HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0517 CC REG ITEM 11D1W. 3Q/ly
MOORPARK ITEM�I.D.,
ELOISE BROWN
Mayor
BERNARDO M. PEREZ
Mayor Pro Tom
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D.
Coundimember
PAUL LAWRASON
Ccuncilmember
3COTT MONTGOMERY
Ccundimember
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
MEBORAN➢UN
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: May 8, 1989 (CC Meeting of 5-17-89)
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE APPLICANTS (GPA-89-1/ZC-89-1)
Bac ound
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
City Atromey
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Dayelopmem
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GI LLESPIE
Chief of Police
On March 17, 1989, all approved applicants for the 1989 General Plan Update were
sent a letter: which requested that a formal application for a general plan
Amendment and zone change be filed by March 31, 1989. That letter also
identified the fair share cost to be deposited with the City to pay for the
consultant firm of Phillips Brandt Reddick (PAR) to complete the General Plan
revisions and the environmental impact report.
Discussion
Following is a list of the applicants who formally filed for the General Plan
Update, and a comparison of their current request versus the PER contract
request. Attached to this memorandum is a list of the original applicants with
a line drawn through the nerves of the applicants that did not submit a formal
application for a general plan amendment and zone change.
1989 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE APPLICANTS_
APPLICANT
CURRENT REQUEST
PBR CONTRACT REQUEST
Lend Use
zoning
Land Use
Scaroni
Com. Office (1.75 ac)
C-0
Com. Office (1.75 ac)
Newton
Gen. Com. (3.86 ac)
CPD
Gen. Com. (3.86 ac)
(Anderson)
99 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
APPLICANT CURRENT REQUEST PRR CONTRACT REQUEST
Lead Use Zoning Land Use
Newton Gen. Com. (4.0 ac) CPD Gen. Cos. (4.32 ac)
(Gisler)
Newton Light Indust.(29.93 ac) M-1 Light Indust. (29.93 ac)
Ravli)
Levy Co.
Mod. High Resid.
(40
ac)
Light Indust.
(40 ac)
Mod. Resid.
(100
ac)
Med. Indust.
(60 ac)
Low Resid.
(65
ac)
Had. Resid.
(90 ac)
Rural High Resid. (20
ac)
Rural High Resid.
(59.9 ac)
Park
42
ac
Rural Low Resid.
(39.5 at)
(267
ac)
(289.4 ac)
Moorpark Rch.
All Gen. Com. (35.4
ac)
CPD
High Resid.
(17.19 ac)
& Milling
or
RPD-15u
Very High Resid.(9.47
ac)
Very High Res id.(9.47
ac)
and CPD
Gen. Com.
(8.74 ac)
and Gen. Com.
(25.93
ac)
(35.4 ac)
Newton
High Resid. (34.53
ac)
RPD-7
High Resid. (34.53
ac)
(Estes)
(Mobile Home Park)
Guny
Rural Low (64.3
ac)
RE-5
Low Resid. (64.3
ac)
(1.1-2 du/ac)
School Dist.
Resid.
High Resid.
Rec./Parks
Had. Resid.
Commercial
Had. Los Resid.
Gen. Com.
Industrial
(21.26
ac)
(21.26
ac)
Newton
(IBR Devel.) Low Resid.
(445
acres)
RPD-2
Low Resid.
(443
acres)
RPD-4
RPD-5
RE-2.5
CPD
OS
Schleve Rural High
(19
ac)
RE-1 ac
Rural High
(19
ac)
Very High
(13
ac)
RPD-15u
Very High
(13
ac)
Park-Passive(32
ac)
OS
Park
(32
ac)
Open Space
7
ac
OS
Open Space
7
ac
(71
ac)
(71
ac)
There are several Issues which must be resolved in regard to the General Plan
Update. As identified in the preceding table, some of the applicants have
changed their land use density request, and this may require a revision of the
PBR proposal. The Levy Company and Abe Guny decreased the development intensity
of their proposals, and Moorpark Ranch and Milling increased the development
intensity of their proposal. The Moorpark School District revised their
requested land uses slightly, but have still not identified specifically the
location of requested land uses nor have they identified acreage amounts.
Another issue is that the fair -share costs each applicant has paid were based on
a division of the total cost between the original eighteen applicants as shown
on Attachment 1. Since there are now only eleven applicants, the costs should
be redistributed. Staff requested that PBR reassess their proposal to determine
if the identified cost for services would decrease based on the changes to the
scope of work. PBR has determined that the total reduction in costs would be
$3,500.
Attachment 2 shows a recalculation of fair -share costs for the 11 current
applicants. As can be seen by comparing Attachments 1 and 2, the cost per
applicant has increased by approximately one third. If the 11 applicants are
requested to pay the recalculated fair -share cost, additional applicants may
drop out of the current update process. The City Council will need to determine
whether the City should pay any of the General Plan Update costs if current
applicants withdraw their request for a general plan amendment and zone change.
Raeamandation
1. Confirm that the General Plan Update shall analyze the original requests of
the applicants upon which the PBR proposal was based unless the revised
proposal represents a decrease in development potential for the property.
2. Require the School District to provide specific acreages and a location map
for all requested land use designations.
3. Direct staff to obtain a written response from all applicants by May 31
regarding agreement to pay revised costs based upon a reallocation of the
costs among the current eleven applicants.
