HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0705 CC REG ITEM 11B(c-
ITEM�� _
TOt The Honorable City Council
FROK: Jim R. Aguilera, Director of Cam■mmity Developmen��
Paul Porter, Senior Planner
DATE: May 10, 1995 (CC meeting of June 7, 1995)
`,100RPARK, CAUFORNL4
OR ?A
ccty Counci ,; -1 ApgPPB]1L 95 -2 ( H 9 ) - APPEAL a M86*V
c,f 1997 DIRE OF C OMOM M , S of
j . 1
DECISION =001RIM JUM FOR A QNNWAL PLAN A
' FOR AX ING 130 R=IDENTIAL UNITS
/ IN ION WITH COEBTIOCTION OF MW —�--r �
SCHOOL AT CASEY ROAD HIGH SCHOOL
-SITE - -
Back round
Braemar Urban Ventures submitted Preapplication No. 95 -2 for
preliminary review of conceptual plans for the Casey Road school
site. These conceptual residential plans include the use of High
Street as an access for the development. Alternative Nos. 1 and
2 are traditional residential developments, the first having
access from both Casey Road to the north and High Street to the
south, and the second having both primary and secondary access
taking place from High Street. Alternative No. 3 provides access
to lots from individual courtyards with primary access to the
project at Casey Road with secondary access at High Street.
In reviewing the preapplication by the applicant for the
development of the Casey Road School site for development of 100
residential units and the use of a portion of the site in
conjunction with a new elementary school facility including play
fields, the Director of Community Development made the decision
that an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
will be required. The applicant appealed the Director's decision
requiring a General Plan Amendment on May 5, 1995. In addition,
depending on the extent of the use of High Street, an amendment
to the Circulation Element may also be required. This would be
the case if High Street extends to Specific Plan No. 1 as shown
by Alternative No. 2. To avoid further delay, if a General Plan
Amendment is allowed to be processed it should include the
Circulation Element.
The Director's decision is based on the fact that the General
Plan for this property is very specific about the number of units
(80) to be allowed on 24.8 acres (3.22 du /ac). Due to the
proposed new elementary school, the net property available for
the development has been reduced to 16 acres. Therefore, a
proportional reduction of density would allow 50 units if
property is developed at "maximum" density and 77 units if m�x� #M*0* v�,�
PMz1099512z16PM &z\7JOy95.cc 1 ot6_121L
ACTION f�,
Property is developed at the density limit (4.83 du /ac). Clearly
110 units as proposed surpasses either of these two options.
Therefore, if the applicant wishes to develop the property at 110
units (6.87 du /ac) a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use
Element is required to increase the density from 3.22 du /ac to
6.87 du /ac.
The applicant states that in reviewing the language in the
General Plan, that up to 120 residential units are allowed on all
or a portion of the site and that at the time that the General
Plan was approved for the site, there was an understanding of the
City's intention to use at least half of the site for play fields
and other community use in conjunction with 120 residential
housing units.
Staff Analvsis
The applicant's argument is flawed in several ways:
1. The original intent was not to allow 120 units on a
portion of the site. The original intent was to allow
80 units on 24.8 acres as stated in the General Plan
text.
2. There have been discussions about utilizing part of the
property for a park site; however, those were
negotiations beyond the purview of the General Plan.
3. The applicant's third point ignores the fact that the
actual development area for Specific Plan No. 9 has
been reduced to 16 acres. The reference to the
school site taking a portion of the adjacent property
enlarging the site's net usable area is erroneous.
Property cannot be taken from one Specific Plan area
and moved to another Specific Plan area without
amending the General Plan.
All of the proposed alternatives predetermine the location of
uses on the site. They have set aside property for the proposed
elementary school and an existing auditorium and preclude the
consideration of residential development on this portion of the
Site. Since this area will remain under ownership of the
Moorpark Unified School District and could be developed in the
future, a portion of the approved density for Specific Plan No. 9
needs to be reserved for this area unless a General Plan
Amendment is considered. You have two potential ownerships with
one ownership appearing to get all of the density.
