HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0205 CC REG ITEM 08AAGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmer"
Deborah S. Traffenstedt Senior Planner
DATE: January 17, 1997 (CC Meeting of 2 -5 -97)
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
i ; A60 ;lcf Zelih1�7
The City Council held a public hearing on this item on December 18, 1996,
and continued the public hearing until February 5, 1997. The reason for
the continuance was to allow Bollinger Development, Inc., additional time
to show progress towards acquisition of the Moorpark Country Club Estates
Project site and securing Project financing.
The attached staff report for the December 18 meeting provides further
background information:
DISCUSSION
Mr. Bollinger has informed staff that he will be in attendance at the
continued public hearing on February 5, 1997, and will provide a verbal
update of the Project status. On December 18 Mr. Bollinger agreed to
have a representative from Centex Homes (the intended tract developer)
in attendance.
Prior to making a determination on an amendment of the General Plan Land
Use Element to revise the land use designation for the subject property,
the Council should consider that the State Government Code does limit the
frequency of amendments to a mandatory element of a general plan to no
more than four times during any calendar year. There are currently five
filed General Plan amendment applications, as well as three pre -
applications for General Plan amendment screening, that may require a
Nand Use Element amendment during calendar year 1997. Filed applications
are listed below:
DST c . ',1- m \.staffrpt \REVCC2 5 APR 00001
General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3
and Zone Change No. 96 -3
To: Honorable City Council
January 29, 1997
Page 2
Applications in Process
1. Specific Plan No. 1, Hitch Ranch (Land Use Element amendment to
reflect final approved plan)
2. Specific Plan No. 2, Morrison - Fountainwood-Agoura (Land Use and
Circulation Element amendments to reflect final approved plan)
3. Specific Plan No. 8, Hidden Creek Ranch (Land Use and Circulation
Element amendments to reflect final approved plan)
4. Overland Homes residential project (Land Use Element amendment to
revise density)
S. DeeWayne Jones Commercial Center (Land Use Element amendment from
Medium Density Residential to General Commercial)
6. Downtown Specific Plan (Land Use Element Amendment to reflect
revisions to lard uses and densities)
Pre - Applications in Process
1. Pre - Application for Specific Plan No. 9, Braemar Homes (Land Use
Element amendment to reflect final approved plan)
2. Pre - application for Anderson /Burns ;Land Use Element amendment from
Agricultural to Medium Industrial;
3. Pre - application for Shenkel /Tanner (Land Use Element amendment from
Rural High to Medium Industrial-
In addition to the above amendment requests there are several other
potential General Plan amendments that may be filed or considered,
including:
i. The property south of ARCO and west of the Le Club Apartments, to
revise the land use designation from General Commercial to Very High
Density residential.
2. The former Tentative Tract 3217 (Rasmussen) property on the west
side of Walnut Canyon Road, south of Tentative Tract 4928
(Bollinger). (Possible Land Use Element Amendment for increased
density)
3. Sphere of Influence Study iLand Jse Element Amendment would be
needed to address any areas proposed to be added to Sphere of
Influence.
4. The Gisler Field site on Poindexter Avenue which is owned by the
Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. (Possible Land Use Element amendment
to reduce the density consistent with the maximum number of units
directed by the Agency Boar: and CLty "ounci )
If the City Council's decision is to approve General Plan amendment No.
96 -3 to revise the land use designation fox the 655 -acre Moorpark Country
Club Estates Project site back .; Rural Lcw :5 -Acre minimum lot size),
13 1- r.',,staffrpt \R -'1CC2 _ .r. U`,p 002
a �f�.jVlJ
General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3
and Zone Change No. 96 3
To: Honorable City Council
January 29, 1997
Page 3
then the Council may want to defer its action on the General Plan
amendment until such time that two or more land use plan amendments can
be considered at one time, at the same public hearing. The Government
Code does allow each amendment to include more than one change to the
general plan. A new public notice and C;ty Council public hearing would
be required.
STAFF =QHMPMATIQN
1. 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 February =9, 1997, meeting.
Attachment: City Council staff report fcr December 18, 1996 Meeting
-S° c 1- m`,staffrp •,RE':CC: _ ;F ?.
I T E_— M —to JL___N
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme�
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner 13>55T
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
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.
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, L997 the date of expiration of RPD Permit No. 94-
1.
SST c 1 m \staffrpt \ccgpa96 3
000004
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 and 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 the 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.
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 :;r take legal title to the
L'S' r' ,1- m'\1staffrpt\ccgpa96 3
0000013
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 17, 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.
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 dated November 20, 1996
DST c: \1- m`,staffrpt \ccgpa96.3
000006
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 /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 Dwelling Units per Acre, Open Space (three
areas identified as 6.4 Acres, 314.4 Acres, and 176 Acres), and
Institutional to Rural Exclusive (RE) S- Acres, for a 65S -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, S00- 260 -015, 500- 250 -115,
500- 220 -075, 500 - 430 -015, S00- 430 -025, 50C- 430 -035, 500- 430 -045, 500 -430-
055, 500- 430 -06S, 500 - 430 -075, 50C- 430 -)85, 500- 430 -095, S00- 440 -0151
500 - 440 -02S, 500 - 440 -035, S00- 440 -045, 50(:- 440 -055, 500- 440 -065, 500 -440-
075, 500- 440 -085, 500 - 440 -095, 30C -440 -105, 500- 440 -115, S00- 440 -125,
500 - 440 -135, 500 - 440 -145; 500- 440 -1.55, `_:0'- 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 ::omp;:.ar.ce ti; --EQA Div:-sion 13 of the Public
00oo n'
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 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, 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 -o the 655 -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 NOVSDMR, 1996.