4. Direct staff to bring this matter back before the Council on June 7 for a
determination on approval of PBR to initiate work on the General Plan
Update.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - List of original applicants
Attachment 2 - List of current applicants including recalculation of
fair -share fees MOORPARI , CALIFORNIA
PJR/DST City Council Meeting
4TION
TABLE "A"
Average Daily
Trips
= $2.581
Amend-
Average
Zone
ment #
Applicant
Daily Trips
GP Cost
Change Cost
Total Cost
1
Scaroni
525
$ 1,355.03
$ 1,250.00
$ 2,605.03
1
3
Newton (Anderson)
2,123
5,477.34
19250.00
6,727.34
3
4
Newton (Geisler)
2,376
6,132.46
1,250.00
7,382.46
4
5
Newton (Kavlico)
7,341
18,947.12
19250.00
205197.12
5
6
Levy
16,780
43,309.18
1,250.00
44,559.18
6
7
Moorpark Ranch
7,196
18,572.88
1,250.00
19,822.88
7
4,956.50
12
Newton (Estes)
2,417
69238.28
19250.00
7,488.28
12
13
Guny
19029
2,655.85
1,250.00
33905685
13
D
14
Newton (JBR)
7,088
18,294.13
19250.00
19,544.13
14
16
Moorpark Sch.District
2,324
5,998.25
1,250.00
7,248.25
16
S1
18
Schleve
19345
3,471.45
1,250.00
49721.45
18
A
862796
$224,018.38
$ 22,500.00
$2469518.38
im
TABLE "A"
Average Daily Trips = $T3@?
*5.2 2.
Amend-
Average
Zone
ment N
Applicant
Daily Trips GP Cost
Change Cost Total Cost
2,779.30
1
Scaroni
525 $ r 66__;Q
$ 1,250.00 $ 2-, 4,028.30
o
u..,.,. n
3 Newton (Anderson)
21123
4DK'nz
19250.00
120494.42
4 Newton (Geisler)
WOO
A 20p
11, 642. o
15250.00
Z�82�5 i2,392.40
���,
5 Newton (Kavlico)
1, 250.00
�� s„4o, O9S.s7
6 Levy
8753441
18T780
� ���
9. ii3
1,250.00
43*54Ca 45, 4'11.
12
7 Moorpark Ranch
7,196
t3
1,250.00
124r82?�$ 39, 33,1.23
`
6o368.38
6 E'
I99e
5;ioc3e
1,259...88
12
Newton (Estes)
29417
z �90.7
1,250.00
141o4O.76
13
Guny
Ire
15250.00
5 1,925.04
14
Newton (JBR)
.'t;RBa
67q o4
15250.00
» 38,429
04
986.96
1_
l�16
Moorpark Sch. District
'
29324
t 298.6
'
1,250.00
'
Z;948zZ� 13, 548.61
G.T.fi nanef al
8446
��0'29�27qy5
T
18
Schleve
1,250.00
4 ii,542.94
3
f{'
41, 67 l
$ 220, 522.93
$13, 750
JP2341 ZZV13
z
Ills
ILOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES
ockwood, Suite ito
I, CA 93030
M1806 May 9, 1989
The Honorable Eloise Brown
Mayor of the City Of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Deer Mayor Brown:
Our firm has been retained by the Levy Company to represent their interest and provide land
planning services for their General Plan Update request. i have reviewed the April 24, 1989
Memorandum from Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development, regarding the
General Plan Amendment Update and have several concerns.
The current request as listed In Mr. Richards' memorandum reflects only a portion of the Levy
Company request. The Levy Company request includes not only the 285 acre parcel west of the
old high school and north of the railroad tracks, but also the 139 acre parcel west of the
Buttercreek tract and south of Highway I I B. The total number o1 units requested in these two
piansareequal inAveregeDaily Trips (ACT)tothe PBR Contract Request. Thischange from the
PBR figures is based on our analysis that 100 acres of industrial land uses wil I not be feasible
or acceptable to the city north of the railroad and west of the old high school.
Our analysis indicates that the 285 acres near the old high school would be best utilized as a
residential extension of the "downtown" community, with a corridor for the highway 118
by-pass and a possible railroad over -pass to improve north/south circulation as well. We have
provided Mr. RIChWC3 with Information on this Concept; Copies of the circulation concept are
for your information.
The balance of this request Is for a single-family residential project to be built on the 139
acres west of Buttercreek. Mr. Richards has stated that this parcel would be beyond the scope of
the PBR Contract. However, with the substantial change in properties and participants now
projected for this General Plan Update it would appear that PBR will have to amend their
proposal. For that reason we feel it is appropriate to request that this property be included.
Development of this parcel may be as much as ten years away, however, long-term planning
would provide both the city and our client with a guideline for orderly growth.
:ECEIVE�
MAY 10 L092
City of Alcorn„
Public Agency Entitlement • Planning Design • Project Management
LEVY COMPANY
General Plan Update Request
May 9, 1989
Page Two
based on our analysis of the current share of cost the Levy Company will now be paying
approximately $79,000.00 (33% of total) versus an original projection of $43,000.00
(20% of total). It would be grossly inequitable for the Levy Company to pay this snare of cost
and only be considered for the reduced ACT development of the 285 parcel. Please direct the
Community Development Department to request PBR to address both Levy Company parcels in
their revised proposal, Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Denni� e
DHjr
enclosures
cc: Bernardo M. Perez
Clint Harper, Ph. D.
Paul Lawrason
Scott Montgomery
Richard T. Hare
Steven Kueny
Cheryl J. Kane
Patrick Richards, A.I.C.P,
A.A Milligan, Levy Company
r r- O 0000a0000�pa000 o 'r�
MOORPARK CIRCULATION
CONCEPT STUDY I e oaea RwD+s. ofucas J �' - ww✓-`
YREF<(IED FCR, iNE LEW C0. � /�^-
al��� OY. w 069nWffl�iMYW SFRVKEs i �� - 1 svax OO
NaRCDB9 / I
Tn
U
MILL
MG