HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2001 0404 CC REG ITEM 10CTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
The Honorable City Council
Steven Kueny, City Manager
IMM /0.
C .
of
h2e�om rncndcLfTon
March 28, 2001 (CC Meeting of April 4, 2001)
Consider Report on Potential Settlement of Hidden Creek
Ranch Project Related Litigation
BACKGROUND:
The Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 8)
Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance,
and Annexation were approved by the City in July and August 1998.
This project included 3,221 residential dwelling units, 21.5
commercial acres, 4 school sites, parks and open space.
Subsequent to these actions, a successful referendum election was
held on the Development Agreement on January 12, 1999. In
addition, four items of litigation are pending final resolution
related to this project. Three (3) are the subject of proposed
settlement discussions as follows:
1. Environmental Coalition of Ventura County (EC) v. City of
Moorpark, et al. The EC sought to set aside the Development
Agreement because the EIR was inadequate. LAFCO was later
added as a respondent pertaining to annexation issues. In
November 1999, the Trial Court granted the EC's petition
compelling LAFCO to set aside the annexation. Various other
actions were either dismissed by the court or withdrawn by
the involved parties. The judgment setting aside the
annexation was appealed by Hidden Creek, and a decision by
the Appellant Court is expected before September 2001. The
EC has cross - appealed the Trial Court's dismissal action on
two of the EIR causes of action. This action is still
pending. In September 2000, the EC was awarded over
$169,000.00 in attorneys' fees on this case, which was
appealed by Hidden Creek in October 2000. This is still
pending.
Agenda Report
Re: Hidden Creek
Page 2
March 28, 2001 (CC Meeting of 4/4/2001)
2. The Environmental Coalition of Ventura County (EC) v. City
of Moorpark, et al. The EC seeks to set aside the zoning
ordinance for Specific Plan No. 8. In November 1998, the EC
granted an open- extended extension to respond to this case.
In July 1999, the City initiated the process to implement
rezoning of Specific Plan No. 8 for consistency with voter
approved Measure S (Moorpark SOAR).
3. Hidden Creek Ranch v. City of Moorpark, et al. Hidden Creek
seeks to invalidate and prevent enforcement of Measure S and
to recover compensation in excess of $150,000,000.00 for the
purported taking of its property (inverse condemnation).
The City filed a demur, and in September 1999, the Trial
Court agreed to continue it until after the Appellate Court
decision on the annexation matter became final.
The other case not subject to the proposed settlement at this
time is Hidden Creek Ranch v. City of Moorpark, et al. This case
was filed in October 1998 by Hidden Creek and sought to
invalidate the referendum petition against the Development
Agreement. In November 1998, the Trial Court ruled the petition
was valid. In December 1998, Hidden Creek appealed. In January
2000, the Appellate Court sustained the Trial Court's decision;
and in April 2000, the California Supreme Court denied Hidden
Creek's petition for review. Hidden Creek subsequently appealed
the court's action to award $41,549.00 of attorneys' fees and
costs to the EC. A final decision is still pending.
Informal settlement discussions were recently initiated and have
involved the City, Hidden Creek, EC, and SOAR, Inc.
DISCUSSION:
During the March 21, 2001, City Council closed session, staff was
directed to place an open session on the Council's April 4 agenda
to provide a public discussion of a possible settlement of the
first three lawsuits referenced above. Councilmembers Harper and
Wozniak were previously authorized to meet with the other
involved parties to determine if a settlement agreement could be
drafted to resolve these matters. Any settlement would require
approval of the court. At the present time, the following
proposal has been made by Hidden Creek.
'0 0,
Agenda Report
Re: Hidden Creek
Page 3
March 28, 2001 (CC Meeting of 4/4/2001)
1. Specific Plan No. 8 would be annexed to the City.
2. The Hidden Creek ownership would be given a vested right to
develop 500 residential dwelling units.
3. The 1998 certified EIR would be used for actions 1. and 2.,
above.
4. The City would commit to a public vote to allow up to 1,500
residential units (and other land uses subject to further
discussions)
5. All pending litigation would be resolved.
The City has indicated its willingness to discuss settlement with
the understanding that certain fees be paid prior to further
negotiations, a 90 -day limit on negotiations, and that
consideration of any final settlement agreement would be subject
to review and approval by the City Council at a public meeting.
The terms of any settlement would include a new Development
Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Councilmembers Harper and Wozniak and staff to continue
with settlement discussions.
SK:db
M: \ccagenda \Agnda rpt- Hidden Creek 0328 2001