Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2002 0515 CC REG ITEM 12B/ ; v ► .:�c E ORDINANCE NO. 281 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE (ZC) NO. 2001 -01 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R -2 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO RPD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) 9 DWELLING UNITS /ACRE ON ONE PARCEL (APN 512 -0- 110 -112) TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 2.44 GROSS ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND FLORY STREET, ON THE APPLICATION OF COLMER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 12 . WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 1, 2002, the City Council considered the application filed by Colmer Development Company for approval of Zone Change No. 2001 -01 for a change in the Zoning Designation from R -2 (Two Family Residential) to RPD 9 (Residential Planned Development, 9 dwelling units per acre) on one (1) parcel (APN 512 -0- 110 -112) totaling approximately 2.44 gross acres of land located on the northeast corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Flory Avenue; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 1 2002, the City Council opened the public hearing and took public testimony and closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after review and consideration of the information contained in the City Council staff reports and testimony, has made a decision on this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council adopts the following additional findings: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings 1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Colmer Development Company project serves as the environmental document for the Zone Change No. 2001 -01. 2. In order to reduce the potential adverse impacts of this project, mitigation measures discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated and shall apply to Zone Change No. 2001 -01. 3. A Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program prepared in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180 and considered in the various decisions regarding these projects applies to Zone Change 2001 -01. ., "W.4--o Ordinance No. 281 Zone Change No. 2001 -01 Page 2 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Zone Change will be in conformance with the City's General Plan, subject to adoption of a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 2001 -01, and is in conformance with the City Municipal Code, including Title 17, Zoning. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that approval of this Zone Change request is in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice and that for those reasons it is appropriate to reclassify the property to RPD 9 dwelling units per acre, as the RPD designation would provide a suitable location for residential land uses that are compatible with property located in the vicinity of the property. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change No. 2001 -01 changing the zoning designation on the property from R -2 (Two Family Residential) to RPD 9 (Residential Planned Development 9 units per acre maximum), as further described in Exhibit A. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby directs staff to amend the City Zoning Map to reflect the approved zone change. SECTION 6. That 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 sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. 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 order 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 newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of Ordinance No. 281 Zone Change No. 2001 -01 Page 3 the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. PASSED AND ADOPTED this lst day of May, 2002. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk EXHIBIT A: Zoning Exhibit Map ZONING EXHIBIT MAP QCPUTNY rte orc CIO I CT ST CHAFARF.AL Ft1l r r± r •- ,W � ..v s VJS.AM A AVE A 1-yo VRA) f 1 Ft f 24&W ST�A1 RCAIP.T; A •< < FLAY ESTHU, 2 =A LOS ANGLES -- 3 (HWY. 1 t ;� '' _ AVE. R -2 to RPD 9 du /ac Ft: N. A "E. °� C1. ` S L � � CL �i _ / 1 W.SM4k7E M C(� FP<jTE.gFtE�lj?ElN ;* A NORTH EXHIBIT A ,R. 7 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Kim C. Chudoba, Senior Management Analyst KZ. SUBJECT: 2002 Legislative Program DATE: May 15, 2002 Attached are two versions of the 2002 Legislative Program: a clean copy as amended by Council and a legislative format that highlights the changes. If you have questions, please call me at 517 -6247. Attachments c: Steven Kueny, City Manager Hugh R. Riley, Assistant City Manager Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Assistant to the City Manager /City Clerk CITY OF MOORPARK LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 2002 The following Legislative Program was developed to allow the City to respond to state and federal legislation in a proactive manner. The Mayor (or Mayor Pro Tem in the Mayor's absence) is authorized to sign correspondence expressing the City's position on pending legislation consistent with the Legislative Program and /or other positions approved by the City Council. The