HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1218 CC REG ITEM 08AAGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developm4;r�(
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner �a
DATE: December 9, 1996 (CC Meeting of 12- 18 -96)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96 -3 AND ZONE CHANGE NO.
96 -3, FOR A 655 -ACRE SITE REFERRED TO AS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
NO. 4928, TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM LOW,
OPEN SPACE 2, AND PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW AND TO
REVISE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1.63
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, OPEN SPACE, AND INSTITUTIONAL, TO
RURAL EXCLUSIVE 5 ACRES
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96 -1238
(see Attachment 1) directing the Planning Commission to study, set a
public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council
pertaining to the redesignation of property referred to as Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 4928 (see Attachment 2, Location Map) from Medium
Low, Open Space 2, and Public/ Institutional land use designations and
Residential Planned Development (RPD) , Open Space, and Institutional
zoning, to a Rural Low (5 -Acre minimum lot size) land use designation and
Rural Exclusive (RE) 5 -Acre zoning.
The existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the subject
655 -acre site were approved in conjunction with City Council approval of
the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project in the Spring of 1996. The
Moorpark Country Club Estates Project includes Vesting Tentative Map No.
4928, RPD Permit No. 94 -1 for 216 single- family dwelling units, and
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 94 -1 for two 18 -hole golf courses and
related facilities. The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change
would reduce the allowable dwelling wits from 216 to a maximum of 131.
On November 25, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
adopted a resolution (Attachment 1) recommending approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 96 -3 and Zone Change No. 96 -3, if the Development Agreement
between the City and Bollinger Development Incorporated does not become
effective by April 17, 1997, the date A expiration of RPD Permit No. 94-
1.
DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \cc9pa96.3
o0o3V
GPA- 96- 3/ZC -96 -3
To: Honorable City Council
December 9, 1996
Page 2
On December 3, 1996, the Deputy City Manager met with Paul Bollinger,
Bollinger Development Incorporated, to discuss the progress with the
project financing. Also in attendance were Richard Weismann, Attorney
for Westoaks Investments No. 27, Phill Culler, Controller of Centex
Homes, and Joe Amaroso, a consultant for Bollinger Development
Incorporated. A letter of intent from Centex Homes to Bollinger
Development Incorporated was reviewed along with Holding Escrow
Instructions for Investors Title Escrow between Bollinger Development
Incorporated and Centex Homes. Centex Homes has, per the above
referenced documents, committed to the tract development and construction
costs of the 216 homes. This commitment can be revoked by Centex during
a "Feasibility Period ", which ends December 30, 1996. The "Feasibility
Period" can be extended by processing delays. The offer is also
contingent upon Bollinger Development Incorporated receiving title to the
lots which is clear and marketable anc. without governmental restriction.
Further, the offer is not binding until approved by Centex Homes Board
of Directors.
As of the date of this report, Bollinger Development Incorporated is
still in negotiations with two or more golf course developers. It has
also been asserted by Bollinger Development Incorporated that Centex
Homes will, if necessary, finance tr.e entire project and hire a golf
course development company.
The Ad Hoc Development Agreement Committee for the Moorpark Country Club
Estates Project (consisting of Mayor Hunter and Councilmember Perez) is
scheduled to meet with Bollinger Development Incorporated on December 11,
1996. There may be more information to report after that meeting.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission staff report is attached (Attachment 2), which
provides discussion information on the Moorpark Country Club Estates
Project approved entitlements and expiration dates. As discussed in the
attached staff report, pages 3 and 4, the Development Agreement between
the City and Bollinger Development Incorporated does not become effective
until the date the current property owners agree to be bound by the terms
of the Development Agreement or the date that Bollinger Development
Incorporated takes legal title to the property.
It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that Mr. Bollinger
be allowed additional time to either obtain the other property owners,
signatures on the Development Agreement: or take legal title to the
DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \ccgpa96.3
GPA- 96- 3/ZC -96 -3
To: Honorable City Council
December 9, 1996
Page 3
project site. If the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission's
recommendation that any General Plan amendment /zone change action
decision be delayed until after April 1.7, 1997, then the City Council's
public hearing should be continued until May 7, 1997 (the next regular
meeting following April 17, 1997). If the City Council's decision is to
approve the General Plan amendment and zone change, then staff should be
directed to prepare a resolution for the General Plan Amendment and an
ordinance for the zone change, and to return the resolution for adoption
and the ordinance for first reading at the Council's January 15, 1997,
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. If the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission's
recommendation that any General Plan amendment /zone change action
decision be delayed until after April 17, 1997, then the City
Council's public hearing should be continued until May 7, 1997.
2. If the City Council's decision is to approve the General Plan
amendment and zone change, direct staff to prepare a resolution for
the General Plan Amendment and an ordinance for the zone change, and
return the resolution for adoption and the ordinance for first
reading at the Council's January 15, 1997, meeting.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC -96 -329
2. Planning Commission staff report Sated November 20, 1996
DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \ccgpa96.3
0(g)"3S
RESOLUTION NO, PC -96 -329
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96 -3 AND ZONE CHANGE NO.