Circulation Element
In addition, the Specific Plan No. 9 proposals don't provide a
realistic alternative for access to Casey Road. The current
PM210:9512s16pa: \7iMS. CC 2
00149
Proposal places it through the Boys and Girls Club site. The
Moorpark Unified School District has apparently reserved the
right to do this through its agreement with the club, but from a
practical standpoint the road would split the gym from the club
parking and eliminate the outdoor basketball area. Because of
the difference in elevation between Casey Road and the proposed
residential area it would appear to require retaining walls for
the road construction.
Fiscal Impact
It is expected that there will be a minor additional monetary
impact to the applicant. Staff estimates that additional
Processing fee deposit will amount to $1,967 and consultant fees
for the additional work related to review and amendment of the
General Plan Policies are estimated to be another $2,000.
Additional costs to the City will be borne by the applicant as
part of the processing fees. The cost of the EIR should not cost
any more than it would cost to prepare the EIR for the Specific
Plan. Actual costs will be based on the scope of work, the same
as with other development projects.
Staff Recommendation
1. Deny the appeal.
2. Authorize processing of a General Plan Amendment for the
Land Use and Circulation Elements for consideration of 80 to
110 dwelling units on 16 acres and extension of High Street
to connect to the Casey Road extension in Specific Plan No.
1 upon filing of a General Plan Amendment within one year.
3. Authorize a combined EIR with a City selected consultant for
both the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan to
allow the General Plan Amendment to be considered at the
same time as the Specific Plan so as to not cause a time
delay.
Attachments: 1. Letter from The Braemar Group dated April 14,
1995.
2. Pages 32 and 33 in Land Use Element of
General Plan relative to Specific Plan No. 9.
"W 81OssS1s,2 sp.<i \7JW93.cc
00150-
The
Braemar
Group
30495 CanuAwd Street, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
8181889 -6302
FAX 818/ 991 -6728
April 14, 1995
Mr. Steve Kueny
City Manager
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark., CA 93021
Dear Steve:
11UNIXENM
w 1
CITY OF MOORPA QK
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER
It has been brought to my attention that the apparent reason for the continued delay in processing
the above referenced co- application for the construction of a new elementary school and the
related residential development of the property is an interpretation that this proposed joint use
requires a General Plan Amendment.
We have thoroughly reviewed and researched the current General Plan language as well as the
intent of the current zoning and have concluded the following:
• The original intent of this language as written is clearly to allow up to 120 units on all or a
portion of the site.
• When the zoning was originally approved for the site there was a clear understanding of the
City's intention to use at least half of the site for play fields and other community use along
with the approved 120 units.
• The application, as currently submitted, describes a use of approximately 110 units and use
of a portion of the site for a new elementary school facility which would include play fields
which are once again available for community use. Please note that a portion of this new
elementary school, as proposed, will be located on adjacent property, hence enlarging the
site's net usable area therefor making its net density coorespondingly lower.
Both Braemar and the District would appreciate staffs img reconsideration of the City's
most recent preliminary, and seemingly hasty opinion regarding the need for a General Plan
Amendment.
00151
Arfr: Steve Kueny
4R11 14, 1995
Page No
In the event staff continues to be of the opinion that a
co-aPPlicants would ray request that this item beep $�dlori the is required, both
final determination and review. City Council
agenda for
Please notify our office as soon as possible with your position on this matter.
Very truly yours,
The Braemar G P
4'.1 Avi Brosh
Vice President, Urban Communities
Ap
cc: Dr. Thomas Duffy - Moorpark Unified School District
Moorpark Board of Education
Dr. Joel Kirschenstein - Sage Institute
f lavilskleQ
as Public Institutional within this specific
appropriate amount of land to be designated as Open Space, Parke
School, or any other appropriate land use designation, will be
determined at the time of specific plan preparation or approval.
Overlay Designation - Open Space 1 (300 acres)
Rural Low (145 acres)
Specific Plan 3 (Deleted)
Specific Plan 9
Specific Plan 9 consistthse of�� rox,�tely 24.8 acres under on
ownership, located in
High Street, west of Walnut Canyon western section of the City,
This specific plan area consists of the,Citd south of Casey north
site and contains the playing fields and classroom buildings. Y' former high school
area formerly a part of the high school site, that was purchased b
the Moo 9 The
Moorpark Boys and Girls Club, is not part of this s Y
area. Pacific plan
Opportunities and Constraints
Specific plan area development issues will be addressed during
specific plan preparation and subsequent review, and include: Topography - An evaluation of
other geotechnical constraints within o the unstable soils and
development will be conducted during the development/ review of of
Plan. Consistent with City policy, f this
greater than 20 percent and development is restricted on slopes
Potential hazards cannot be full Prohibited in areas where
y mitigated.