Budget and Finance Committee will also periodically review legislation for recommendation to the City Council. Staff will monitor the League of California Cities' Priority Focus and other sources to identify pending legislation that may impact the City. Letters expressing the City's position will be drafted for the Mayor's signature, and copies will be distributed to each Councilmember. Pending legislation not addressed by the Legislative Program, or staff recommendations that deviate from the Legislative Program, will be agendized for Budget and Finance Committee review and City Council consideration. PLATFORM STATEMENTS 1. Local Government Finance A. Support legislation that limits cities' contributions to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and directs the repayment of past contributions. B. Oppose legislation that eliminates or restricts the taxing authority of cities over development; weakens existing Government Code Section 66000 fee authority; and redefines any development tax, condition, or other monetary charge as development fees. C. Support legislation requiring the state and federal governments to provide full cost reimbursement to cities for all mandated programs and for all programs resulting in revenue losses. D. Support legislation that safeguards existing City revenue sources from preemption or seizure by the state or county. E. Oppose any change in revenue allocations that would negatively affect the City of Moorpark, including but not limited to the redistribution of sales tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax, and vehicle in -lieu fee. Page 1 of 7 F. Oppose legislation that restricts or limits a city's ability to use tax - exempt debt for the purchase or construction of public purpose improvements. G. Support measures that provide greater fiscal independence to cities and result in greater stability and predictability in local government budgeting. H. Support efforts that provide greater accountability on the part of counties for the distribution of funds back to municipalities, including, but not limited to, fines and forfeitures. I. Oppose any measure that makes local agencies more dependent on the state for financial stability and policy direction. J. Support efforts to reduce the fiscal impact of Proposition 218 on cities. K. Support the establishment of a constitutionally - protected funding structure for local government. L. Support legislation that closes the loophole that allows companies currently doing business in California to create dot -com subsidiaries to avoid collection of sales taxes on Internet commerce. M. Support legislation that authorizes a statewide ballot measure to restore the requirement for a simple majority of voters in a city or county to approve an increase in taxes or issue general obligation bonds. 2. Labor Relations A. Oppose legislation that would restrict a city's ability to use its own employees on public works projects when such projects have previously been advertised for bid. B. Oppose legislation that requires the use of city employees rather than contracting out. C. Oppose any legislation that would grant employee benefits that should be decided at the local bargaining table. D. Oppose legislation that removes or reduces management rights, such as deciding staffing or service levels, either by direct action or increased liability. E. Support legislation that would reform the Workers' Compensation system to reduce employer cost through the reduction of system abuse. Page 2 of 7 F. Support legislation that limits the ability of employees to receive Workers' Compensation benefits for occupational injuries /illnesses that result from stress, disciplinary action, or performance evaluation consultations. G. Oppose legislation that expands or extends any presumptions of occupational injury or illness. H. Oppose any measure that imposes compulsory and binding interest arbitration. I. Oppose efforts that reduce local control over public employee disputes or impose regulations of an outside agency on such disputes. J. Oppose a mandatory Social Security tax for public employers and public employees. 3. Transportation A. Oppose legislation that redirects local transportation funds away from cities. B. Support legislation that would provide additional resources to cities to finance local transportation systems, facilities, and improvements. C. Support legislation that provides greater flexibility for the use of local transportation funds. D. Support legislation that will help reduce non -local commercial vehicle traffic on SR -118 through the City. E. Oppose legislation that limits and /or decreases the existing amount of retention proceeds withheld from any payment by a public entity to the contractor on a public project. 