96 -3, FOR A 655 -ACRE SITE REFERRED TO AS VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 4928, TO AMEND THE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM LOW, OPEN SPACE 2, AND
PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW, AND TO REVISE
THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
1.63 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, OPEN SPACE, AND
INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL EXCLUSIVE 5 ACRES
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on November 25, 1996, the
Planning Commission considered a General Plan amendment from Medium Low,
Open Space 2, and Public /Institutions: land use designations to Rural
Low, 1 Dwelling Unit (DU) per 5 Acres, and a Zone Change from Residential
Planned Development (RPD) 1.63 Dwelling Units per Acre, Open Space (three
areas identified as 6.4 Acres, 314.4 Acres, and 176 Acres), and
Institutional. to Rural Exclusive ( &E) 5- Acres, for a 655 -acre site
referred to as Vesting Tentative Map No. 4928 and located approximately
2,700 feet south of Broadway, with frontage on both Walnut Canyon Road
(State Route 23) to the east and Grimes Canyon Road to the west (Assessor
Parcel Nos: 500 - 240 -075, 500 - 230 -065, 500 - 230 -125, 500 - 230 -015, 500 -230-
135, 500 -230 -095, 500 - 230 -115, 500 - 230 -075, 500 - 260 -015, 500 - 250 -115,
500 - 220 -075, 500 - 430 -015, 500- 430 -025, 500 -- 430 -035, 500 - 430 -045, 500 -430-
055, 500 - 430 -065, 500 -430 -075, 500 -93) -085, 500- 430 -095, 500 - 440 -015,
500 - 440 -025, 500 - 440 -035, 500 - 440 -045, 1--00 -440 -055, 500 - 440 -065, 500 -440-
075, 500 -440 -085, 500 - 440 -095, 500 -440 -105, 500 - 440 -115, 500 - 440 -125,
500 -440 -135, 500 - 440 -145, 500 - 440 -155, `00 -440 -165, 500 - 440 -175, 500 -440-
185); and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of November 25, 1996, the Planning
Commission took testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the
public hearing, and reached its decision on the matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based upon the project information presented to
the Planning Commission, including but not limited to, the staff report,
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Moorpark Country Club
Estates Project, and staff and public testimony, the Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings:
CEQA Finding
The Final EIR for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project was
completed in compliance with --EQA (Division 13 of the Public
000036
Resolution No. PC -96 -329
Page 2
Resources Code of the State of California) and the City's CEQA
Procedures, was certified by the City Council on December 20, 1995,
and adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed
General Plan amendment and zone change.
General Plan Amendment Finding
The approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 is consistent with
the goals and policies of the Land Use Element, as well as
consistent with the other elements of the City's General Plan.
Zone Change Finding
Subject to approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3, the approval
of Zone Change No. 96 -3 is consistent with the City's General Plan.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 to revise the land use designation from
Medium Low, Open Space 2, and Public /Institutional to Rural Low, 1 DU per
5 Acres, the zoning from Residentib.l Planned Development (RPD) 1.63•
Dwelling Units per Acre, Open Space (6.4 Acres, 314.4 Acres and 176
Acres) , and Institutional to Rural Exclusive (RE) 5 Acres, if the
Development Agreement (No. DA -96 -1) between the City and Bollinger
Development Incorporated does not become effective by April 17, 1997,
through either the agreement of the current property owners to be bound
by the terms of the Development Agreement. or Bollinger Development
Incorporated takes legal title to the E55 -acre project site.
The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners May, Acosta, and Norcross, and Chairman Torres
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996.
John Torres, Chairman
ATTEST:
Celia La Fleur
Secretary
P i C'y1 n ► nq Corn r-n ss +gin
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Commmity Developme4464__
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner '=)67-
DATE: November 20, 1996 (PC Meeting of 11- 25 -96)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96 -3 AND ZONE CHANGE NO.
96 -3, FOR A 655 -ACRE SITE REFERRED TO AS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
NO. 4928, TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM LOW,
OPEN SPACE 2, AND PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW AND TO
REVISE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT .1.63
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, OPEN SPACE, AND INSTITUTIONAL, TO
RURAL EXCLUSIVE 5 ACRES
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96 -1238
(see Attachment 1) directing the Planning Commission to study, set a
public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council
pertaining to the redesignation of property referred to as Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 4928 (see Attachment 2, Location Map) from Medium
Low, Open Space 2, and Public/ Institutional land use designations and
Residential Planned Development (RPD) , Open Space, and Institutional
zoning, to a Rural Low (5 -Acre minimum lot size) land use designation and
Rural Exclusive (RE) 5 -Acre zoning.
The existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the subject
655 -acre site were approved in conjunction with City Council approval of
the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project in the Spring of 1996. The
Moorpark Country Club Estates Project :includes Vesting Tentative Map No.
4928, RPD Permit No. 94 -1 for 216 single- family dwelling units, and
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 94 -1 for two 18 -hole golf courses and
related facilities. The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change
would reduce the allowable dwelling units from 216 to a maximum of 131.
DISCUSSION
The Moorpark Country Club Estates Project approval resolution was adopted
by the City Council on April 17, 1996, and second reading of a zone
change ordinance and a development agreement ordinance occurred on May
c: \1 -m \staffrpt \pc- gpa96.3
�
General Plan Amendment 96 -3 /Zone Change 96 -3
To: Planning Commission
November 20, 1996
Page 2
1, 1996. A Waiver of Right of Judicial Review (see Attachment 3) was
signed by both Bollinger Development Incorporated (the applicant/
developer) and the City of Moorpark, in conjunction with Development.
Agreement approval, on April 17, 1996. The Waiver included a provision
that the City would not commence the process required for replanning the
property to the Rural Low designation or rezoning the property to RE 5-
Acre for 120 days after the date upon which the enabling ordinance
becomes effective, in order to allow a reasonable amount of time for the
Development Agreement to become effective. The zone change ordinance for
the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project became effective on May 31,
1996. The referenced 120 -day time frame ended on September 28, 1996, and
the City Council initiated a General Plan amendment and zone change to
redesignate the property on October 16, 1996. The reasons why the City
Council initiated the current General Plan amendment and zone change
include: 1) Bollinger Development Incorporated has not yet closed escrow
for purchase of the 655 -acre Moorpark Country Club Estates Project site;
and 2) Since the Development Agreement is between the City and Bollinger
Development Incorporated, not the property owners, if the sale of the
project site to Bollinger Development Incorporated does not occur, the
property owners would benefit from the approved entitlements, without
providing the public benefits, as addressed in the Development Agreement.
