Developer Eager to Trade Ridgeline for More Homes

From New Los Angeles Avenue, Tierra Rejada Road and many other city streets, residents looking north can view a ridgeline: a strip of greenery where coyotes, quail and roadrunners have been spotted.

This prominent ridgeline, about half a mile north of Casey Road and west of Walnut Canyon Road, is more than a scenic attraction. It also has become a bargaining chip in a developer’s effort to gain city approval for more new homes.

Developer West Pointe Homes already has city approval to build 66 homes on 350 acres in north Moorpark, each on a 5-acre parcel.

But residents are concerned that the plan allows for 23 of those homes to be built along the ridgeline they want preserved. The City Council approved the project in 1989, before passage of laws to protect ridges from development.

“It’s going to totally destroy the view . . . because it takes a massive amount of grading,” said Moorpark resident Mary Kairouz. “Communities just don’t do this anymore.”

Saying the company is sensitive to pleas to save the ridgeline, the developer has proposed an alternate plan--one that comes with a price.

“We felt that preserving the open space and real prominent ridgeline would be a good idea, and we felt we could do it with a better plan,” said Vince Daly, a representative for West Pointe.

The plan, said West Pointe Homes officials, is to move the new houses away from the ridgeline and create more open space by placing them on smaller parcels. But the city must be willing to allow the developer to build more houses--a lot more.

In two weeks the developer plans to meet with the city to work out how many, Daly said.

*

The developer originally asked for more than a sixfold increase--420 homes. After city officials balked at the number, the company scaled the number back to 350. During a meeting earlier this month, City Council members said they wanted the developer to work with a city committee and lower the number even further.

In the meantime, the developer has been working to muster support among residents for the latest plan. A handful spoke at a recent council meeting to favor more homes if the ridgeline would be preserved.

“I usually don’t go to bat for developers, but he has a much better plan than what was originally approved,” Kairouz said. The 5-acre ranches, she said, would take away the open space and obliterate the ridgeline.

“I wouldn’t want homes built on the ridge looking down into where I live,” agreed resident Theresa Yassini.

The majority of council members agree that the developer’s latest plan merits consideration. But Councilwoman Debbie Teasley worries the ridgeline is being used to rush the council into approving more homes.

*

“I don’t want to make a decision with a gun to my head,” Teasley said. “The message the company seems to be sending is, ‘If you don’t give me this, I’m going to build the other,’ ” she said.

With the original project already approved, the company is legally entitled to build along the ridgeline at any time.

The developer, however, says it needs to know which direction the City Council will allow it to go before its permits expire in January.

“I think the bottom line is the importance of the ridgeline,” Daly said. “We certainly don’t want to extort them in any way and say this is your only option. We just need to move soon.”

In addition, the developer says it needs to increase the number of homes to make the project financially viable.

Moving the homes away from the ridgeline would mean losing an estimated $2.3 million the developer would have received for the additional $100,000 it could have charged for each of the 23 homes along the ridge that would have views, Daly said.

Increasing the number of homes, however, would require an amendment to the city’s General Plan--its blueprint for future development.

*

Mayor Patrick Hunter has said the city should not allow the developer to apply for an amendment, arguing that the city will have no cohesive future plan if it continues to approve individual amendments for projects.

He was the only one to vote against asking the developer to propose fewer homes to get approval for an amendment.

“We’ve just postponed the inevitable,” Hunter said.

“I don’t see the value in submitting this back to the committee. We’ll ask ourselves the same question with some number less than 350.”