4. Environment A. Support legislation that streamlines the state's environmental review process and maintains public participation. B. Support legislation that would eliminate unfunded mandates such as the water course pollution prevention programs. C. Support legislation that reduces or eliminates local government's owner /operator Superfund liability. Page 3 of 7 D. Support legislation to either consolidate or streamline the federal and state Clean Air Acts without reducing air quality standards. E. Support air quality efforts that emphasize use of advanced technologies and market incentives, including use of alternative fuels and development of an infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles. F. Support legislation that reimburses cities for revenue losses stemming from environmental decisions made without city participation. G. Support legislation that provides money to local governments for energy conservation programs. 5. Waste Management A. Support legislation that provides cities with financial assistance for programs designed to provide for the safe disposal of solid, hazardous, and special waste. B. Support legislation that strengthens cities' ability to direct municipal solid waste flow to designated solid waste facilities. C. Support legislation that streamlines AB 939 tracking and reporting requirements. D. Support legislation that would make grants available to local agencies for programs that encourage the recycling /reclaiming of resources. E. Support legislation that promotes source reduction measures without creating an unfunded mandate. F. Oppose legislation that would restrict or limit local government's ability to franchise refuse and recycling collection services, to direct municipal solid waste flow (flow control) , or to contractually require haulers to guarantee achievement of AB 939 goals. G. Support legislation that promotes recycling and expands the market for recycled materials. H. Support new resource recovery and conversion technologies, such as bio- diesel from organic waste. I. Support legislation that implements the concept of extended manufacturer responsibility for electronic waste and other material types requiring incentives for recycling. Page 4 of 7 6. General Government A. Support legislation that ensures cities receive a proportionate share of property taxes upon withdrawal from a county library services district. B. Support legislation that provides financial assistance for local public libraries without the imposition of new taxes. C. Support legislation that reinstates effective local regulation of the cable television industry and other deregulated utilities, including financial reimbursement for use of pubic right -of -ways. D. Oppose legislation that restricts or weakens a city's ability to regulate smoking areas. E. Support legislation limiting a city's liability associated with hazardous recreational activities, such as skateboarding and in -line skating. F. Oppose legislation that increases local government's exposure to litigation. G. Support maximum local flexibility in contracting for services. H. Oppose efforts to cut funding for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs. I. Support legislation to give non - entitlement cities the same rights as entitlement cities in CDBG program administration. J. Support legislation that makes funds available to refurbish and improve parks. K. Support legislation that promotes low -cost or no -cost spay and neuter programs. L. Support legislation that holds animal owners accountable for injuries or property damage caused by animals under their care or control. 7. Public Safety A. Support legislation that would provide cities with a greater share of fines and forfeitures. B. Support legislation that would provide additional resources for commercial truck safety inspections and the enforcement of commercial truck vehicle codes. Page 5 of 7 C. Oppose legislation that weakens enforcement of, and penalties for, commercial truck violations. D. Support legislation that would provide cities with contract law enforcement a proportionate share of Proposition 172 sales tax revenues for public safety. E. Support legislation that increases local law enforcement resources without increasing taxes. F. Support legislation that would provide a greater share of seized assets to cities. G. Support legislation that allows use of state and federal public safety grants for maintenance efforts in addition to service increases. 8. Land Use Planning A. Support legislation that reforms annexation law by strengthening cities' authority over spheres of influence and ensures that fair property tax agreements can be obtained. B. Support legislation that provides for shared land use determinations between counties and cities when the General Plan of the city establishes a planning area consistent with Government Code provisions. C. Support legislation that enhances local control and diminishes litigation surrounding adult entertainment facilities. D. Support legislation that strengthens local control to prepare, adopt, and implement fiscal plans for orderly growth, development, beautification, and conservation of local planning areas, including, but not limited to, regulatory authority over zoning, subdivisions, annexations, and redevelopment areas. E. Support efforts that are consistent with the doctrine of "home rule" and the local exercise of police powers, through planning and zoning processes, over local land use. F. Oppose development agreements for undeveloped areas in the cities' spheres of influence that do not conform to city standards. 