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Moorpark Country Club
Estates Project was certified by the City Council on December 20, 1995,
and addresses the impacts of the proposed General Plan amendment and zone
change (see Attachment 4, pages 20 -3 to 20 -4, No Project Alternative 2:
Buildout to Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations, and pages 20 -9
to 20 -11, Alternative 3: Five Acre Estate Homes and No Golf Course).
No impacts will directly result from the proposed General Plan amendment
and zone change; however, the EIR identifies that a future development
project, consistent with a typical five -acre lot size subdivision layout,
would be expected to involve increased grading and ridgeline impacts.
In addition, a typical five -acre lot size subdivision would increase the
potential that residential lots may be planned within the southerly area
of the site, which is characterized by unstable slopes and existing
landslides. These grading and geotechnical issues, as well as the
potential for location of residential lots within the vicinity of high -
voltage overhead power lines, would need to be considered at the time of
any future development project application submittal.
A map showing the existing zoning for the site is attached (see
Attachment 5). There are two clustered residential development areas
shown with RPD 1.63 DU zoning, and these areas are surrounded by open
space, with scattered Institutional zoning for existing water well sites
as well as proposed water tank sites. As can be seen on the Zoning Map,
0(10035
c: \1- m \staffrpt \pc- 9pa96.3
General Plan Amendment 96 -3 /Zone Chance 96 -3
To: Planning Commission
November 20, 1996
Page 3
496.8 acres of the 655 -acre site are currently zoned for Open Space. The
proposed rezoning would eliminate that Open Space zoning entirely.
The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would also result in
an inconsistency between approved project entitlements for the Moorpark
Country Club Estates Project (Vesting Tentative Map No. 4928 and RPD.
Permit No. 94 -1) and the proposed General Plan Rural Low land use
designation and RE 5 -Acre zoning. The Subdivision Map Act provides that
when a local agency approves or conditionally approves a vesting
tentative map, that approval shall confer a vested right to proceed with
development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and
standards in effect at the time the vesting tentative map is approved or
conditionally approved (for a project involving a zone change) . Vesting -
Tentative Map No. 4928 was approved for a three -year time period-(ending
April 17, 1999) and based on the conditions of approval, the developer
has a right to request up to a three -year time extension.
There is a provision in the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66452.6(a), that
if the subdivider is required to expend $125,000 or more to construct,
improve, or finance the construction or improvement of public
improvements outside the property boundaries of the tentative map,
excluding improvements of public rights -of -way which abut the boundary
of the property to be subdivided and which are reasonably related to the
development of that property, each filing of a final map, shall extend
the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map
by 36 months from the date of its expiration, or the date of the
previously filed final map, whichever :;_s later. Section 66452.6(a) also
provides that such extensions shall not extend the tentative map more
than 10 years from its approval of conditional approval date. A
determination would need to be made whether the offsite reclaimed water
line, flood control, and Grimes -anyon Road /Los Angeles Avenue
intersection improvements, required by the conditions of approval for
Vesting Tentative Map No. 4928, would constitute public improvements that
would qualify Vesting Tentative Map No 4928 for an automatic three -year
extension of the tentative map, at the time of the filing of the final
map. If the automatic extension is det= ermined to be not applicable, the
conditions of approval and Section 66452.6(e) would allow the legislative
body to extend the expiration date of the tentative map for a period or
periods not exceeding a total of three years (this would constitute a
discretionary extension).
The Development Agreement does not provide for any additional extension
of the Vesting Tentative Map, but does include terms for extension bf the
time limit for use inauguration of CUP No. 94 -1 from six months to three
years from the date of approval, and use inauguration of RPD Permit No.
94 -1 from one year to three years. Since the effective date of the
c: \1- m \staffrpt \pc- gpa96.3
oU ()040
General Plan Amendment 96 -3 /Zone Change 96 -3
To: Planning Commission
November 20, 1996
Page 4
Development Agreement is the date the current property owners agree to
be bound by the terms of the Development Agreement or the date that
Bollinger Development Corporation takes legal title to the property, the
extension of the time limit did not occur prior to the expiration of the
Conditional Use Permit on October 17, 1996. If the Development Agreement
becomes effective, a determination regarding the expiration date of CUP
No. 94 -1 will need to be made.
The staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission direct staff as
deemed appropriate. If the Planning Commission's recommendation to the
City Council is that the proposed General Plan amendment and zone change
should not be approved, then the Commission's decision will be recorded
in the minutes and the staff report to the City Council will reflect that
recommendation. If the Planning Commission's decision is to recommend
approval, a draft resolution is attached and should be adopted (see
Attachment 6) . Any other alternative General Plan amendment /zone change
proposal for the subject property would require further environmental
review and should be directed by the City Council, since this would
involve additional allocation of staff time, which would not be
reimbursable by a developer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachments:
1. City Council Resolution No. 96 -1238
2. Location Map
3. Waiver of Right to Judicial Review
4. Pages from Alternatives Section of Final EIR for Moorpark Country
Club Estates Project
5. City Zoning Map
6. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
(} ()0041L'
c: \1- m \staffrpt \pc- gpa96.3
Ba �gi -- /
tew
F$Iry ar •
%�i� V� / _ �� •,� 30 -• - _ - ' - - -Oae .2-9 - 8698•. OiV Tanks
kl
i
W rror' -
4 _ 7,j Q # �"�a- rai 1.. �� rl.. _ •v / •%
i };�( ���II J - � �1 �� p( Iii � 1_q '�\ :"� ^� 6 -, ��f"" //J w`i �A- _.a �6' _ _ �a° \e � •.i• / _
1 � =-Y �% L� /
r
-_ - - _ 3,1 1. r g�. �� ✓, �_ 32� li'i � � \ ,� Ali r sos � .,p _ � - �� 1 1
I ?m s3
I�
N`
F
r � r
i I
ryz
�l�^ � � % t' ✓ /.%'0� ;A /��/ /rlh� � fA � a •-d-fl — �l 71 �� �- "Y �•.