Hydrology _ An evaluation of existin
runoff, potential flood hazards and other�h inage courses
will be conducted during the development /review of this 'ssurface
plan.
hydrological constraints
pacific
Viewshed - The importance and visibility ..
and any prominent ridgelines within thisospecific de horizon lines
surrounding areas will be evaluated during
the
review of the specific Plan area from
Plan- Clustering ofgdwell dwelling units i should
be considered where appropriate to conserve
natural resources /hazard areas.
important visual and
32
00152
cp 'a
1
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (i.e., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation and review. The preservation of any
resources determined to be significant shall be encouraged through
habitat preservation, enhancement, or replacement.
Archaeology - The specific plan area will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur within the overall plan area
and their potential significance.
Public Services/ Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric
service to the specific plan area will be provided through service
extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding
area. An evaluation will be conducted during the development
this specific plan regarding required land use set - as and
i
financing for schools and community services such as fire stations
and libraries.
Parks - An evaluation will be conducted during the development of
this specific plan to identify required park land dedicgtion
consistent with the City Municipal Code and General Plan
requirements.
Circulation - The specific plan area circulation network will
require consideration
constraints, for its relationship to topographical
viewshed issues, and its relationship to the SR -23
freeway. The specific plan shall ensure that roadway right-of-ways
are protected for the planned roadway upgrades, n
additions as identified in the City,s circulation plan.
and
Proposed Land Uses
The number of
specific dwelling units shall not exceed 80, unless the
plan area
improvements Property owner agrees to provide
lic
the ov y Council , Public services and /or financial contributionsuthat
determines to be of substantial
the community, in which event, the n Public benefit to
not exceed 120. The a umber of dwelling units shall
Open Space, Park, or any others appropriate of land to be designated as
will be determined at the time ofrsp specific land an use designation,
approval.
P preparation or
Overlay Designation - School '
(24.8 acres)
33
00153
TO 918055298270 P0021002
'ae
00 Braemar
Group
Jwl�tsGr��2
Apwq 81t G 91,301
-
MxeI&9191 -6728
May 31, 1995
Mr. Jaime Aguilera
_ of t
Direcor Com�y
Development
- CITY OF MOORPARK -
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
V'A FAX: 805/529 -8270
RE:
- "Ixon,
Dear Mr �il
- era;
By this letter. I am respectfAy requesting that the
June 7th, 1995 City Council "Wing st June 2l h st, 1abo r Sneed project be Continued from the
City Council meeting
Thank you for you immediate attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
The Braemar Group
t �;
Avi Brosh
Vice President
Urban Communiti es
(on behalf ofCO.�PPl�cmrts)
/1p
cc: Dr. Thomas Duffy - SuperinterWent
- Moorpark School Board of Education
Dr. Joel Kirschenstein - Sage Institute
MAY 31 195 1330
00154
818 991 6728 pPGF MR.-)
02:32PU FROM BRAFMAR
TO 918055298270 P001/002
OVE
MAY 31
1"5
s. s. s SEND TO
NAME: .
_AQUIVEMA
NWA"WAA
FACSWME- 805/529-8270
30495 Canwood Street FROM
Suite 200
Agoura Wins, CA 91301 NAME.' AVI BROSH
N& (NF
2
RE — — — -- — -------
Phone:
818-889-6302 MESSAGE
Facsimile:
818-991-6728 ---------------
CITY OF 140ORPARK
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager 4L
DATE: June 7, 1995
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment (GPA) for Specific Plan No. 9
(MUSD /Braemar)
The City's position concerning the need for a GPA for the Land
Use Element dates to at least July 1993 when the City and MUSD
were negotiating about use of a portion of the property for a
park site.
Enclosed are three letters that address this point (July 8 and
23, 1993, from the City and July 21, 1993, from MUSD).
