create attraction to and synergy with the larger retail/warehouse center. In the larger warehouse retail building to be owned and occupied by Warehouse Discount Center, about 15,000 square feet will be devoted to general sales/showroom and another 15,000 square feet of mezzanine area will be devoted to contractor sales and corporate offices. There are two major keys to the success of this type of warehouse retail business: (1) having on hand a very large variety of brands and styles of appliances and other items for sale and (2) ensuring the ready availability of merchandise for purchase off of the showroom floor suitable for next day delivery. With time and changing circumstances, the area dedicated to retail showroom in the main building is likely to increase as customer base expands. The total area devoted to warehouse supporting retail sales is 85,000 square feet which is approximately a 3:1 ratio of inventory storage to sales space. For uses such as automobile dealers, an uncontestable retail use, retail sales related to storage /service space approach a ratio of nearly 10:1. In some E- business uses, a 3:1 ratio is certainly not uncommon. Therefore, the conclusion that a large inventory area within a retail facility implies an "industrial" use misrepresents the realities of current trends in "Warehouse" retail business models. Third, there is simply no manufacturing, construction, or synthesis of product proposed by the applicant. The staff report suggests that the "distribution" functions identified as one of three components of this project somehow render the project entirely inconsistent with the Development Agreement use designations, and thus negate further consideration of the purposeful site use, which is clearly retail. It is likely that the applicant's consultant has contributed unknowingly to staff's misinterpretation of "distribution" by the schematics and language used in the submitted exhibits describing the project and site plan. If given an opportunity before Council, we believe it will be possible to clarify the retail model that applies to this project. What is occurring in this case is delivery of retail products sold, not distribution. The rear building area of the larger of the two proposed retail structures is devoted entirely to the orderly storage of inventory for rapid deployment to customer interest. It also facilitates a normal retail function for preparation for and dispatch delivery to customers. As with its other branch locations in nearby communities, there will be inter and intra action by way appliance and furnishing exchanges and transfers. This 2 000020 capability enables the applicant to better serve the desire of Moorpark, Simi Valley and Camarillo residents for maximum access to a variety of merchandise, a variety of brands and a full mix of sizes and dimensions not usually available in a City of the size of Moorpark. Fourth, it is important to keep in mind that nearly all major retailers of house, housing construction and repair and furnishings, which are similar to this operation, e.g., Costco, Ikea, Home Depot, Target, Bed Bath and Beyond, etc. function in facilities no different in type and size as the one proposed by this applicant. They are organized and managed for inventory accessibility and storage with such basic functions as off - loading, receiving, stacking and stocking, operating cashiers stations and delivery. The organization of stock in all these retail stores is no different that what is proposed in this case. In the current retail environment, the distinction between warehouse and retail space continues to be minimized and in many cases the distinction has simply been erased. The proposed retail uses in this case are most comparable to stores such as Ikea and Costco, but differ only in execution due to the size and weight of the warehouse retail objects being sold which require truck delivery. These last two conclusions related to distinctions between the size of the objects sold and their transportation off -site is important. In most retail settings, e.g. Bed Bath & Beyond, the objects purchased are small, or at least small enough that the majority of customers can load the items purchased into their own cars. In this case, the merchandise often weighs hundreds of pounds, is bulky and large requiring mechanical loading and unloading, and can easily be damaged unless professionally transported and installed; they are not "home pick up" type items. Finally, to infer that the `use" in this case is industrial does not render a fit with any of the definitions in Code Section 17.08.010. Nor do the purposes and uses called out in the Industrial Zone sections of the ordinance (Section 17.16.060) conform in anyway to the retail uses and supporting warehouse and delivery functions proposed in this case. Clearly Section 17.16.060 contemplates industrial, technical research, business office complexes, light manufacturing, fabrication, and