/ • '
oaf` v�{j,j � ,: � 1 `a;.; \ � � ^d ♦ � i;.
r _ z
Sp,
� /�,�
_ SOUT
j Aver
7Rl6 i�te°7
%i' A sZm
WOII; L I T L `'E 0Is I M I z e
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
i
iii � . -�• � � I a
' 1 ,,,; ' tail � >✓I ��-� -
ion
lie
PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP
MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES I FIGURE
Environmental Impact Report 4 -1
City of Moorpark
1�
n
ATTACHMENT 2.
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 1238
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA DIRECTING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO STUDY, SET A PUBLIC HEARING AND
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PERTAINING TO THE REDESIGNATION OF PROPERTY
REFERRED TO AS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
4928 (BOLLINGER DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED AND
MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB INVESTORS) FROM MEDIUM
LOW AND PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE AND RPD
1.63 DU PER ACRE, OPEN SPACE AND INSTITUTIONAL
ZONING TO RURAL LOW LAND USE AND RURAL
EXCLUSIVE ZONING
Whereas, Section 17.60.020 A of the Municipal Code
provides that the City Council may initiate proceedings to consider
amendments to the Zoning by the adoption of a resolution of
intention requesting the Planning Commission to set the matter for
study, public hearing, and recommendation within a reasonable time.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby authorize
and direct the initiation of proceedings to consider amendments to
the Zoning and General Plan Land Use designations pertaining to the
redesignation of property referred to as Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 4928 (Bollinger Development Incorporated and Moorpark Country
Club Investors) from Medium Low Density and Public /Institutional
land use and RPD 1.63 Dwelling units -(DU) per acre, and
Institutional Zoning to Rural Low Densiity land u0sen and Space
Rural
Exclusive Zoning.
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission
directed to study, is hereby
set a public hearing and
recommendation to the City Council provide a
Zoning and General Plan Land Use designations g pertaining p changes in the
redesignation of ertaining to the
property referred to as Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 4928 (Bollinger Development Incorporated and Moorpark Country
Club Investors) from Medium Low Density and Public/ Institutional
land use and RPD 1.63 Dwelling units (DU) per acre, Institutional Zoning to Rural Low Density land u0sen and cRRural
Exclusive Zoning.
Uo (J043
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1238
Page 2
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify
passage and adoption of this resolution. to the
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1996.
ATTEST:
Paul W. Lawrason Jr , Mayor
M",
MOORPARK
-� • ��ra��+va►we moorpark, California 93021 (8 20 55 55 g -6864
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS.
CITY OF MOORPARK )
IF Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark,
California, do hereby certify under
the foregoing Resolution Np, 6' penalty of perjury that
City Council of the City Of Moorpark atwas meeting edhel the
the day of /�� �i��ai� d on
the same was adopted by the following vote: 1996, and that
AYES: /,C�,✓�,B't!i'!t� �'LC��,Qiv 9'-
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WITNESS my ha and the
this official seal of said City
� day of �
1996.
Lillian E. Hare
City Clerk
000045
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR.
Mayor JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mavnr P••, T,._ LOISE BROWN PATRIC�t ui . r
ATTACHMENT 3
1)q 7ld
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
This Waiver of Right to Judicial Review ( "Waiver ") is made
this ('� day of April, 1996 b
a muni ipal corporation, Y and between the CITY OF MOORPARK,
DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, (aC California tcorporation, and ("Bollinger) BOLLINGER
and MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB INVESTORS ( "Bollinger)
partnership, ( "Moorpark Investors" ' a California limited
respect to the following facts: )' °n the other hand, with
A. City
Development Agreement ldated
r
defined terms in this Waiver
the Agreement.
B. City will not
on the terms set forth
that it will obtain the
are contemplating entering into a
April 11, 1996 ("Agreement"). The
s
hall havethesame s ameanin
g s in
approve the development of the Property
in the Agreement without assuring itself
benefits contained in the Agreement.
C. The Agreement will not become
the current owners of the Property have
terms of the Agreement or Bollinger or
taken title to the Property.
effective until either
agreed to be bound by the
substitute person has
D. Bollinger is in escrow to purchase the Property.
City's approval of the Project will occur before the Agreement
Will become effective.
E. City desires to retain the right to replan or rezone
the Property to return the Property to its current planning and
zoning designations if the Agreement does not become effective
within a reasonable time without having to litigate its ri ht to
do so with Bollinger or Moorpark Investors. g
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby agreed:
1• City will not commence the process required for
replanning the Property to the current Rural Low (1 du /5 acres
designation or rezoning the Property to the current Rural )
Exclusive 5 Acres ( "redesignation of the Property") ert " ) zone for 120
days after the date upon which the Enabling Ordinance becomes
effective pursuant to Government Code Section 36937 in order to
allow a reasonable amount of time for the Agreement to become
effective. Thereafter, City may, if
discretion that it is in its interestltoddoeso, commencesthele in
redesignation of the Property.
2• If City commences the redesignation of the Property,
Bollinger and Moorpark Investors shall have the right to appear
at any hearing held in connection with the redesignation ofpthe
Property and to make their opposition to the redesignation of the
KBBLFY Y7n4e 1—l.., it u u )f kA I~:
Property known.
