Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0917 CC REG ITEM 08ATO: FROM: DATE: City Council Agenda report The City Council Paul Porter, Principal Planner 92�� Nelson Miller, Director of Community 7/,� - 3 (,a- 3) ITEM ?%A6 aff OF MW"AM CAIMRMIA City Co ncil Mating of y 1997 AC N: BY: Developme September 9, 1997 (CC meeting of September 17, 1997) SUBJECT: CONSIDER REQUEST FROM A. DEEWAYNE JONES, D.D.S. FOR APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CPD) NO. 96 -3, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5056 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 96 -2 ON A FOUR ACRE PARCEL LOCATED CONTIGUOUS WITH THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF MISSION BELL - PHASE 2 (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 511- 14 -13) On September 3, 1997, the City Council discussed the above captioned projects a duly noticed hearing and continued the hearing to September 17, 1997 to allow staff to respond to the applicant's and other concerns discussed at the public hearing. The following is in response to issues discussed at the public hearing: Staff reviewed the site to determine the feasibility of relocating the proposed northerly wall from the property line in order to preserve the trees located on or near the property line. The subject trees interfere with the overhead utility lines, appear unhealthy, would interfere with the layout of the proposed site plan and detract from the proposed landscaping on the commercial center. Staff recommends that the trees be removed and the wall be placed along the property line, with some discretion for minor deviations as determined by the Director of Community Development C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC City Council Staff Report 9/17/97 CPD96 -3, CUP 96 -2 and PM 5036 A. Deewayne Jones Page No. 2 as addressed in Condition No. 38 of the CPD and CUP which states: 38. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a eight (8) foot high wall (8 feet high on residential side and no less than 6 feet high on commercial side) located along the northern and western property line shall be constructed. The wall shall be the same materials and design as constructed for the adjacent property located to the east (Mission Bell - Phase II - Also see City Engineer Condition relating to construction of wall) . The fence and wall shall be shown on the plot plan and landscaping and irrigation plan. Where applicable, prior to approval of the final wall and fence plan, the Director of Community Development shall approve the connection to the north and westerly property line wall with existing fence and walls on the adjacent residential lots. In an effort to reduce noise, the grading plan shall provide that the wall be constructed at the beginning of grading operations. No grading on the site shall begin until the wall is completed. In order to have consistency with condition No. 38 of the CPD /CUP, staff recommends the modification of Condition No. 67 as follows: 67. All property line walls shall be no further than one inch from the property line', unless otherwise modified by the Director of Community 'Deve'lopment pursuant to 'condi'tion No. 38. Ms. Barbara Schultz stated at the located in the vicinity of the containing debris. The debris residential property to the west public hearing there is an area northeast portion of the site appears to be on the adjacent of Ms. Schultz's property. Utilizing the standard defaults and policies of the Air Control District (APCD) and calculating impacts based on building mixed use commercial development and information the applicant's unrevised traffic study and the URBEMIS5 C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC Pollution a multiple based on computer 11�i! City Council Staff Report 9/17/97 CPD96 -3, CUP 96 -2 and PM 5036 A. Deewayne Jones Page No. 3 program (which is latest program approved for use by the California Air Resources Board), APCD originally calculated the project would generate 38.89lbs /day of Reactive Organic Compounds and 41.45 pound /day oxides of nitrogen. Pursuant to the 1989 Ventura County Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analysis, this would have required a mitigation of $157,155.48. The analysis completed by Impact Sciences does not utilize the computer program utilized by APCD, but their own hybrid model, not recognized within Ventura County. The APCD has requested that all cities within Ventura County utilize the URBEMIS5 computer program when calculating air quality impact analysis for development projects. To utilize the Impact Sciences figures would be inconsistent past City policy. After questions by the applicant prior to the Planning Commission hearing of July 28, 1997, the APCD recalculated the air quality impacts based on the revised project and allowing for 10% pass -by trips and 10% internal trips for the restaurants and retail shops. Some pass -by and internal trips are allowed for in the model currently under development and testing. Based upon the criteria in the Ventura County's "Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses ", and utilizing the APCD URBEMISS computer program to determine air quality impacts, the air quality impacts will be above the 25 pound per day threshold. The reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen based on the recalculated figures are 37.64 lbs. /day and 34.52 lbs. /day, respectively. The APCD disagrees with the Impact Sciences analysis and recommends that cities utilize the County's Guidelines when determining impacts. APCD indicated that there was no justification provided for the pass -by percentages, justification for internal trips or for the cold start percentages as utilized in the Impact Sciences analysis. In addition, the figures used by Impact Sciences are significantly lower than those provided for in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Handbook. Based on a mitigation of $10.10 per pound of ROC in excess of 25 pounds per day and a center operating 359 days per year, and mitigation over a three year period, pursuant to the Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analysis, the mitigation would be calculated to be a total of $143,067.24. Therefore, staff C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC i�tr� City Council Staff Report 9/17/97 CPD96 -3, CUP 96 -2 and PM 5036 A. Deewayne Jones Page No. 4 recommends that the following condition on the CPD /CUP remain as follows: 45. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the permittee shall make a total contribution to the Moorpark Traffic Systems Management Fund (TSM) of $143,067.24 as a mitigation measure to fully mitigate the significant impact to fund TSM programs or clean -fuel vehicles programs as determined by the City and to meet the Mitigation Monitoring Program. This may be paid prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction of each building in the amount of pro -rated per square foot of building area. This amount was recommended by staff to the Planning Commission. At the request of the Planning Commission, this amount was reviewed again and after consideration also recommended to the City Council. Subsequent to the preparation of the City Council report, the applicant discussed traffic issues with the City's contract traffic consultant. Based on the uses presented by the applicant, such as a donut shop and mail forwarding store, he indicated a 35% pass -by for such retail uses are acceptable. However, other retail uses could easily have a lower pass -by percentage. Furthermore, the traffic analysis assumes a quality restaurant, while Mr. Jones has indicated elsewhere (in a letter to adjacent property owner) that is not now expected and therefore would result in greater number of trips. In any case, the most significant difference in the air quality impact analysis is not the difference in trips, which is a difference of only 6.5 %. However, there is a 58.87% total difference in the estimated amount of ROC which is the basis for impact analysis. Therefore, 52.3% in ROC emissions results from the input parameters and model used by the City and APCD to calculate the impacts for all other projects in the City. City utilizes the APCD Guidelines and model to determine the air quality impacts. The Guidelines do include trip generation figures which are considered along with numbers from the traffic study. For comparison purposes, the recommended amount of TSM contribution for Mr. Jones project equates to $2.49 per square foot, while the amount for the Mission Bell -Phase 2 was $2.14 per square foot and for Mountain Meadows Plaza (Lucky's) was $4.18 per square foot. C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC DTI= City Council Staff Report 9/17/97 CPD96 -3, CUP 96 -2 and PM 5036 A. Deewayne Jones Page No. 5 '• ZI DIEM ;9 CAM •� ;� ; :;� •gyp •� • The Council indicated that there will be no change to hours of operation Therefore condition No. 7 of the CPD /CUP will remain as follows: 7. That the hours of operation for all uses on the site shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Vacuuming of the parking area or the use of any other noise producing equipment shall not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Further requests to extend the hours of operation shall require public notification to property owners within 1,000 feet of the site. Condition No. 8 precluded a drive - through for the pad buildings. The Council indicated that a drive - through could be allowed for the pad located adjacent to Mission Bell Plaza. Therefore, staff has modified condition No. 8 of the CPD /CUP as follows: 8. Drive - through access for any purpose shall not be allowed for the westerly most pad located adjacent to the residential properties or for the two -story office /retail building. The applicant did not agree with the City's Condition No. 12 for the CPD and Condition No. 11 of the Tentative Parcel Map. These Conditions of approval are standard conditions of approval for all Planned Development Permits and subdivisions and serve the purpose to protect the City from legal challenges. Since approval of C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC City Council Staff Report 9/17/97 CPD96 -3, CUP 96 -2 and PM 5036 A. Deewayne Jones Page No. 6 development projects are for the benefit of the property owner, the property owner should bear the burden of any legal challenges on the part of the City approving a project. Condition 11 of the Tentative Parcel Map has been a standard condition applied to Parcel Maps; however, condition 12 could be applied to both, since it is a broader condition, which is the standard condition which has been applied to other projects. 