Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0604 CC REG ITEM 08DTO: FROM: DATE: i JTh"MSOT • aff OF MONO= {.ALMM r%r ftwwa lm,ng AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK Honorable City Council Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner May 29, 1997 (CC Meeting of 6 -4 -97) SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96 -3 TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM LOW, OPEN SPACE 2, AND PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW, AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 223 FOR SECOND READING TO REVISE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1.63 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, OPEN SPACE, AND INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL EXCLUSIVE 5 ACRES On May 16, 1997, the City received a letter from Centex Homes (Attachment 1) identifying that they have decided not to pursue the project commonly referred to as Moorpark Country Club Estates. Following receipt of the attached letter, staff re- advertized the public hearing for General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 and Zone Change No. 96 -3. Action on the subject General Plan Amendment and Zone Change had been continued off - calendar to allow Centex Homes to negotiate a Development Agreement with the City, and to conduct additional soils tests. At the City Council meeting on February 5, 1997, the City Council had taken action on Zone Change No. 96 -3 by introducing Ordinance No. 223 (Attachment 2) for first reading, to revise the zoning designations for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project site back to the prior Rural Exclusive 5 Acre zoning. The ordinance included the stipulation that the zone change would be consistent with the General Plan, subject to adoption of a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 (Attachment 3) . At its meeting of February 19, 1997, the Council continued second reading of Ordinance No. 223 and General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 off - calendar. Further background information about the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project and expiration dates of Conditional Use Permit No. 94 -1, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 94 -1, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4928 are included in the attached staff report for the February 5 City Council meeting (Attachment 4). DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \cc2gpa96.3 V V V'-047 General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 and Zone Change No. 96 -3 To: Honorable City Council May 29, 1997 Page 2 Action on the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change had been continued off calendar in part due to the interest of Centex Homes in the purchase of this project and to allow them to meet with the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to resolve the outstanding issues relating to this project. Centex Homes met several times with the Ad Hoc Committee and a considerable number of times with staff. Centex had proposed a major revision to the project that would have substantially reduced the grading and relocated the proposed lots and circulation approved in the original tract map. Their proposed project still contained the same number of lots and the two golf courses with similar external access points along Walnut Canyon and Grimes Canyon Roads. Centex had submitted a preliminary proposal and met several times with staff regarding this proposal. However, a formal submittal was not submitted or accepted in part due to the substantial outstanding fees relating to the project which were past due. Staff had recommended that additional environmental review and analysis would be required to analyze the proposed changes and assess potential impacts relating to additional information relating to California gnatcatcher and newly listed endangered species. It was further suggested that if such review and analysis did not identify any additional impacts there might not be the need for recirculation of the environmental documents. Centex had also indicated they had conducted additional soils analysis, however this analysis was not submitted to the City. Both Conditional Use Permit No. 94 -1 and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 94 -1 are now expired. 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. A new Conditional Use Permit is required for construction of a golf course use and a new Residential Planned Development Permit is required for construction of any homes on the project site. An application could not be accepted for a Conditional Use Permit and /or a Residential Planned Development Permit unless the proposed project was consistent with the City's General Plan. At the time of filing of an application for any new project, an environmental determination would need to be made regarding the potential environmental impacts of that project. An Initial Study would need to be completed and, at a minimum, focused biological surveys would need to be done to determine the presence of sensitive species (including the California gnatcatcher) , and supplemental geotechnical analysis would be required DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \cc2gpa96.: w General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 and Zone Change No. 96 -3 To: Honorable City Council May 29, 1997 Page 3 to determine whether earthquake faults recently located east of Walnut Canyon Road extend into the project site. Based on the letter from Centex Homes and the fact that both Conditional Use Permit No. 94 -1 and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 94 -1 have now expired, the City Council may wish to proceed with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to revert the General Plan and zoning designations to the 5 acre lot size zoning which existed on the site prior to approval of the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project. A draft resolution to amend the General Plan land use designations from Medium Low, Open Space 2, and Public /Institutional, to Rural Low (one dwelling unit per 5 acres), is included as Attachment 3 to this report. Ordinance No. 223, to revise the zoning to Rural Exclusive 5 Acres, should be introduced for second reading following adoption of a resolution amending the General Plan land use designations. This would be the second General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element this year. As discussed in the staff report for the Council's February 5, 1997 meeting (see Attachment 4), each element may be amended a maximum of four times per year. • : •,,V ,w:H� • 1. Adopt Resolution No. 97- , approving General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 to revise the land use designations for the 655 -acre property referred to as Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4928. 2. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 223 to change the zoning for a 655 -acre site referred to as Vesting Tentative Tract No. 4928 from Residential Planned Development 1.63 Dwelling Units Per Acre Open Space, and Institutional to Rural Exclusive 5 Acres. Attachments: 1. Letter from Centex Homes dated 5 -16 -97 2. Ordinance No. 223 3. Draft Resolution 4. Staff Report for 2 -5 -97 City Council Meeting DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \cc2gpa96.3 R t4cachrntnt I C CENTEX HONES May 16, 1997 Mr. Patrick Hunter Mayor, City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 RE: Moorpark Country Club Estates Dear Mayor Hunter, Hand Delivered This purpose of this letter is to inform you that, as of today, Centex Homes has decided not to pursue the project commonly referred to as Moorpark Country Club Estates. Any questions as to the circumstances surrounding our decision should be directed to Mr. Paul Bollinger. I want to take this opportunity to thank you, the city council, the city managers and staff for your time and cooperation during our assessment of this project. Moorpark is a community of great pride, solid citizenship and concerned leadership. While the circumstances make this a difficult communication, we do appreciate the relationships that have been built and look forward to the future opportunity to work with the Moorpark community. Thank you for your time and consideration. SAJ.J l, Jr. Divis ion President c: John Wozniak Bernardo Perez Debbie Teasley Chris Evans Steve Kueny Richard Hare Nelson Miller Bob Merritt RECEIVED MAY 191997 City of Moorpark Community Development CENTEX HOMES • L.A. / VENTURA DIVISION ,r �+,�r 25129 THE OLD ROAD. SUITE 100 - STEVENSON RANCH, CA 91 381 - 805 288 5777 - FAX 805 288 577 Att&ahm a n-t 2 ORDINANCE NO. 223 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO.96 -3, CHANGING THE ZONING FOR A 655 ACRE SITE REFERRED TO AS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 4928 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 December 18, 1996, and a continued public hearing on February 5, 1997, the City Council considered Zone Change 96 -3 changing the zoning from Residential Planned Development 1.63 Dwelling Units per Acre, Open Space, and Institutional, to Rural Exclusive 5 Acres for a 655 -acre site referred to as Vesting Tentative Tract 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, the City Council on December 20, 1995, adopted Resolution No. 95- 1167, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project, including Vesting Tentative Tract 4928, as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Procedures; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on November 25, 1996, the Planning Commission considered Zone Change 96 -3, received and considered public testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the public hearing for the project, and adopted a resolution recommending approval of the zone change; and WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the information contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC -96 -329, staff reports, and public and staff testimony at the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: c.1 bollingr ord.223 10 (Xi ORDINANCE NO. 223 Zone Change No. 96 -3 Moorpark Country Club Estates Page 2 SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resource Code of the State of California) , the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Procedures, the City Council of the City of Moorpark previously adopted Resolution No.95 -1167, certifying the Final EIR, and Resolution No. 96- 1197 approving an Addendum to the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project. These documents adequately address the environmental effects of reverting the property to the zoning that previously existed. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed zone change will be in conformance with the City General Plan subject to adoption of a resolution approving General Plan Amendment 96 -3. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that the approval of this zone change request is in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice and that for these reasons it is appropriate and necessary to reclassify the property. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves the zone change from Residential Planned Development -1.63 Dwelling Units per Acre for a 132.5 -acre area comprised of all residential lots, from Open Space -6.4 Acres for the proposed trail staging area lot, from Open Space -176 Acres for the east golf course lot, from Open Space -314.4 Acres for the west golf course lots, and from Institutional for the well and reservoir lots, to Rural Exclusive 5 Acre (as shown on Exhibit 1). SECTION 5. The City Council hereby directs staff to amend the City Zoning Map to reflect the approved zone change. SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. c: i -m bollingr ord.223 ORDINANCE NO. 223 Zone Change No. 96 -3 Moorpark Country Club Estates Page 3 SECTION 8. The city clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published once in the Moorpark Star, a daily newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 1997. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit 1 _ - -- c: 1 -m bollingr —or d.223 Att &ch,ntnt 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMT NO. 96 -3, FOR A 655 - ACRE SITE RXFXRM TO AS VESTING TENTATIVE NAP NO. 4928, TO AMEND THE LAUD US= DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM LOW, OPEN SPACE 2, AND PUBLIC/ INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW (ONE DWELLING UNIT PER 5 ACRES) WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearings on December 18, 1996, February 5, 1997, and June 4, 1997, the City Council considered General Plan Amendment 96- 3 to amend the land use designations from Medium Low, Open Space 2, and Public /Institutional, to Rural Low, for a 655 -acre site referred to as Vesting Tentative Tract 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, the City Council on December 20, 1995, adopted Resolution No. 95- 1167, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project, including Vesting Tentative Tract 4928, as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Procedures; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on November 25, 1996, the Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3, received and considered public testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the public hearing for the project, and adopted a resolution recommending approval of the General Plan amendment; and WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the information contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC -96 -329, staff reports, and public and staff testimony at the public hearings; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resource Code of the State of California), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Procedures, the City Council of the City of Moorpark previously adopted Resolution No.95 -1167, certifying the Final EIR, and Resolution No. 96- 1197 approving an Addendum to the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project. These documents adequately address the environmental effects of reverting the property to the designations that previously existed. c: \1- m \bo11ingr \cc- resgp.963 ��V"; Resolution No. General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3 Moorpark Country Club Estates Page 2 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 96- 3 to amend Exhibit 3 (Land Use Plan) of the General Plan Land Use Element to revise the Land Use Designations from Medium Low (2 Dwelling Units per Acre) for a 132.5 -acre area comprised of all residential lots to Rural Low (1 Dwelling Unit per 5 Acres) ; from Open Space 2, for a 496.8 -acre area comprised of all golf course lots to Rural Low; and from Public /Institutional for all water reservoir and water well lots to Rural Low. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF June , 1997. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk c: \1- m \bo11ingr \cc- resgp.963 A'+*Ckrnen+ H AGMIDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director Deborah S. Traffenstedt, of Community Developme t 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 DESIOWTIONS FRAM MEDIUM LOW, OPEN SPACE 2, AND PUBLIC/ INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW AND TO REVISE THE ZONING FROM RESIDEN'T'IAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1.63 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, OPEN SPACE, AND INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL EXCLUSIVE 5 ACRES 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. 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 Land Use Element amendment during calendar year 1997. Filed applications are listed below: DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \REVCC2 -5.GPA 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 land uses and densities) Pre- Applications in Process 1. Pre - Application for Specific Plan Element amendment to reflect final 2. Pre - application for Anderson /Burns Agricultural to Medium Industrial) 3. Pre - application for Shenkel /Tanner Rural High to Medium Industrial) No. 9, Braemar Homes (Land Use approved plan) (Land Use Element amendment from (Land Use Element amendment from In addition to the above amendment requests there are several other potential General Plan amendments that may be filed or considered, including: 1. 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 (Land Use 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 Board and City Council) If the City Council's decision is to approve General Plan amendment No. 96 -3 to revise the land use designation for the 655 -acre Moorpark Country Club Estates Project site back to Rural Low (5 -Acre minimum lot size), DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \REVCC2 -5.GPA 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 City Council public hearing would be required. 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 19, 1997, meeting. Attachment: City Council staff report for December 18, 1996 Meeting o�'s DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \REVCC2 -5.GPA TO: 1*101"W DATE: AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK Honorable City Council 1\ _-N I T E M —to A-,— Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme /� ` Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner 13>a'_F 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 DRSIGMATIONS FROM MEDIUM LOW, OPEN SPACE 2, AND PUBLIC/ INSTITUTIONAL, TO RURAL LOW AND TO REVISE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLA1f1M DEVELOPUINT 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, 1997, the date of expiration of RPD Permit No. 94- 1. DST c: \1- m \staffrpt \ccgpa96.3 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 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 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 ()MOG1 - RESOLUTION NO. PC -96 -329 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMINT 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) 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 Q(0)UdQ PC96- 329.RES 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 to 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 NOV KWM, 1996. John Torres, Chairman ATTEST: ,a Celia La Fleur, Administrative Secretary�3 PC96- 329.RES P I c.n n I n9 Cor•, m t6' ..