3. City will abandon the redesignation of the Property if
the Agreement becomes effective before the redesignation of the
Property has become final.
4. Bollinger and Moorpark Investors hereby waive any
rights they might otherwise have to seek judicial review of
City's actions in connection with the redesignation of the
Property, including, but not limited to, any claim of inverse
condemnation, if the Agreement has not become effective before
the redesignation of the Property has become final.
5• This Waiver may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.
Dated: April I?, 1996
Dated: April // 1996
Dated: April 01 1996
KBBLEY 27044 263334 3
CITY OF MOORPARK
By:
q . rason Jr.
ATTEST
Li IL Hare
City Clerk
:•
LAGER DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED
By CI /Iill#Gi��
_ - -- �w ll�l�r�nger
President //
MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB INVESTORS
By: Bollinger Development
Incorporated, General Partner
n
By:
"A.
2
000( 4 i
ATTACHMENT ENT 4
In comparing and analyzing each of the following alternatives, fiscal constraints, environmental
resources, known significant effects arising from the proposed project configuration, and design
constraints implicit in various land use designations were all taken into account in deriving two
alternatives that are superior to the project as proposed.
20.3 Alternative 1: No Project
The "No Project" alternative which must be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) is defined for this EIR to include two options: (1) an alternative which results in no
amendments to the existing plan designations (no new parcel maps and related entitlements)
which would prohibit further development on the property and, a more reasonable outcome, (2)
buildout under existing General Plan and Zoning designations. To describe the impacts of
buildout under the second option, the consultants estimated full residential buildout potential
within the property boundary. The environmental consequences of these alternatives are
described briefly in the following summary.
No Project Alternative 1: No Amendment to Existing Parcels and No Future Development on the
Property —
The assumption that no development at all will occur within the project boundary is an unlikely
outcome. An existing approved five acre subdivision occupies the western portion of the project
area at this time and once infrastructure is extended northward along Grimes Canyon Road,
these parcels would likely be developed in short order. The primary constraint on the
development of this existing subdivision is simply the high cost of completing infrastructure
extensions; as developments to the south of the Moorpark County Club Estates Project are
implemented and as annexations to the south are incorporated into the City and provided with
urban services, the costs of infrastructure development for the Moorpark County Club Estates
property will diminish accordingly . In the case of the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative is not equivalent to a no development option with the entire property retained in open
space (current conditions). Eventually, the existing parcels in the western portion of the property
will develop with residential uses.
As infrastructure problems are solved, undoubtedlyparcelization of the remainder of the property
would occur consistent with or possibly more intense than the present land use designations.
Therefore, even with the No Project Alternative, a minimum level of development consistent with
existing General Plan and Zoning designations is likely to occur. The No Project Alternative
would not result in long term preservation of environmental resources and scenic values within
the property. While superior to the project as proposed in the short term, this alternative
does not provide planned or dedicated open space and would not, ultimately, serve to
preserve the important attributes of the environment in the project boundary nor would
this alternative result in a rural neighborhood design that would represent a livable
community.
No Project Alternative 2: Buildout to Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
Under existing land use designations, the proposed project could be developed with about 131
homes. The likely distribution of such homes would be in five acre parcels which would occupy
most of the land within the property boundary. Selected parcels would probably exceed the five
acre minimum. As discussed in section 20.5 below (Alternative 3: Five Acre Homes and No Golf
Courses), the partitioning of the entire property into five acre parcels is not recommended'for a
variety of reasons (inordinately large number of streets would be required; little if any
environmental preservation of contiguous open space; very costly infrastructure extension
requirements; more extensive flood control and drainage infrastructure would be installed; water
consumption would exceed the proposed project, etc.)
0UUU4b
r
As discussed in the Land Use and Planning Considerations chapter of the EIR (Chapter 5 pages
5 -1 through 5 -6), such a designation is over represented in the city's inventory of planned
designations while clustered, rural neighborhood designations are under represented.
Furthermore, from environmental management, resource conservation, social organization, and
infrastructure extension standpoints, rural neighborhood creation and clustering of neighborhoods
within the environment provides a more livable community plan than five acre estate ranchette
types of housing products.
Therefore, under the No Project Alternative that assumes entitlements would eventually be
obtained to buildout the property to existing General Plan designations, potential environmental
effects would be equivalent to Alternative 3 described below in section 20.4. Because a more
resource conserving land use plan can be developed for the property if the General Plan
designations were modified to permit clustered rural neighborhood development, the No Project
Alternative, while possibly somewhat environmentally superior to the project as proposed,
would not result in environmental preservation or enhancement of the basic resource
values within the project boundary; further, the existing land use designations would
commit a developer to a design that encourages environmental impacts and prevents the
creation of clustered rural neighborhoods. From the standpoint of community design,
such an alternative is not preferred. ■
20.4 Alternative 2: One Golf Course and Five Acre Residential Subdivision
In the event that the City declines to participate in the development of a municipal golf course
with the applicant, it appeared prudent to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project under the
assumption that only one private golf course would be developed. As in the case of the No
Project Alternative, there are basically two options
Planning Concepts for a Single Golf Course Protect
The basic design concept for a project that would involve a single golf course is illustrated in
schematic form in Figure 20 -1. This alternative would involve a proposal to develop the property
with 216 residential units and a single golf course which would be situated in the eastern half of
the property within the area presently designated in the site plan for a municipal course.
