The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0106 CC REG ITEM 11Jpia. v! >) ITEM (T* MOORPARK 799-Moorpark Avenue y. ('Ou- l Mcc;. ,.3 r 1493 ACTION: --AGENDA TO: The Honorable City Council Moorpark, California 93021 REPORT (805) 529 -6864 l'v9� By FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Director of Community Development'ri✓ DATE: December 23, 1992 (CC meeting of 1/6/93) SUBJECT: JBR - Request for City- Developer Tri -Party Agreement for Specific Plan & Environmental Impact Report Background: As the Council may recall, JBR is one of the parties which has expressed an interest in processing a Specific Plan for their property. As a precursor to their filing of an application JBR submitted a letter dated 10/16/92 (attached) to staff. Said letter delineated a series of demands by JBR which staff did not agree with. The issue was subsequently placed on the Community Development Committees' Agenda at JBR's request. A copy of the Committees' report dated 11/ 19/92 is attached. As the Committees' report indicates, the Committee felt that JBR was either requesting guarantees that the City could not make as in the case of (letter dated 10/16/92) Item No. 1 or they were asking for commitments on the City's part without any supportive information as in the case of Item No. 2. Staff and the Committee have made it very clear that we do not know the status of "D" Street; that we do not know what the Measure "F" Committee will recommend; that we do not know what hillside development standards may require; and we certainly do not have control over the County, State, or Federal AirQuality Standards that may be adopted in the future. J RA: crla:coun61\jbr.l-0 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember The Honorable City Council December 23, 1992 Page -2- Notwithstanding previous correspondence and conversations, Mr. Rosenberg has written the attached letter dated 12/17/92 requesting an opportunity to speak with the Council. The item has therefore been placed on this agenda in compliance to Mr. Rosenberg's request. Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. 3 RA:crla:council�br.1 -6 JBRnEVP_L_OPMF_f*-J-r CO. 8383 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1036 • BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211 PHONE: 653 -6100 December 17, 1992 Mr. Jim Aguilera Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: City - Developer Tri -Party Agreement for Specific Plan and EIR Dear Jim: Please schedule our requests in the attached letter for the City Council to consider at the January G, 1993 meeting. We would prefer to be placed on the early part of the City Council Agenda, if possible. As we discussed, the intent, of Paragraphs 1 and 2, is that we want to build a reasonable number of units like 75 -200, if consistent with Traffic Study Analysis, before "D" Street is required to be approved. We also would like to know that a similar number of permits will be available at the completion of our Specific Plan process, or at a minimum; that the permits now available, will not be arbitrarily removed by the City Council. Similarly, regarding Paragraphs 3 and 4, it is our under- standing that when we complete the Specific Plan Application the guidelines that are in effect at that time will be the design standards we use and will not be arbitrarily changed. Therefore, we won't have to redesign all our work and models to ever - changing standards. In summary, Jim, our concern is that we start the process in January, designing Plans to your specifications under the current guidelines and public forums; and then, find out nine months from now that you won't approve any plans until a new hillside or another ordinance is adopted; then we would have to redesign and start over. We need your direction on how to proceed. more . . . . . RECEIVED — U is 2 2 1992 City of Moornark Mr. Jim Aguilera December 17, 1992 Page 2. The EIR and Specific Plan process is estimated to cost approximately $500- 600,000 done once! I think it is reasonable for us to expect some assurance before we undertake an expensive process like this. Please let me know when you can schedule this request. Sincerely yours, Mark Rosenberg MR: dm Attachment JBRr_)aVaL_C)F=brV1er%J-r CO. 8383 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1036 . BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211 PHONE: 653 -6100 October 16, 1992 Mr. Jim Aguilera Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: City- Developer Tri -Party Agreement . for Specific Plan and EIR Dear Jim: As we discussed in our meeting of Tuesday, October 13th, with you and Debbie, these are the items that should be included in the above agreement along with the corrections recommended by your office to the Specific Plan and EIR proposal: (1) Guarantee by the City that the current building permits available to developers now will be available to those applicants in the General Plan update who file their Specific'Plans, prior to March 1, 1993, and whose Specific