9. Housing A. Support legislation that addresses occupancy levels and strengthens cities' ability to reduce overcrowding in residential housing. Page 6 of 7 10. B. Support efforts to develop federal, state, and county participation, financial support, and incentives for programs that provide adequate, affordable housing for the elderly, handicapped, and low- income persons throughout the community. C. Oppose legislation that expands the state Department of Housing and Community Development's review role for local Housing Elements. D. Support Housing Element reform legislation that provides greater local control and flexibility, simplifies the process, and improves its effectiveness. E. Support legislation that eliminates the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation process and defines a more equitable process to determine a "fair share" of new housing needed to respond to growth trends in the region. Redevelopment /Economic Development A. Oppose legislation that further weakens a city redevelopment agency's authority to use eminent domain. B. Oppose legislation that would prohibit or limit the establishment of new redevelopment project areas and /or the expansion of existing project areas. C. Oppose legislation that reduces the amount of gross tax increment allocable to redevelopment agencies. D. Support legislation that reforms reporting requirements for redevelopment agencies by simplifying the process and eliminating reporting confusion. E. Oppose legislation that adds restrictions and procedural requirements regarding closed session discussions on land acquisition, use of eminent domain, and disposal of property. F. Oppose measures that would diminish the current authority or financing capabilities of redevelopment agencies. G. Support legislation that gives cities resources to finance economic development efforts, such as business attraction, retention, and growth, as well as marketing and tourism. H. Support legislation that simplifies and streamlines the process for foreign trade. Page 7 of 7 CITY OF MOORPARK LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 20012002 The following Legislative Program was developed to allow the City to respond to state and federal legislation in a proactive manner. The Mayor (or Mayor Pro Tem in the Mayor's absence) is authorized to sign correspondence expressing the City's position on pending legislation consistent with the Legislative Program and /or other positions approved by the City Council. The Budget and Finance Committee will also periodically review legislation for recommendation to the City Council. Staff will monitor the League of California Cities' Priority Focus and other sources to identify pending legislation that may impact the City. Letters expressing the City's position will be drafted for the Mayor's signature, and copies will be distributed to each Councilmember. Pending legislation not addressed by the Legislative Program, or staff recommendations that deviate from the Legislative Program, will be agendized for Budget and Finance Committee review and City Council consideration. PLATFORM STATEMENTS 1. Local Government Finance A. Support legislation that limits cities' contributions to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and directs the repayment of past contributions. B. Oppose legislation that eliminates or restricts the taxing authority of cities over development; weakens existing Government Code Section 66000 fee authority; and redefines any development tax, condition, or other monetary charge as development fees. C. Support legislation requiring the state and federal governments to provide full cost reimbursement to cities for all mandated programs and for all programs resulting in revenue losses. D. Support legislation that safeguards existing City revenue sources from preemption or seizure by the state or county. E. Oppose any change in revenue allocations that would negatively affect the City of Moorpark, including but not limited to the redistribution of sales tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax, and vehicle in -lieu fee. Page 1 of 7 F. Oppose legislation that restricts or limits a city's ability to use tax - exempt debt for the purchase or construction of public purpose improvements. G. Support measures that provide greater fiscal independence to cities and result in greater stability and predictability in local government budgeting. H. Support efforts that provide greater accountability on the part of counties for the distribution of funds back to municipalities, including, but not limited to, fines and forfeitures. I. Oppose any measure that makes local agencies more dependent on the state for financial stability and policy direction. J. Support efforts to reduce the fiscal impact of Proposition 218 on cities. K. Support the establishment of a constitutionally - protected funding structure for local government. L. Support legislation that closes the loophole that allows companies currently doing business in California to create dot -com subsidiaries to avoid collection of sales taxes on Internet commerce. M. Support legislation that authorizes a statewide ballot measure to restore the requirement for a simple majority of voters in a city or county to approve an increase in taxes or issue general obligation bonds. 