John Torres, Chairman
ATTEST:
Celia La Fleur
Secretary
P Ic,n n, n9 Corn rn;t,51 -N
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmw,�✓ `
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner _Ms'r
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 AMMM THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM LOW,
OPEN SPACE 2, AND PUBLIC/ INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW AND TO
REVISE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMT 1.63
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, OPEN SPACE, AND INSTITUTIONAL, TO
RURAL EXCLUSIVE 5 ACRES
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.
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
• VUVV��
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,
' owo
c: \1 -m \staffrpt \pc -9pa96 3
General Plan Amendment 96 -3 /Zone Change 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 is later. Section 66452.6(a) also
provides that such extensions shall not extend the tentative map more
than 10 years from its approval or conditional approval date. A
determination would need to be made whether the offsite reclaimed water
line, flood control, and Grimes Canyon 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 determined 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
d ��� ll66 ,,rr,,q
c:`,: -m \staffrpt \pc- gpa96.= d ooll
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 r -ecommend
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.
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachments:
1. City Council Resolution No. 96 -1 ;38
2. Location Map
3. Waiver of Right to Judicial Review
4. Pages from Alternatives Section of
Club Estates Project
5. City Zoning Map
Final EIR for Moorpark Country
6. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
WW12
c: \I - m \staffrpt \pc- gpa96.3
0
000
ip
", 19
ki
OPY
POO l000l
keg""
ATTACiimENT 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 MORPARK,
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, Open Space and
Institutional Zoning to Rural Low Density land use and Rural
Exclusive Zoning.
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission is hereby
directed to study, set a public hearing and provide a
recommendation to the City Council pertaining to changes in 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, Open Space and
Institutional Zoning to Rural Low Density land use and Rural
Exclusive Zoning.
(WJJ(j4
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1238
Page 2
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 14— DAY OF W, 1996.
Paul W. Lawrason Jr.//,-Mayor
ATTEST:
000015
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529 -6864
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF VENTURA } SIB.
CITY OF MOORPARK
I, Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark,
California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing Resolution No. NO' 113 4' was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on
the day of << 1996, and that
the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: /0-40 �
ABSENT:4W
ABSTAIN:
WITNESS my ha an the official seal of said City
this � day of , 1996.
��• C�-
Lillian E. Hare
City Clerk
UU1)Q1.6
>UL W. LAWRASON JR JOHN E. WOZNIAK ELOISE BROWN PATRICK HUNTER
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
This Waiver of Right to Judicial Review
this day of April, 1996, by ( "Waiver" and between the CITY OF MOORPARK,
a muni ipal corporation, ( "City"), on the one hand, and BOLLINGER
DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, a California corporation,
and MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB INVESTORS, a California limitedlinger}
partnership, ( "Moorpark Investors "), on the other hand, with
respect to the following facts:
A. City and Bollinger are contemplating entering into a
Development Agreement dated April jJ, 1996 ( "Agreement "). The
defined terms in this Waiver shall have the same meanings as in
the Agreement.
B.
on the
that it
city will not approve the development of the Property
terms set forth in the Agreement without assuring itself
will obtain the benefits contained in the Agreement.
C. The
the current owners eofn l
the Property have
become
terms of the Agreement or Bollinger or
taken title to the Property.
effective until either
agreed to be bound by the
a 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 right to
do so with Bollinger or Moorpark Investors.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby agreed:
replanningcthe Property tomtheccurre
e the process required for
designation or rezoning the Property ntoR the lcurrent Ruralacres)
Exclusive 5 Acres ( "redesignation of the Property")
days after the date upon which the Enabling ordinance zone
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,
discretion that it is in its interestltoddoeso, commencesthele
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 of the
Property and to make their opposition to the redesignation of the
KBBLEY 27044 263334 3
000017
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 j7, 1996 CITY OF MOORPARK
By:
PaA.ra son J r.
Mayor
ATTEST
Dated: April L�, 1996
By:
Dated: April L�, 1996
Li lian Hare
City Cler
BOL V GER DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED
ger
President
MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB INVESTORS
By: Bollinger Development
/jIncorporated, General Partner
By:
Paul A. Bo ger
President
J
KBBLEY 27044 263334 3 2
i
ATTACHMENT 4
in comparing and analyzing each of the following altematives, 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, undoubtedly 'iarcelization 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 Altemative, 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 } iuVool«
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 uti ity 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 strestscape 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
Attematrves 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 altematives). 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 altemative 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 arfticipated 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 most 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 not
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 acne standard, unless clustering is required, is
not recommended. The physical impacts of a clustered neighborhood alternative are provided in
the following discussion.
Altematives 20-11
3
1
J •�
r �
• 1
r�
r �
Aj
I IV • - t. -./ AM % �4l�►
arm �� _. �.,.! - � ���;'�•.' pit
i• � -. � •. - ■ tau• „� ~'1 /O
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
PUBLIV 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 Dwelling Units per Acre, Open Space (three
areas identified as 6.4 Acres, 314.4 Acres, and 176 Acres), and
Institutional to Rural Exclusive (RE) S- 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 -;05, 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 -he 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 Cal--fornia) and the City's CEQA
ot)w"%x
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
UUUU�E�
000OZ7