related activities. Storage of business products sold as retail products to customers and a business model which facilitates exchange and transfer of merchandise just does not fit the definition of an industrial use. This project conforms with the intent and purpose of the CPD zone. The exchange and transfer functions of the applicant's businesses in no way subverts or subordinates the primary business function of retail sales or uses permitted in a CPD zone. Nor does this application set any new precedents for such uses. As a practical matter, this applicant would be far better off economically to find less expensive M -1 zoned property for warehousing if it were not for the integrated business model of showroom and inventory storage which has marked its business success. It is that success which the applicant wishes to bring to the City of Moorpark. Further, the design and materials aesthetics which the applicant proposes for this retail facility far exceeds what would be applied to an industrial building. 3 000021 What About General Plan Consistencv9 The General Plan text states (emphasis added) "This designation [C -2] encourages the grouping of commercial outlets into consolidated centers with direct access to major roads, arterials and/or freeways. The proposed use and location is totally consistent with this definition by explicitly grouping and consolidating retail sales in Moorpark, whether by closing other potentially competing showrooms in the other nearby cities by the way it addresses the needs of both builders and owner /remodelers. The placement of such a facility at a location immediately adjacent to a major interchange which will preclude or minimize any through truck traffic on City streets is one of the significant business and City attractions associated with this location. Similarly valuable to the City and this area is the fact that this retail use is akin to retail furniture, which are both light generators of traffic and parking needs. Are Warehouse Uses Predominant? The staff report suggests that the presence of a substantial warehouse means that the warehouse use is predominant. One must ask how warehousing in this case relates to the business model. This is where there may be some confusion on point and possibly some of the confusion has been introduced unintentionally by the applicant so we need to clear the air on this point. The dominant use of this site is local/regional retail; the warehouse use supports the sales income stream but does not determine it. Nor is the warehouse a place where goods are being held for time -market related appreciation nor is the warehouse area designed to represent a separate business operation unrelated to the retail activities. The only possible source of the logic that the warehouse is a distribution center is that this proposed headquarters facility will serve smaller satellite retail outlets in Oxnard, Agoura Hills, Santa Barbara, Northridge and Santa Clarita. Of course it will be necessary to deliver supplies to these smaller showroom floors or deliver products directly to customers buying furniture or fixtures at these showrooms. But this is a simple "hub and spoke" business model where a larger central facility supports a smaller remote location. The brief analysis on Page 3 of the staff report, paragraph 3, does not accurately reflect the consolidation of retail uses proposed with the closure of the existing Simi Valley and Camarillo outlets. The suggested revenues don't include projections for local growth in sales as the region surrounding Moorpark build out. The revenues also do not reflect the potential for further consolidation. All contractor sales will occur through the office at the new proposed Moorpark location and retail sales for all of the Simi, Little Simi, Tierra Rejada, Santa Rosa Valleys and Camarillo will be concentrated at this location. 4 000022 Consistency with Adiacent Commercial and Uses The staff report makes the argument that the proposed project would not be consistent with the Moorpark Marketplace, Towne Center or Mission Bell Plaza. Actually, this project is clearly an extension of the "big box" and "warehouse outlet' retail uses which exist directly across the freeway in the Moorpark Marketplace. The proximity of this "warehouse retail" to other warehouse retail across the freeway was intentional and planned; this synergy is an important part of succeeding in retail markets. Adjacencies are critical. The Mission Bell Plaza and Towne Center, while also located in CPD zones, are completely different types of retail centers and are not comparable to a center such as the Marketplace which is intended to be a destination retail center for warehouse based retail sales. This project has been situated in the best location relative to adjacencies and compatibility with proximal businesses. This is a Difficult Site to Develop This site is difficult to develop for three reasons. Staff and