2. Labor Relations A. Oppose legislation that would restrict a city's ability to use its own employees on public works projects when such projects have previously been advertised for bid. B. Oppose legislation that requires the use of city employees rather than contracting out. C. Oppose any legislation that would grant employee benefits that should be decided at the local bargaining table. D. Oppose legislation that removes or reduces management rights, such as deciding staffing or service levels, either by direct action or increased liability. E. Support legislation that would reform the Workers' Compensation system to reduce employer cost through the reduction of system abuse. Page 2 of 7 F. Support legislation that limits the ability of employees to receive Workers' Compensation benefits for occupational injuries /illnesses that result from stress, disciplinary action, or performance evaluation consultations. G. Oppose legislation that expands or extends any presumptions of occupational injury or illness. H. Oppose any measure that imposes compulsory and binding interest arbitration. I. Oppose efforts that reduce local control over public employee disputes or impose regulations of an outside agency on such disputes. J. Oppose a mandatory Social Security tax for public employers and public employees. 3. Transportation A. Oppose legislation that redirects local transportation funds away from cities. B. Support legislation that would provide additional resources to cities to finance local transportation systems, facilities, and improvements. C. Support legislation that provides greater flexibility for the use of local transportation funds. D. Support legislation that will help reduce non -local commercial vehicle traffic on SR -118 through the City. E. Oppose legislation that limits and /or decreases the existing amount of retention proceeds withheld from any payment by a public entity to the contractor on a public project. 4. Environment A. Support legislation that streamlines the state's environmental review process and maintains public participation. B. Support legislation that would eliminate unfunded mandates such as the water course pollution prevention programs. C. Support legislation that reduces or eliminates local government's owner /operator Superfund liability. Page 3 of 7 D. Support legislation to either consolidate or streamline the federal and state Clean Air Acts without reducing air quality standards. E. Support air quality efforts that emphasize use of advanced technologies and market incentives, including use of alternative fuels and development of an infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles. F. Support legislation that reimburses cities for revenue losses stemming from environmental decisions made without city participation. G. Support legislation that provides money to local governments for energy conservation programs. 5. Waste Management A. Support legislation that provides cities with financial assistance for programs designed to provide for the safe disposal of solid, hazardous, and special waste. B. Support legislation that strengthens cities' ability to direct municipal solid waste flow to designated solid waste facilities. C. Support legislation that streamlines AB 939 tracking and reporting requirements. D. Support legislation that would make grants available to local agencies for programs that encourage the recycling /reclaiming of resources. E. Support legislation that promotes source reduction measures without creating an unfunded mandate. F. Oppose legislation that would restrict or limit local government's ability to franchise refuse and recycling collection services, to direct municipal solid waste flow (flow control), or to contractually require haulers to guarantee achievement of AB 939 goals. G. Support legislation that promotes recycling and expands the market for recycled materials. H. Support new resource recovery and conversion technologies, such as bio- diesel from organic waste. I. Support legislation that implements the concept of extended manufacturer responsibility for electronic waste and other material types requiring incentives for recycling. Page 4 of 7 6. General Government A. Support legislation that ensures cities receive a proportionate share of property taxes upon withdrawal from a county library services district. B. Support legislation that provides financial assistance for local public libraries without the imposition of new taxes. C. Support legislation that reinstates effective local regulation of the cable television industry and other deregulated utilities, including financial reimbursement for use of pubic right -of -ways. D. Oppose legislation that restricts or weakens a city's ability to regulate smoking areas. E. Support legislation limiting a city's liability associated with hazardous recreational activities, such as skateboarding and in -line skating. F. Oppose legislation that increases local government's exposure to litigation. G. Support maximum local flexibility in contracting for services. H. Oppose efforts to cut funding for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs. I. Support legislation to give non - entitlement cities the same rights as entitlement cities in CDBG program administration. J. Support legislation that makes funds available to refurbish and improve parks. K. Support legislation that promotes low -cost or no -cost spay and neuter programs. L. Support legislation that holds animal owners accountable for injuries or property damage caused by animals under their care or control. 