�. A i e L.:vl AGMIDA RRPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Planning Comission FROM: Nelson Killer, Director of City Dewelo Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner =�*T DATE: November 20, 1996 (PC hooting of 11- 25 -96) SUBJECT: CONSIDER (ORAL FXAN ALI T NO. 96 -3 AND ZONE CNAi NO. 96 -3, FOR A 655 -ACRE SIT! 2 TO AS VESTING TELMTIVE X" NO. 4929, TO Ai TR; LAW ON MIGMIOITS FROK VIDIUK LOW, OPEN SPACE 2, MW POULWINNTITUTIONAL, TO ROYAL LOW AND TO REVISE THE ZOr1M FBOIL R=1= 9r= PIJUR ED DEVEL.0P 1 .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 i)(1t1U6'E 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, ULOGS c: \1 -m \staffrpt \pc- gpa96.3 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 • OC c: \1- m \staffrpt \pc- gpa96.3 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. 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 c: \1- m \staffr-Dt \nc- ana96.3 W? ' - ✓`� i ' " i .111'= ' a •�La"yoy A'�' !� ., a Q w ¢� pv u. uj � m E U w °� a •s w /� e.•_ �sy .� r � o� ,�'1'.A�/ + .ti;,� jF�nl��' • I! >: ff�r.., lSlcti,1 � Ni co •I a �• - tire. } ,1. � _ y '„�_ ' \��d' &€ AY.•wJ � 1 I i q, `ll(� � C 1 I IIIU ,no •;.�..JBAr� � 1�I /�jl�lr- �flri�NY�.II IgrF \.� �''I 4M`� '� ray ,��r�, -� f i .. .. , ... • / \ ICI I�,r �.���y,c, � •.1'�, f /.'�; .F ��.......{�� _ �• .+ w l i r �'• li 7Yit S 3• i �rlA _ r tttul AT-rrAcHMErrr_Z 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 RECOMIMSENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL PERTAINING TO THE REDESIGNATION OF PROPERTY REFERRED TO AS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 4928 (BOLLINGER DEVELOPMW INCORPORATED AND MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB INVESTORS) FRCM 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 WJNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOORPARK, 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 the redesignation of property referred to as Vesting T nt tivetTract 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 recommendation to the City Council provide a Zoning and General Plan Land Use designations r pertaining changes in the redesignation of property referred to as Vestin T ntat vet Tract Map 4928 (Bollinger Development Incorporated and Mooark 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. BOGS 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 -��.�' 19 9 6 . Paul W. awrason Jr Mayor ATTEST: 070 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ISIS. 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. City Council of the City of Moo rk atwasmeetinghel the the day of 1�,�._ ^ , g ld on 199 the same was adopted by the following vote: 6 and that AYES: aw% -Ox" <}- z) 01 NOES: ABSENT:����� ABSTAIN: this WITNESS my haW and the official seal of said City ---� day of 1996. Lillian E. Hare City Clerk 071 �UL W. IA vnr JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK FI ArrAcHMENT3 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW This waiver of Right to Judicial Review ( "Waiver ") is made this day of April, 1996, by and between the CITY OF MOORPARK, a muni 1pal corporation, ( "City "), on the one hand, and BOLLINGER DEVELO MENT 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 n defined terms in this Waiver shall have 9the(same ®meanings as the Agreement. g in B. City will not approve the development of the Pioperty on the terms set forth in the Agreement without assuring itself that it will obtain the benefits contained in the Agreement. C. The Agreement will not become effective until either the current owners of the Property have agreed to be bound by the terms of the Agreement or Bollinger or a substitute person has taken title to the Property. 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: 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") 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, if it determines in its sole discretion that it is in its interest to do so, commence the 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 KHBLEY 27044 2633U 1 ` � ` 04 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. S. This Waiver may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. Dated: April /7, 1996 Dated: April LZ , 1996 Dated: April 0, 1996 CITY OF MOORPARK By: Pau W. ason Jr. Mayor By: By: ATTEST L tan Hare City Cler VGER DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED r President MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB INVESTORS By: Bollinger Development Incorporated, General Partner Paul A.7Bo President KBBLEY 27044 263334 3 2 ger vItk0 ?'3 ATTACHMENT T y 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 Pro e 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 parcelization 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 Pro ect Alternative 2: Buildout to Existin General Plan and Zonin Desi nations 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 0000 7,i 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 Proiect 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 altemative 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. Attemahves 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 altemative 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. ARematrves 2(1 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 concems 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 anematives). 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 altemative, 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 propert y but distributing the units to be developed into several clustered neighborhoods. This approach would represent a considerable improvement of grading quantities and environmental impacts arfti6pated 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 altematives. 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 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 acre 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 Alternative 3: Five Acre Estates Without a Golf Course MOORPARK ESTATES EIR FIGURE CITY OF MOORPARK 20 -2 4 c c ZONING APPROVED FOR MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES PROJECT