Basically, the urban design form would be nearly identical to the project as proposed with several
exceptions. The basic design attributes of this alternative would involve:
(1) retention of the eastern neighborhood along the main project collector (C
Street) in a linear format with homes facing the street;
(2) several larger parcels would be created along the eastern perimeter of
the property to buffer existing rural residential estates along the east and
west sides of Walnut Canyon;
(3) the western neighborhood (west of Gabbert Canyon) would remain
largely as designed with the exception that an addition bridge and
roadway system would be conceived to provide access to the larger five
acre parcels that would be created between the two smaller lot
residential neighborhoods to the east and west;
(4) the northern extension of the western neighborhood would be retained —
(note that this neighborhood has been deleted in the applicant supported
environmentally superior alternative below [section 20.7]) — resulting in
unmodified ridgeline effects along the property's northern perimeter.
o06V49
Alternatives 20-4
Aesthetics, Visual Resources, Community Design
From the standpoint of community design and project layout in relation to environmental
constraints, this alternative is not recommended. The highly dispersed nature of the
development is not conducive to the preservation of hillside values: Unnecessarily lengths of
street (and related infrastructure) will need to be construction and two rather than one bridge over
the Gabbert Canyon drainage will be required. Rather than preserving any open space to serve
as greenbelts between neighborhoods, the entire internal view shed of the project will be
developed with rural and urban uses. The potential land use conflicts between the more compact
neighborhood areas along the project collector street (in the eastern and western portions of the
project) and the more dispersed five acre parcels in the center of the project would create land
use incompatibilities that would, undoubtedly, be reflected in the marketability of the five acre
estate homes. As planned (and the proposed layout is predicated on grading requirements
necessary for the single golf course), the more expensive homes would be located in the least
desirable portion of the development within view of the utility lines crossing the property. For
these and other reasons, this alternative is not considered an improvement in community
planning compared to the project as proposed or other alternatives.
In summary, this alternative increases impacts in most categories of significant
environmental effect and in several other categories the alternative and the proposed
project will result in comparable effects. From the standpoint of urban form, hillside
protection, community planning, environmental protection and streetscape design, this
alternative is inferior to the project as proposed. Therefore, adoption of this alternative is
not recommended. While this alternative basically addresses many of the development
goals set forth by the applicant, if an alternative is to be developed with a single golf
course, the entire layout should be revised and the five acre lots should either be deleted
or consolidated into more compact neighborhoods.
20.5 Alternative 3: Five Acre Estate Homes and No Golf Course
Many of the same critiques of the prior alternative apply as well to this option. However, this
alternative is not recommended for serious consideration for the following reasons:
(1) Grading quantities would be significantly increased: As displayed in
Figure 20 -2, a schematic representation of a typical five acre layout,
virtually the entire property would be subject to grading which would be
equal to the proposed project in severity. All of the basic mass grading
required for the project would likewise be required for this alternative: the
northern ridges would need to be lowered to fill the valley system to the
south; an additional ridgeline road would need to be constructed along
the southern property ridge - -an area not graded in the project as
proposed; more extensive grading would be require as well to adjust
landforms to provide relatively large building envelopes within each five
acre parcel.
(2) Road and infrastructure development would be too extensive: As
illustrated in the project schematic for this alternative, a much more
extensive road and infrastructure system would need to be developed to
implement this design than is required for the project as proposed or for
either of the environmentally superior options presented in section 20.7.
OOWC7(1
Alternatives 20 -9
To accomplish this project, nearly three times the amount of road
development would need to be completed and all related necessary
infrastructure would also need to be installed within the more elaborate
road system. The costs of the infrastructure installation for this
alternative would likely preclude development feasibility.
(3) Hillside Management Ordinance concerns and ridgeline modifications:
Compared to all of the other alternatives considered, this option results
in the most substantial impact to ridgelines, hillside terrain, native
vegetation, and drainage features. The highly dispersed nature of the
site plan prevents the concentration of residential land into
neighborhoods surrounded by open space; despite the larger lot size
and decreased home to home proximity, the ultimate experience for
residents will be one of a more crowded and less spacious environment
than the project as proposed (or other alternatives). Given the unique
shape of the topography within the property, the design objective of
placing homes outside of major ridgeline views can be accomplished
only if rural residential neighborhoods are created in relatively compact
areas. Cross valley noise would also decrease the potential quality of
life for individuals residing in a development built to this site plan. With
this alternative, homes would undoubtedly be built, or would be proposed
to be built, on the entire perimeter of the development. Since other
design options exist which preserve dominant ridgelines, further serious
consideration of this alternative would be counterproductive.
In addition to the three basic design and development problems outlined above, this alternative
would result in the virtual elimination of all native habitats, placement of homes within and
immediately adjacent to the high voltage transmission line corridor on the property, increased
noise, light and glare, internal traffic circulation problems, and related environmental degradation.
However, another version of this alternative could be conceived which would involve retaining a
five acre estate designation density on the property but distributing the units to be developed into
several clustered neighborhoods. This approach would represent a considerable improvement of
grading quantities and environmental impacts anticipated if the five acre estate option were
constructed as outlined above. The impacts of developing such a project are virtually identical to
the Rural Neighborhood Plan impacts discussed in the following Alternative.
In summary, without the benefit of category by category impact comparison, it is obvious
that this alternative substantially increases impacts in most categories of significant
environmental effect compared to the proposed project and other alternatives. This option
is basically flawed from the standpoint of land planning and rural neighborhood design.
The distribution of five acre parcels over the entire property (to meet either existing or
proposed land use densities) is not recommended. From the standpoint of urban form,
hillside protection, community planning, environmental protection and streetscape design, this
alternative is inferior to all other options. Therefore, adoption of this alternative is hot
recommended. This alternative also does not address any of the development goals set forth by
the applicant. An option involving residential development only has been conceived and
recommended in Alternative 5 (Alternative Project Design). If a residential -only development
option is to be considered for this property, the five acre standard, unless clustering is required, is
not recommended. The physical impacts of a clustered neighborhood alternative are provided in
the following discussion.