7. Public Safety A. Support legislation that would provide cities with a greater share of fines and forfeitures. B. Support legislation that would provide additional resources for commercial truck safety inspections and the enforcement of commercial truck vehicle codes. Page 5 of 7 8 C. Oppose legislation that weakens enforcement of, and penalties for, commercial truck violations. D. Support legislation that would provide cities with contract law enforcement a proportionate share of Proposition 172 sales tax revenues for public safety. E. Support legislation that increases local law enforcement resources without increasing taxes. F. Support legislation that would provide a greater share of seized assets to cities. G. Support legislation that allows use of state and federal public safety grants for maintenance efforts in addition to service increases. Land Use Planning A. Support legislation that reforms annexation law by strengthening cities' authority over spheres of influence and ensures that fair property tax agreements can be obtained. B. Support legislation that provides for shared land use determinations between counties and cities when the General Plan of the city establishes a planning area consistent with Government Code provisions. C. Support legislation that enhances local control and diminishes litigation surrounding adult entertainment facilities. D. Support legislation that strengthens local control to prepare, adopt, and implement fiscal plans for orderly growth, development, beautification, and conservation of local planning areas, including, but not limited to, regulatory authority over zoning, subdivisions, annexations, and redevelopment areas. E. Support efforts that are consistent with the doctrine of "home rule" and the local exercise of police powers, through planning and zoning processes, over local land use. F. Oppose development agreements for undeveloped areas in the cities' spheres of influence that do not conform to city standards. Housing A. Support legislation that addresses occupancy levels and strengthens cities' ability to reduce overcrowding in residential housing. Page 6 of 7 10. B. Support efforts to develop federal, state, and county participation, financial support, and incentives for programs that provide adequate, affordable housing for the elderly, handicapped, and low- income persons throughout the community. C. Oppose legislation that expands the state Department of Housing and Community Development's review role for local Housing Elements. D. Support Housing Element reform legislation that provides greater local control and flexibility, simplifies the process, and improves its effectiveness. E. Support legislation that eliminates the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation process and defines a more equitable process to determine a "fair share" of new housing needed to respond to growth trends in the region. Redevelopment /Economic Development A. Oppose legislation that further weakens a city redevelopment agency's authority to use eminent domain. B. Oppose legislation that would prohibit or limit the establishment of new redevelopment project areas and /or the expansion of existing project areas. C. Oppose legislation that reduces the amount of gross tax increment allocable to redevelopment agencies. D. Support legislation that reforms reporting requirements for redevelopment agencies by simplifying the process and eliminating reporting confusion. E. Oppose legislation that adds restrictions and procedural requirements regarding closed session discussions on land acquisition, use of eminent domain, and disposal of property. F. Oppose measures that would diminish the current authority or financing capabilities of redevelopment agencies. G. Support legislation that gives cities resources to finance economic development efforts, such as business attraction, retention, and growth, as well as marketing and tourism. H. Support legislation that simplifies and streamlines the process for foreign trade. Page 7 of 7 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: HUGH RILEY, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FINANCING ASSISTANCE FOR THEATER ON HIGH PROJECT DATE: MAY 155 2002 CC: STEVE KUENY, CITY MANAGER Attached for your information is a letter from the Lawrence Janss Company (LJC) requesting financial assistance for the Theater On High Project from the City in the form of a HUD, Section 108 Loan. The costs currently required to renovate the building at 45 High Street as an assembly building are substantially higher than originally expected. Due to the advanced state of physical deterioration suffered by the 75+ year old building. LJC had anticipated and committed to spending $750,000 to acquire