the City Council need to understand why this is a difficult site to develop and why the proposed use may be one of the only types of retail uses that is likely to be attracted (other than major automobile service centers and fast food destinations which are permitted by the development agreement but are not thought by the owner or the City to be a preferred use). First, the existence of the grades on upper New Los Angeles Avenue preclude the type of circulation pattern preferred by major retailers typical of businesses that occupy the Moorpark Towne Center or the Mission Bell Plaza. The applicant has designed the project to be sensitive to cross - valley residential areas by reducing the visibility of the parking field in front of the stores and to eliminate the visibility of the loading and unloading functions related to deliveries. Both mixed use commercial centers (containing office support, retail, restaurant, and professional services uses) and the conventional warehouse commercial centers, such as the adjacent one downslope across the freeway, nearly always require visible, large parking fields in front of all major buildings to obtain major corporations to commit to long term leases. This relationship is not possible on the proposed project site due to visibility problems, difficult grades at the entrance, and lack of suitable solutions for dual primary retail access. So, this site is not what one would characterize as a friendly pedestrian environment with supportive adjacencies for uses such as a hotel, motel, or convention center. There are some perception obstacles and management issues to be overcome with Lots 1 and 2 that are really quite difficult. Third, the landowner has investigated thoroughly whether there is any interest in this site on the part of quality hoteliers, mid - quality and business traveler hotels and suites, and potential convention center developers uses. After this extensive search for interest, the owner has determined that these uses, if the City wants to see them pursued, would best be accommodated on the smaller of the two lots comprising this site. However, it is 5 000023 important to be frank that at best, it is likely the only interested parties for this type of use would be mid- to- lower -range business hotel developers with room rates in the $80 to $100 range (such as a Hampton Inn, La Quinta or perhaps Hilton Garden Inn). The site is certainly less than ideal for a resort, destination or even convention center given its relative isolation from the rest of the City, the proximity of the freeway immediately adjacent, and other constraints. Summary The applicant and landowner understand the City's interest in a "signature" use and building at this location. However, the site configuration, relatively poor visibility of the parking field, proximity to the freeway, absence of compatible proximate uses and - pedestrian fhendly environment and limited ability to draw on synergy and adjacencies to support ambitious uses such as a convention center all mitigate against the probability that, even if the City were to deny the consistency of the uses proposed with the development agreement, that the site would ever attract uses other than those similar to the proposals presented by the applicant. Also, the Development Agreement permits what are clearly not very desirable uses such as a gas station and mini mart complex which are clearly not the "message" that the City wants to send to the traveler, businessperson, or citizen entering the Los Angeles Avenue corridor. Other clearly "legal" solutions exist that will not necessarily produce a good planning result. We believe that all parties want to avoid this from occurring. We respectfully submit that the use proposed is consistent with the Development Agreement and the owner will make a significant effort to secure a hotel use on the smaller adjacent lot out of respect for the City's direction that this would be desirable use and be as well of financial assistance to the City. However, the City's vision and the hotel development community's vision for this site are not consistent and even with best efforts, it may be very difficult to secure this use. A better emphasis for this project would be to work the site plan, architecture, and landscaping to make the proposed project a unique and attractive asset for the City while recognizing the difficulties that both this site and the general location pose for both the landowner and applicant. Respectfully, Daniel F. Selleck Cc: Tom Schlender, Warehouse Discount Center 6 000024 MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo DATE: April 23, 2004 (CC Meeting of 5/19104) SUBJECT: Consider Whether Appliance Sales, Distribution and Warehousing are Commercial Uses in Compliance With the Existing SDI Development Agreement for the Land Located on the East Side of SR 23, Immediately North and South of New Los Angeles Avenue (Lots 1 and 2 of Tract 5004) SUMMARY At the April 21, 2004 Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee (Mayor Hunter and Councilmember Mikos) meeting, Mr. Selleck asked the Committee to consider whether or not the corporate offices (8,000 square feet), a showroom (8,000 square feet) and appliance distribution warehousing facilities (115,000 square feet) were within the commercial uses of the adopted Development Agreement. Specifically, the owners of Warehouse Discount Appliance would like to construct a single building with these uses on Mr. Selleck's 8.1 acre site. The Committee recommended that the item be referred to the Council for consideration without specifying a course of action. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION On August 28, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance 220 approving a Development Agreement with Special Devices, Inc. (SDI). The Development Agreement described a number of items which were to be accomplished by SDI, as well as setting forth the permitted uses for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Lot 3 has been developed with the SDI facility while Lots 1 and 2 have been graded, but remain undeveloped. With respect to the allowable uses for Lots 1 and 2, Section 6.k. of the Development Agreement states: S: \Community Development \DEV PHTS \C P D\Selleck- Warehouse Appliance \cc agenda report.doc 000025 Honorable City Council May 19, 2004 Page 2 Developer agrees that the maximum building square footage for Lot 1 of VTTM No. 5004 shall not exceed 132,183 and for Lot 2 of VTTM No. 5004 shall not exceed 37,200, and further agrees that the permitted and conditionally permitted uses of Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to: (i) shopping centers; (ii) hotels and motels; (iii) bars, taverns and night clubs but only in conjunction with a hotel or motel use; (iv) conference centers and convention centers; (v) hospitals; (vi) retail pharmacies for -prescription pharmaceutical only; (vii) restaurants, cafes and cafeterias; (viii) retail trades, only within a building; and (ix) motor vehicle, mobile home, recreation vehicle and boat dealers and for Lot 2 only, automobile service station including a mini mart. Subsequently, SDI sold Lots l and 2. Dan Selleck is the current owner. The Development Agreement will expire in 2006 at which time, unless the Development Agreement is extended or modified, the CPD zoning would govern the allowable land uses on Lots 1 and 2. ANALYSIS The question before the Council is whether the uses proposed by Warehouse Discount Center fit within the parameters of Section 6.k. of the Development Agreement, are consistent with the General Commercial land use and consistent with the CPD zoning. The Moorpark General Plan Land Use Map shows the sites as General Commercial. General Commercial is defined in the General Plan as follows: C -2 General Commercial (.25 FAR) This designation provides fro commercial areas with a wide range of retail and service activities (6 -20 acres). Intended uses include community shopping centers, department stores, restaurants, automotive uses, office and professional services, and business support services. This designation encourages the grouping of commercial outlets into consolidated centers with direct access to major roads, arterials and /or freeways. 000026 Honorable City Cout._il May 19, 2004 Page 3 The zoning for the site is Commercial Planned Development (CPD) which is defined as follows: The purpose of this zone is to encour, coordinated, innovative and efficient to provide areas for a wide range business uses, including stores, shops commodities or performing services community. age the development of commercial sites and of commercial retail and offices supplying for the surrounding It is clear to staff that the distribution portion of the proposed use is not within the parameters of the Development Agreement due to the industrial nature of the distribution use and the fact that the distribution portion of the use is the predominant or primary use. Warehouse Discount Center is proposing to centralize its appliance distribution, establish its corporate headquarters and create a showroom at this site. They would acquire the entire 8.1 acre site and place a 115,000 square foot building on the site, devoting approximately 8,000 square feet to office and 8,000 square feet to showroom as well as a companion 25,500 square foot retail building for furniture and /or associated uses. The warehousing use is typical of what one would find in a light industrial area. The primary use is distribution of appliances while sales and office use are secondary. The applicant has indicated that the company produces annual earnings of $56 million from all of its stores in other communities. The annual retail sales from the proposed showroom in Moorpark is estimated by Warehouse Discount Center to be $8.5 million. Another way to look at the use issue is to ask if this use would be acceptable in other CPD area such as the Moorpark Marketplace, Moorpark Towne Center, Mission Bell Plaza or any other of the many CPD zones in the City? Development of the site with such a use would also be architecturally challenging having to deal with the monolithic nature of the warehouse building as well as the visibility of the site. Loading docks would need to be screened; the mass of the building disguised and the aesthetics of the site and building would need to be of the highest quality due to its prominent location above the freeway. However, should it be the Council's desire to allow such a use it would require an amendment to the Development Agreement, an ©®002'7 Honorable City Cou.