SK:db
Enclosures
cc: Jim Aguilera, Director of Community Development
c: \docs \wpwin \citymgr \gpa.sp9
O \/165
e�
A 4�9
#'
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 5296864
July 8, 1993
Dr. Thomas Duffy
Moorpark Unified School District
30 Flory Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Re: Casey Road Site
Dear Tom:
The City Council has considered the counter proposal
contained in your June 25, 1993 letter to me. The Council's
response is as follows:
1. Purchase price of $1.2 million for the lower fields with
$900,000 paid at close of escrow and the balance paid in
four (4) installments of $75,000 each at the annual
anniversary date of the close of escrow proceeding
through 1997. In addition, as discussed by the
negotiating committees, the transfer of property is to
also include the District owned property on the City
/ owned side of the flood control channel.
V 2. At City's expense, within one - hundred twenty (120) days
of the close of escrow, the City will amend the General
Plan Land Use Element to reflect the reduced acreage of
Specific Plan No. 9 with no other changes to the text or
maps.
3. The District can continue to use the metal building now
used for maintenance purposes for two years. At that
time, the metal building would be vacated by the
District and, -at the City's option, removed or turned
over to the City. Within thirty (30) days after the
close of escrow, the District will remove the storage
containers and other items of outside storage from the
lower fields. This point was contained in my May 11,
1993 letter to you.
4. The District shall have access to the mezzanine level as
long as the District owns and uses the mezzanine level
for public educational and /or District maintenance
purposes. As stated in my May 11, 1993 letter, there
needs to be some limitations including but not limited 0 015
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. SCOTT MONTGOMERY PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilrnembe, Councilmember Councilmember
Dr. Thomas Duffy
July 8, 1993
Page 2
to the sane time period
the Public. These can
agreement.
that the Planned park is open to
be drafted as part of the final
5. acceptable District proposal on the landscape easement is
6.
I don't know if this is still an issue since it isn't
included in your June 25 counter proposal, but the City
has previously agreed in concept to allow the District'
approved short -term rental uses to continue to use the
lower fields. We will need to see a
currently approved uses. list of the
As with all
Points of the
agreements, we will need to reduce the final
.agreement to specific written provisions.
If the Board and City Council reach agreement on this matter,
I suggest that we meet as soon as possible to conclude process
drafting of the final documents so that this lengthy '
can be finalized and the community 1s desire for a downtown
park and the District's financial objectives can be realized.
The City Council appreciates the Board's consideration
this proposal and awaits the District's reply. °f
Sincerely,
Steven Kueny
City Manager
SK:db
ca: Honorable City Council
MUSD Board of Education
cs \WP51 \Citymgr \MUSDCasy.rd
MOORPARK
71k TT. V _
LJ1N1r1t:L S)k -HUUL DISTRICT
30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
July 12, 1993
Mr. Steven Kueny, City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Lear Mr. Kueny:
(805) 378 -6300
tnr
OFF ;
Thank you for your written response
proposal dated June 25, 1993. a to the District's counter
Council's response and has asked that the following the City
presented to the City, g proposal be
The Board will accept items one and two contained in
July 8, 1993, noted below, if the City Council wilu l accept the
Board's counter '
and four of proposal described below relating to items three
your letter.
ITEMS CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED
1•- The City's proposed price, payment schedule and
Purchase additional property on the east of the flood control channel;
/ and
V 2• The City's ro 0
P p sed amendment of the General Plan Land Use
Element to reduce the acreage of the District's parcel.
COUNTER PROPOSAL
3 • The District will continue to have access to and use the metal
building now used for maintenance
1 time
that the property on the mezzanine level is sold ors the City
- may, at it's expense, relocate or replace the building upon
existing District property; and
4• The District shall have access to the mezzanine level as lon
as the District owns and uses the mezzanine level for g
education, District maintenance Public and/r of District facilities. The proposed limitati ns uoflaccess uses
will need to be explored verbally; a reasonable limit which
does not impede the District in it's use or in assisting the
public to use the property must be the intent. The access for
public uses would, as example, be limited to the "support"
activity of coaches and others rather than spectator access.
BOARD OF EDUCATION: SAM K. NAINOA, President; PAM CASTRO. Vice President; GREG BARKER, Clerk;
CLINT D. HARPER, Ph.D., Member; TOM BAL.DWIN, Member, THOMAS G. DUFFY, Ed.D., District Superintendent
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Steven Kueny
July 12, 1993
Page 2
Items five and six are
item six in that we acceptable.