12. The permittee agrees as a condition of issuance and use of this permit to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City because of issuance (or renewal) of this permit or in the alternative to relinquish this permit. Permittee will reimburse the City for any court costs and /or attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to pay as a result of any such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve permittee of his obligation under this condition. 11. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents, officers, or employees concerning the subdivision, which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding, and, if the City should fail to do so or should fail to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents, officers and employees pursuant to this condition. C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC City Council Staff Report 9/17/97 CPD96 -3, CUP 96 -2 and PM 5036 A. Deewayne Jones Page No. 7 Pursuant to Council action, staff has modified condition 102 of the CPD /CUP and 43 of the Tentative Tract Map as follows: 102. The subdivid applicant shall costs for the City to vacate and quit claim any interest in Everest Avenue as stzeet right-of-wa . 43. The subdivider shall be responsible f,-.;.L the City to vacate—a-nd quit claim any',',;'' interest in Everest Avenue as stmeet right-of-wa . Staff discussed the modifications to the site plan with the applicant and the City Council meeting. The applicant has agreed to proceed with the original plan as there may be further modifications once tenants have been obtained. Depending on the magnitude of any requested future changes, staff will determine whether a Permit Adjustment or Modification to the CPD /CUP will be required. Therefore, staff recommends that the following condition on the CPD /CUP remain as follows: 105. The Los Angeles Avenue project driveway shall be designed to prohibit left turn egress onto Los Angeles Avenue and driveway shall have a minimum curb radius of thirty five feet. An onsite median shall also be designed and signage installed to discourage this movement. Left turn ingress into the site from Los Angeles Avenue will be allowed provided adequate storage in the left turn storage bay can be demonstrated. City reserves the right to prohibit left turns into the site in the future in the event a raised median is constructed in Los Angeles Avenue for safety considerations at the City's discretion. C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC 000007 City Council Staff Report 9/17/97 CPD96 -3, CUP 96 -2 and PM 5036 A. Deewayne Jones Page No. 8 According to the City Engineer, the applicant's cost as described in Conditions No. 106 and 107 will be the percentage described in Condition No. 114. 114. The applicant shall make a special contribution to the City representing the developers pro -rata share of the cost of improvements at the following intersection: Los Angeles Avenue /Gabbert Road ($90,000) Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue ($150,000) The actual contribution (pro -rata share) shall be based upon the additional traffic added to the intersection. The developer's traffic engineer shall provide the City Engineer a "Fair Share Analysis" of the projects added traffic for calculation of the pro -rata ( "fair share "). The aforementioned entitlement request was determined to be complete on June 30, 1997. Therefore, the determination relating to the Negative Declaration needs to be completed within 105 days from June 30, 1997, and the decision regarding the Tentative Parcel Map within 30 days after the first Council meeting following the Commission hearing, and three months thereafter for the Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Planned Development Permit. 1. Close the public hearing. 2. Review, consider and approve the Declaration. 3. Review, consider and approve the monitoring program. C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC Mitigated Negative proposed mitigation City Council Staff Report 9/17/97 CPD96 -3, CUP 96 -2 and PM 5036 A. Deewayne Jones Page No. 9 4. Make the appropriate findings (see Attachment 1 - Resolution). 5 Require Transportation System Management (TSM) contribution be made in the amount of $143,067.24. 6. Adopt a Resolution approving Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 96 -3, Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -2 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 5056. Attachment City Council Resolution C: \M \CPD.963 \17SEP97.CC 000009