0000.51
Aftematives 20 -11
Alternative 3: Five Acre Estates
Without a Golf Course
MOORPARK ESTATES EIR I FIGURE
CITY OF MOORPARK 20 -2
RE -5ac
�N
ZONING APPROVED FOR MOORPARK
COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO. PC -96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96 -3 AND ZONE CHANGE NO.
96 -3, FOR A 655 -ACRE SITE REFERRED TO AS VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 4928, TO AMEND THE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM LOW, OPEN SPACE 2, AND
PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW, AND TO REVISE
THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
1.63 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, OPEN SPACE, AND
INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL EXCLUSIVE 5 ACRES
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on November 25, 1996, the
Planning Commission considered a General Plan amendment from Medium Low,
Open Space 2, and Public/ Institutional land use designations to Rural
Low, 1 Dwelling Unit (DU) per 5 Acres, and a Zone Change from Residential
Planned Development (RPD) 1.63 Dwellinc Units per Acre, Open Space (three
areas identified as 6.4 Acres, 314.4 Acres, and 176 Acres), and
Institutional to Rural Exclusive (RE) 5- Acres, for a 655 -acre site
referred to as Vesting Tentative Map No. 4928 and located approximately
2,700 feet south of Broadway, with frontage on both Walnut Canyon Road
(State Route 23) to the east and Grimes Canyon Road to the west (Assessor
Parcel Nos: 500 - 240 -075, 500 - 230 - 065, 500- 230 -125, 500- 230 -015, 500-230 -
135, 500- 230 -095, 500 - 230 -115, 500 -230 -075, 500 - 260 -015, 500 - 250 -115,
500 - 220 -075, 500 - 430 -015, 500 - 430 -025, 500 -430 -035, 500 - 430 -045, 500 -430-
055, 500 - 430 -065, 500 - 430 -075, 500 -430 -085, 500 - 430 -095, 500 - 440 -015,
500 - 440 -025, 500 - 440 -035, 500 - 440 - 045, 500- 440 -055, 500 - 440 -065, 500 -440-
075, 500 - 440 -085, 500 - 440 -095, 500 - 440 -105, 500 - 440 -115, 500 - 440 -125,
500 - 440 -135, 500 - 440 -145, 500 - 440 -155, 500- 440 -165, 500 - 440 -175, 500 -440-
185); and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of November 25, 1996, the Planning
Commission took testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the
public hearing, and reached its decision on the matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based upon the project information presented to
the Planning Commission, including but not limited to, the staff report,
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Moorpark Country Club
Estates Project, and staff and public testimony, the Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings:
CEQA Finding
The Final EIR for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project was
completed in compliance with CEQA (Division 13 of the Public
Resources Code of the State of California) and the City's CEQA
000054
Resolution No. PC -96-
Page 2
Procedures, was certified by the City Council on December 20, 1995,
and adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed
General Plan amendment and zone change.
General Plan Amendment Finding
The approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 is consistent with
the goals and policies of the Land Use Element, as well as
consistent with the other elements of the City's General Plan.
Zone Change Finding
Subject to approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3, the approval
of Zone Change No. 96 -3 is consistent with the City's General Plan.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 to revise the land use designation from
Medium Low, Open Space 2, and Public /Institutional to Rural Low, 1 DU per
5 Acres.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Zone Change No. 96 -3 to revise the zoning from Residential Planned
Development (RPD) 1.63 Dwelling Units per Acre, Open Space (6.4 Acres,
314.4 Acres and 176 Acres), and Institutional to Rural Exclusive (RE) 5
Acres.
The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 1996.
John Torres, Chairman
ATTEST:
Celia La Fleur
Secretary
000 Si
rKum : ranasonic FHX SYSTEM PHONE NO.
DEC -13-9; FRI 06;27 -)M C=N;Ek `g0r;S _fi VENT rft1l N0, 1$0528$5773
I..
b
CENTEX HOMES
MWITMA MM
7 /c�;,— /t-D (y ) (4)
Dec. 13 1996 10:20AM P2
Mr. Paul Bollinger December 1.3, 1996
Bollinger Development Corp.
351 Rolling Oaks Drive
Suite 100A
thousand Oaks, Calif. 91361
RE: Letter of Intent for Moorpark Country Club Estates, 216 Lots
Dear Paul,
P102
It is our understanding that Bollinger Development Corp. owns andlor controls thr 216 lots in
Moorpark currently referred to as Moorpark Country Club Estates. This letter will constitute our
offer to enter into a joint venture agreement with Bollinger Development Corp. to develop all of
the proposed 216 lots, grade and construct both of the golf courses and build out 216 homes for
future third party sale. The terns and conditions under which the join *, ventuTe e01 operate are
listed below.
Centex will provide to the joint venture all necessary financing for the acquisition and development;
of the 216 lots plus a separate loan for the two golf courses. The financing can be Hither fiom
Center: or from a third party financial institution that Centex will an=ge. The projected.
backbone and major land devclopracnt cost~ of $16 million have been guaranteed by Bollinger
Development. Any overages are to be offset by Dollingcr's -TV pwfrts, 'The final budget for the
backbone and major land development costs will be detennined prior to contract signing. Forty
Percent (40 %) of the hackhone and major infrastracture development costs will be allocated to
the golf course costs. With the completion of the backbone and major infrastructure the
parmership will build two different product lints of ll omcs.
Centex will provide the capital necessary for the in jacz development and comstructiun cogs of the
216 homes. In return for providing the necessary capital and ma.nQgemcnt of the project,
Centex will receive a. 6% managernmt fee calculated against gross revenue net of inoentivts of
each uew home or lot stile on a closing by closing basis, until an agreed upon neighborhood
total rcvcnue hhs bc,=i achieved which is currently $100 million. Profits generated from the
sales of the 216 horns will be distributed 50/50 between partners. Centel: Homes will direct
the home building operation. Centex and Rullinger Development will co- manage the direction
of'the golf course development.
