HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 1205 CC REG ITEM 11G 742./OO( ) i Er
MOORPARK ITEM d
BERNARDO M. PEREZ MC7=2A,M CAUFORMA ,o�►"�o STEVEN KUENY
Mayor c p Council Meeting o�`ii City Manager
SCOTT MONTGOMERY �, y S 1� F ��, CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tern _--- l2 ��•, �.+ City Attorney
/ •�i; VA PATRICKRICHARDS,A.I.C.P.
ELOISE BROWN < TiON:G�c//�^C�,G�[�`Sp��
Councilmember —_,�/ A �-� m Director of
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. ill- /L L f 4 '691-1
/7 Community Development
Councilmember , 'o �— / • R. DENNIS DELZEIT
PAUL W. LAWRASON,Jr. 6 C�" /� afiLa4 ( / / f C, City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
LILLIAN KELLERMAN MEMORAND ',ffco , Chief of Police
City Clerk RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: November 14, 1990 (CC meeting of December 5, 1990)
SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF PD-1048 (Colin Valesquez)
*****************************************************************
Background
The proposed project was the development of a two story, 9325 sq.
ft. commercial retail center at the northwest corner of High Street
and Moorpark Avenue. The subject site is 15, 000 sq. ft. in area.
The City's Zone Map and General Plan designates this site for
commercial use. The project was originally approved in December of
1985 with the adoption of Resolution No. PC 85-72 . This resolution
granted two (2) years for the developer to begin the use. A
request for a time extension was granted by the Planning Commission
in January of 1989 for an additional year. This entitlement permit
expired in December, 1989 . Anew application was filed in March of
1990 and was later withdrawn by Mr. Valesquez .
Reconsideration of this project was heard at the City Council
meeting of October 3, 1990. By consensus of the Council, this
matter was to be returned at a future agenda after determination by
the City Attorney as to the procedure for renewal of the project
application.
On October 22, 1990, the Director of Community Development
received a letter from the City Attorney regarding this matter.
The City Attorney indicates that this permit does not qualify for
a continuance. Therefore, the permit is subject to the regular
process as outlined in Section 8163-4 .4 . 1, et seq. , which requires
that "all discretionary application requests shall be decided after
an administrative or public hearing has been held on the subject
case as required by this chapter. "
1
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
In addition, short of amending Section 8163-4 . 1.4, the City must
follow the regular process, because a governmental body may not
waive the requirements of an ordinance enacted for the public
benefit (Strong v. County of Santa Cruz {19751 .
On November 7, 1990, the City Council determined that the applicant
would need to refile an application for the proposed project. The
City Council requested staff to determine what would be required of
the applicant for submittal, how the subsequent project review
could be streamlined, and what type of conditions in addition to
the original conditions of approval for Planned Development Permit
No. 1048 would be imposed on the project?
Discussion
In as much as the applicant refiled an application in March of 1990
for approval of the same permit and required material were
submitted at that time, the only additional necessary items needed
for a new application would be the processing forms, a traffic
study and a financial deposit to cover staff costs.
The City Engineer has reviewed this project in terms of a need for
a traffic study and has indicated to staff that a minimal traffic
report could be completed in memo form by the City Engineer for
between $1,000-$1,500 . The traffic analysis would consist of the
following:
1. Project description and a location map
2 . Steps taken for determining trip generation and traffic
distribution
3 . Exhibit showing the existing traffic volumes and another
exhibit showing project traffic volumes at for the
following intersections:
o Moorpark Avenue at High Street
o Moorpark Avenue at Poindexter Avenue
o Moorpark Avenue at Los Angeles Avenue
o High Street at Spring Road
4 . For a cumulative analysis the project can piggyback on
the volumes for the year 2010 that was done for Tentative
Tract 4620 (JBH)
The City Council after review of the scope of the traffic study may
determine that the requested scope be modified. It is staff's
opinion that the proposed project will incrementally increase
traffic, thus at least a minimal study should be required.
2
Conditions identified in the traffic study to mitigate traffic
issues would be used as mitigating conditions of approval for the
project. These mitigating conditions would be addressed in a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and as such incorporated into a
Mitigating Monitoring Program for the project.
The proposed project does not meet current parking standard
requirements in terms of the required number of parking spaces for
the size building or the required minimum required size of parking
spaces . Thus it would be necessary for the applicant to apply for
and obtain a variance from these requirements .
It is not necessary to send the project out to other review
agencies, since agency comments were received not only for the
originally approved permit and the applicant's submittal for a
Planned Development in March, 1990 . Most of the conditions of
approval for PD-1048 could be used with the addition of a few
others such as a contribution to the Arts in Public Places Fund,
Parks Contribution and perhaps additional traffic mitigation
conditions (if appropriate) and other miscellaneous standard
conditions that are generally required of all commercial projects
within the City.
Recommendation
1. That the City Council give staff direction as to the scope of
work for a traffic study to be completed for this project.
2 . That staff be directed to process this project in a manner by
which a decision by the Planning Commission may be made no
later than ninety (90) days from the date an application is
deemed complete by the City.
3