__il May 19, 2004 Page 4 amendment to the General Plan text language for General Commercial and /or an amendment in the Land Use Plan Map, and Possibly an amendment in the zoning forthe site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Find that the distribution use is not within the uses of Section 6.k, of the Development Agreement and that the distribution use is inconsistent with the General Commercial land use and the CPD zone. Attachments: _ 1. Proposed Front Elevation of Warehouse 2. Proposed Site Plan with Retail 3. Proposed Site Plan with Retail and Restaurant 4. Affordable /Housing Community Development Agenda Report 000028 000029 oc0000 i i11 11 RETAIL HOME SHOPPING A 11.x.. C-m h400rp" IVA01111011W [Rs: TCOOOO im .174 A.S.j .. ...... V i. iii RETAIL ff SHOPPING rN mwonn.ft WAORDiOUW DSCOUVT CaffM L4; .174 A.S.j .. ...... V i. iii RETAIL ff SHOPPING rN mwonn.ft WAORDiOUW DSCOUVT CaffM AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT TO: Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director DATE: April 14, 2004 (AH /CDC Meeting of 4/21/04) SUBJECT: Consider and Discuss Development Potential for the Property Located on the North and South Sides of White Sage Road, East of SR 23, Dan Selleck, owner. BACKGROUND On August 28, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance 220 approving a Development Agreement with Special Devices, Inc. (SDI). The Development Agreement described a number of items which were to be accomplished by SDI, as well as, setting forth the permitted uses for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Lot 3 has been developed with SDI facility while Lots 1 and 2 have been graded, but remain undeveloped. With respect to the allowable uses for Lots 1 and 2, Section 6.k. of the Development Agreement states: Developer agrees that the maximum building square footage for Lot 1 of VTTM No. 5004 shall not exceed 132,183 and for Lot 2 of VTTM No. 5004 shall not exceed 37,200, and further agrees that the permitted and conditionally permitted uses of Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to: (i) shopping centers; (ii) hotels and motels; (iii) bars, taverns and night clubs but only in conjunction with a hotel or motel use; (iv) conference centers and convention centers; (v) hospitals; (vi) retail pharmacies for prescription pharmaceutical only; (vii) restaurants, cafes and cafeterias; (viii) retail trades, only within a building; and (ix) motor vehicle, mobile home, recreation vehicle and boat dealers and for Lot 2 S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C P D \Selleck- Warehouse Appliance \Att 4.doc 000032 Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee April 21, 2004 Page 2 only, automobile service station including a mini mart. Subsequently, SDI sold Lots 1 and 2. Dan Selleck is the current owner. The Development Agreement will expire in 2006 at which time, unless the Development Agreement is extended or modified, the CPD zoning would govern the allowable land uses on Lots 1 and 2. DISCUSSION Existing Site Conditions: Lot 1 is approximately 8.1 acres, topographically at approximately the same level as SR 23 and has excellent visibility from SR 23. It is also prominently visible from a great portion of the City. Lot 2 is approximately 2.4 acres and is adjacent to the New Los Angeles Avenue off ramp and has limited visibility from SR 23. Both sites have been previously graded. GENERAL PLAN /ZONING Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Commercial Site General Commercial Planned Graded and Development undeveloped (CPD) North ace Open S P P Open Space Arroyo Simi (OS) Open Space Open Space and (OS) and Open Space and South Manufacturing Limited Special Devices, Industrial Inc. (M-2) East Open Space Open Space Arroyo Simi and (OS) open space West Open Space and P P — Open Space (OS) and _ Open space and Freeway Freeway SR 23 Any change to the land use would require an amendment to the Development Agreement, potential amendment to the zoning, potential amendment to the General Plan and environmental documentation. 000033 Affordable Housing, - ommunity Development Commi —ee April 21, 2004 Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff as appropriate. Attachments: 2. Aerial Photo 000034