and renovate the theater. The total cost including fees, architectural services, construction and equipment now total $1,200,000, creating a need for public financing assistance. Under the Section 108 Program cities may borrow against future Community Development Block Grant Entitlements. Since Moorpark is not an Entitlement City, Ventura County could apply for the program on the City's behalf. The City would repay the loan from future CDBG allocations. Moorpark receives approximately $ 190,000 annually in CDBG Funds from Ventura County. Of this amount approximately $150,000 is available for projects other than public service and administrative costs. The estimated annual commitment of CDBG funds from the City over the term of a 20 -year, Section 108 Loan would average $42,000. The LJC Project can produce revenues as described in the proposal that could be pledged to the repayment of the loan and reduce the use of CDBG Funds. LJC proposes a special surcharge on ticket sales of $.25. This revenue would be committed to repay the loan. The project will also generate increased tax increment revenue to the redevelopment agency that could be considered as an off -set to the loan repayment or applied directly. The loan fiends would be used to reimburse LJC for a bridge loan to purchase the retail building adjacent to the theater building for $400,000 and to fund predevelopment and /or furnishings, fixtures and equipment for the theater that would not trigger prevailing Honorable City Council May 15, 2002 Page 2 wages. The loan would be would be secured by a second deed of trust on both the theater building and the adjacent building that LJC is purchasing. The adjacent building (15 -17 E. High Street), that currently has the bicycle shop, will have additional tenants in the current vacant space as well as provide space for a professional, non - profit theater company that will take up residency in the theater. The expected first deed of trust, based on a private bank loan, would be $280,000. Larry Janss also proposes to provide a personal guarantee for the loan. The attached proposal includes the current Renovation Budget for the theater and a loan repayment schedule including other revenue assumptions. Staff will be meeting with Mr. Janss and will report to the City Council in June. Attachment: May 14, 2002 Letter from the Lawrence Janss Co. May 14, 2002 Mr. Hugh R. Riley Assistant City Manager City of Moorpark City Hall 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93201 RE: Assistance for The Theater on High Dear Hugh: We have been in discussions regarding the renovation of the High Street Theater, as well as the building located at 11 -17 High Street (the "Bike Shop "), for some time now. The merits of bringing this historic building back into production as an operating theater and performing arts venue are unquestioned, as will be the positive impact on High Street as a focus of new activity both by the City of Moorpark and hopefully by other private parties. The purpose of this inquiry is to solicit your assistance in solving a challenging situation I face in the renovation of the Theater on High. The Challenge Last August 2001, I, through my wholly owned corporation, the Lawrence Janss Co. (LJCo.) purchased the theater located at 45 High Street. The theater had been "dark" for over 2 years at that time, having been foreclosed upon through a bankruptcy proceeding. The condition of sale that afforded the low purchase price was that I accept it in its "as is" condition. "As is ", in this case, means that the building meets NO current fire safety or title 24, ADA codes. It is riddled with termites and the corrugated iron plumbing/sewer lines have dissolved away to mud. All of the equipment required to operate theater as a movie /concert/play venue, except the chairs, had been stripped out of the building during its dark time. The electrical service to the building is undersized for its intended use, as is the water main that services the building. Finally, the electrical and HVAC systems are antiquated, obsolete and in a dangerous state of disrepair, in need of complete replacement. Under no circumstance can the building be reopened to the public as an assembly type use without all of the above - mentioned maladies being remedied. The extent of the required renovation, and its attendant cost, renders the renovation and subsequent reopening of the building, as a theater, economically unfeasible. It is that sad fact that we have been focusing on in our exploring of public assistance programs as positive alternatives for this important project. 45 High Street, Moorpark. CA 93021 Mailing Address: 1408 East Thousand Oaks Blvd.. Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 -2841, 805.497.8606 Fax 805.497.1507 This letter outlines the public assistance programs which we discussed at our meeting on May 91h. We have outline two alternatives for consideration. 