Fhc two golf courses, which care critical to the succcSs of the project, will be built by the
partnership. A purchasclsale agreement will be agreed upon that provides for the sale of
Centex's interest in the golf courses at a mutually agreed upon time in. the hirare.
Centex understands LWU Bollinger Development wishes to reserve (6) lots for itself. these Ints
w411 be detezTnined and the financial impact dewrrrti ned during the contracting process.
C[NT 9X lI OMES • 1.A. ' VI NT D RA DIVIIf OF
i512PT` E OLU XQAf, ZiuITE Il7U • SYEvf.NSON RANCH. CA 9!a91 • Fos Iwo !77) fnX 60; A69 ,770
Iw11 • ranasonic rho 5rWC1'1 I HUNT` NU. : Dec. 13 1996 10:21AM P3
DEC -13 -88 FRI 0820 1M CENT —EX HOMES ILA fdT FAX N0, 18052-885770 ?, 03
Page 2 Bollinger Leurr of Intent
Upon signing this agreement Rollinger Development agrees that it is working exclusively with
Centex Homes as it regards and/or impacts the above mentioned project, VIf course included.
Upon accelitance of this letter of intent, Centex will dcposit $100,000.00 as earnest mon.cy (t1k,
"Earnest Money DcPosit") into escrow. At the completion of the Feasibility Period the
5100,000 will remain in escrow but will become nonrefundable in the event of a Centex default.
1. All taxes due and payable are to be cleared from die property prior to Centex going jointly on
title with Bollinger Development.
2. Centex shall have a Feasibility Period for forty -five (45) calendar days after the execution of the
Letter of Intent. During the :Feasibility Period, we may cancel the agreement for any reason
With tw liability whatsoever to us by giving written notice of such fact on or before 5:00 PM
California tiuic said 45th day (tile "Feasibility Period "), and the $100,000 deposit will be
refunded. The feasibility period may be extended by means of the written mutual consent of
both parties.
3. You will deliver to us copies of any and all final soils reports and tests, geological reports,
rough gradutp, reports, the final tract map and conditions cf approval, engineering plans,
landscape plans, cost estimates for items which we are responsible to pay, development
agreements, EIK's, Ilomeowners Association documents, correspondence or agreements with
governmental agencies, Iot and slope certifications, and any and all ether information pertinrart
to the Lots. The foregoing items shall be deliva•cd within five (5) business days from the date
beginning of the Feasibility Period. Any delay in delivery of any of these documents will result
in a corresponding extension of the Feasibility Period.
4. You will provide us with fuU access to The Tots so that we may conduct soil tests and ofher
investigations. We will defend and indemnify you from any claims which may arise from our
aocess and investigations and we will restore any areas tcstcd io their pre -test condition.
5. 'Within five (5) business days after beginning of the Feasibility Period, you will deliver to us, at
your cost, an acceptable preliminary title report staling that clear, marketable and insurable titic
to the Lois is vesltxi in your name. together with Iegible copies of all documents listed as
exceptions on the report. Any delay in delivery of the title report and dacumeuls will result in a
corresponding extension of the Feasibility Period.
6. The forgoing offer is subject to the f0ll0wir19 conditions being satisfied or waived at the tint
of closing:
a. Clear and marketable title to the Lots will be vested in the p artnLrship name, ;subject
only to matters which do not present or impede our construction of new homes on the
Lots. The band Seller will, at their expense, deliver to us an ALTA Forrn B o,Nner's
policy of title insurance. Any additional costs for the ALTA (oz extcndod ALTA
coverage) vs. the CLI'A will be burn by the new partnership.
b. All liens, easements, or eneumbrancea that appear rn, the title report, excepting those
that appear on the Tentative Map, shall be removed prior to closing. Any liens ;51ed by
subcontractors for work performed either before or after closing shrill be your
responsibility to 1emove. The Land Seller shall defend; indemnify and hold Centex
hamiless fronn any claims or liens tiled.
I \UI I al I00U1 III- r rl^ J I a I arl rnuivr- ivu. . vec. 1.3 1 JJb 1b: 22HM H4
DEC -I3 -56 FRI 08:30 IM �EN?EX ! OI1 }S LA VENT FAX NO. 18052885770 P, 04
Page 3 Bollinger Letter of Intent
C. There will be no moratorium or similar restriction imposed by any governmental
atuhority or private entity with respect to the issuence of certificate of compliance,
buildi% permits, gas, electric, sanitary sewer, reclaimed water, or waterline connections
aflectirgthe Jots.
d. The Lots will not be within a flood prune area as defined by the locx:[ Flood ointroI
Board of FEMA.
1'n the event any one of the fo:eving conditions is not satisfied at closing, or waived by
us during the Feasibility period, we may, at our option, ter ninate the contract and the
Earnest Money Deposit shall be returned to us.
7. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, this offer shall not be binding* until it
has been approved by our Board of Directors.
81 Any coatunissions due from this transaction are payable by Bol linger Development, Corp.
9. Thee contract of sale •mill contain represesntations and warraiuies of the Seller substantially
in the form of those attached to this Lerner of Intent.
10. This offer will remain open until Decerrtbcr 16, 1996, and if not accepted by that date, will
be deemed revoked and canceled. This letter of intent, revised 12113/96, supersedes all
prior copies or revisions and extends the feasibilrn" period to 1 n 1/97.
Sincerely,
CENTEX HOMES
Jane , e 1'r. - -- --- ' ---`. � �• �
DVe
Di visim President
nr Dbv op zit Co ration
f�
c: Phil Cu
Don W