District facilities have not spoken og i�t ci recently, to Your attention to
cOUCGrned about at the site The users of
this clarifies the their ability to continue to noted in the
issue. the fields, an
I look and
we can fschedule o your written response. Please
proposal. a time to meet to discuss the
S'ncerely,
Thomas G, f 40VC
District Suuei' Ed-D.
L- r ntendent
TGD:ah
cc: MUSD Board of Education
City Councilmembers
call my office so
details of this
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Caltfomia 93021 (806) 5298984
July 23, 1993
FAX and MAIL
Dr. Thomas Duffy
Superintendent of Schools
Moorpark Unified School District
30 Flory Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Dr. Duffy:
The City Council has considered the Districts July 20, 1993
proposal focusing on the District's use of the metal building on
the lower field. The City has tried to respond to the District's
needs.
To address the Districts need to use the metal building and
adjacent property for District maintenance
indeterminate period, the City Council res Purposes for an
this with inclusion of three 3 Ponds that it can accept
( ) items as follows:
1• Deferral of payment to the District of
time as the District vacates the building a�00 property
it such
nd
amount is determined by the $100,000 value of the building set
by the District and the agreed upon value of the land of $2.59
per sq. ft. The City estimates that approximately
square feet of land is necessary to support Dstrict use of
the building -- pport District use of
Sl 200 000
10.63 acres X 43,560 s q. ft. ° $2.5916/sq. ft.
($2.59 x 12,800 sq. ft. _ $33,152.00)
2• The District will have access
and approximately 12,800 sq
maintenance purposes until su
mezzanine level is sold or t
mezzanine level for District
first occurs; and
to and use of the metal building
ft. of property for District
ch time that the property on the
he District no longer uses the
maintenance purposes, whichever
3• When the District relinquishes use and access under No.
above City's p 2
above at n,the y� Option and without additional
the District will
building and its footings and either remove the metal
concrete and /or asphalt pad or
leave the building in place.
OAl ll -
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ
JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Dr. Thomas Duffy
July 23, 1993
Page 2
With this proposal, the purchase price remains at $1.2 million for
the approximate 10.63 acres of the lower fields, inclusive of the
buildings and the District owned property on the City owned side of
the flood control channel, with payment as follows:
A. $767,000 upon close of escrow;
B. Four (4) installments of $75,000 each at the annual
anniversary date of the close of escrow proceeding
through 1997; and
C. $133,000 when the District vacates the metal building and
adjacent property and, if required to remove the metal
building upon its removal.
Pursuant. to our conversation of July 20th, the District. property on
the City side of the flood control channel is to include all of the
property extending to the toe of the slope of the pathway leading
to the stadium and Boys and Girls Club parking lot.
To reiterate agreement on the other points, they are restated as
/follows:
V 1. At City's expense, within one - hundred twenty (120) days of the
close of escrow, the City will amend the General Plan Land Use
Element to reflect the reduced acreage of Specific Plan No. 9
with no other changes to the text or maps.
2. City and District agree to a landscape easement for the slope
area; at the time the property is sold and development permit
granted, the easement will be modified.
3. The City agrees in concept to allow the District's approved
short -term rental uses to continue to use the lower fields.
(Please note that in my June 25, 1993 and May 11, 1993 letters
the City requested a listing of the approved uses. To date we
have not received a response.)
4. Within thirty (30) days after the close of escrow, the
District will remove the storage containers and other items of
outside storage from the lower fields. (This was contained in
MY July 8, 1993 letter with no reference to it in your July
12, 1993 letter.)
5. We are in conceptual agreement with access by the District and
limited access by the public to District facilities on the
mezzanine level per point No. 4 of your July 12, 1993 letter.
It still needs to address the City's security related concern
Dr. Thomas Duffy
July 23, 1993
Page 3
about access only during hours that the planned
Park is open
to the public.
The City Council understands and
Districts need to use the has been very responsive
availability of this area for metal building onsive to the
Council awaits public g by deferring the
agreement and related documents span a so purposes. The City
that language for the
prepared.
Sincerely,
X�-�Y
Steven Kuen
City Manager
SK:db
cc: Honorable City Council
Board of Education
C:\WP51\0tYmqr\MusdcsY7.22