Plans are within the City limits of the City of Moorpark. (2) Agreement by the City with developer not to link or restrict the issuance of the first 200 building permits to the approval of "D" Street by any governmental agency or the construction of "D" Street and agreement to adopt the mitigation fee now in effect as the standard for this project as it is developed. (3) Agreement by the City that the developer may proceed using the current hillside standards in effect on October 30, 1992. (4) Agreement by the City to adopt the current County air quality standards as of today, as the standard for this project as it is developed. (5) Agreement by the City to follow a time line - a time limit in responding to processing the Specific Plan and EIR. more. . . . Mr. Jim Aguilera October 16, 1992 Page 2. (6) Agreement by the City to provide a fee schedule for processing the Specific Plan and EIR, and agreement not to charge an additional administrative handling charge. (7) Agreement by objective of is to follow and the dens General Plan the Specific the City that the basic the Specific Plan and EIR the land use designations ity range identified on the update as the standard for Plan and EIR design. If the City agrees that the above items will be included in the City - Developer's Tri -Party Agreement, then we will proceed with having our consultant prepare the agreement and revise the Specific Plan and EIR proposal for your approval at the same time. We understand that the corrections to the consultant's Specific Plan and EIR proposal will be reviewed and approved by both the City and the applicant. Attached find our check in the amount of $3,000 that you requested. Yours truly, j i Mark Rosenberg MR : dm Attachment - check cc: Ms. Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE ME40RANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Director of Community Developmeno '/ DATE: November 19, 1992 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1992 CALLED TO ORDER: 6:15 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Paul Lawrason, Councilmember Perez, Steven Kueny, City Manager, Jim Aguilera, Director of Community Development ITEM 1. ADULT ENTFRTAIMENT FACILITY /BUSINESSES ORDINANCE The Committee recommended that this item be forwarded to the City Council with the amendment of item 3 on page 3 to allow a 500 foot distance instead of 1000 feet. This was done in response to the City Attorney comments on this issue. ITEM 2. JBR DEVELOPMENT - 11EMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Regarding JBR's letter dated 10/16/92 the Committee responded to each item-as follows: 1. The Committee felt that guaranteeing availability of permits was not in the best interest of the City. 2. The Committee believes that "D" Street may be required to be built as a result of this project due to traffic impact analysis. The city should not guarantee that any number of permits will be issued prior to the construction of "D" street since the City does not know what the traffic .impacts will be. The Committee did feel that the developer should be reimbursed by future development and that the City should participate financially if funds are available. Post-it' brand fax transmittal memo 7671 of Pao" IT6 _ _ f..n- _ _ . CRL 11/19192 (Thu)- R : \CDNMITTE \CDC11.16H ca. Tj p CpC r ** TOTAL PAGE.001 ** FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Director of Community Development DATE: November 19, 1992 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVEILOPME;T COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1992 Page -2- 3. The hillside standards the City has now are minimal. it is understood that as part of the Specific Plan more stringent standards will be developed. This however should not preclude the City from making more stringent requirements as new information becomes available. 4. The City should impose those air quality standards that are imposed upon us by either the Federal, State or County governments or agencies. We cannot guarantee that those standards available today will not change. 5. The City should not agree to a time -line since we do not have control over issues which may cause delays. The city will act with reasonable expediency. 6. The City will only charge actual costs and an accounting of all charges will be available for inspection by the developer. 7. The city has already conceptually agreed to the proposal as outlined in the Specific Plan. Item 7 was considered by the Committee as redundant. ITEM 3. FIREPLACE - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS This item was not discussed and was continued to November 19, 1992. ITEM 4. MISSION BELL SIGNS The Committee requested that staff present the proposal to the Planning Commission Sign Workshop group at their next meeting. The Committee did express a desire to keep the original proposal which consisted of 3 of monument signs. The following items were added to the agenda of November 16, 1992: CRL 11119/92 (Thu)-A: \CCMMITTE \CDC11.16M