1. Section 108 Loan Ventura County, as an Urban County under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, may utilize the HUD Section 108 Loan program. In this case, the County would be applying on behalf of the City of Moorpark since the City is not an Entitlement City (over 50,000 population) and therefore may not apply directly. The amount of the Section 108 Loan would be $500,000 and would be secured by a second deed of trust on both the theater building and the adjacent building that I am purchasing. The adjacent building, that currently has the bicycle shop, will have new tenants in the current vacant space as well as provide space for the professional, non - profit theater company that will take up residency in the theater. The expected first deed of trust, based on a private bank loan, would only be $280,000. Attachment A provides the annual Section 108 debt service, based on a 20 -year repayment. After the first year with only partial interest payments, the annual repayment averages about $42,000. 2. Repayment Sources The Theater on High project will generate revenues to the City and its Redevelopment Agency from two sources. The first is a $.25 per ticket "historic surcharge" and the second is the tax increment from the new development. Attachment B details the revenues from those sources. The surcharge will generate $13,572 if the theater only achieves 15% occupancy, $18,096 with 20% occupancy, $22,620 with 25% occupancy and $27,244 with 30% occupancy. For projection purposes, we have shown the occupancy starting at 15% and growing over four years to 30 %. Thereafter, the growth is a conservative 2% annually. There will be tax increment revenues to the Redevelopment Agency as the theater will have a higher assessed value than it is currently on the tax rolls for based primarily on the $250,000 in furnishing, fixtures and equipment that is being added to the building. Based on discussions with the County Assessor, there will be only a minor adjustment in the assessed value based on the funds spent on renovations, because nothing is being done to enlarge the building. There will be added value from the purchase of the adjacent building at $400,000. It is currently on the Assessor's Rolls at $311,100, so there will be an increase in the assessed value by $88,900. We project the net new value at $363,900. Given approximately 51% of the 1% General Levy that goes to the Redevelopment Agency, after the housing set aside and pass through agreements, the project will generate an estimated $1,856 in tax increment. That amount is expected to grow at 2% based on the level allowed by Proposition 13. Mr. Hugh R. Riley May 14, 2002 Page 3 Attachment A, in addition to showing the Section 108 repayment schedule, identifies the potential funding sources. After the ticket surcharge and tax increment are applied there is a need for $15,122 from another source in the first year with lower interest costs. The second year, with full principal and interest payments, the amount needed is $22,381, but falls to $16,961 in the third year and $12,512 in the fourth year. The repayment of Section 108 Loans is an eligible CDBG expense. Of the approximately $160,000 in annual CDBG funds received by the City, the amount needed in the early years represents only about 12% of the CDBG allocation. That percentage falls each year as the ticket surcharge and tax increment revenues increase. By the last year of the Section 108 repayment, the amount of CDBG funds needed is only $2,206, or less than 1.5% of the City's annual allocation. 3. Eligible Activity I would propose that the $500,000 be used to reimburse me for a bridge loan to purchase the adjacent building for $400,000 and to fund predevelopment and/or furnishings, fixtures and equipment for the theater that would not trigger prevailing wages. The eligible activity is in the HUD Regulations at 570.703(i)(1) — economic development activities — job generation. The theater will generate three full time and another 6.5 FTE jobs. The new retail tenant will have two full time and one part time. Those total 12 FTE employees. Additionally, when the theater company is in operation there will be another five to 15 persons employed when a play is in production. I project employment as a function of plays activity (rehearsals, set building, actual productions, etc)will run for between 18 to 40 weeks out of the year. The test for the HUD Regulations is one job per $50,000 in HUD funds. With the certain 12 FTE that equates to $41,667 meeting the test, and would be even a lower cost per job as we factor in the theater company employees. 4. Environmental Clearance and Action Plan Amendment I understand that I may not be reimbursed for funds I advance until the project is included in the County's current year CDBG Action Plan and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is completed and a Release of Funds notice is received from the Los Angeles HUD Area Office. I have already asked my environmental consultant to begin coordination on the NEPA clearance with City staff. The amendment of the Action Plan would be one of the agenda items when we meet with Ventura County. 5. No Risk to City I have the resources from a private bank, equity and lines of credit to carry out the renovation of the theater and to purchase the adjacent building and make the necessary improvements to it. Therefore, the draw down of the Section 108 Loan funds can occur after the renovation is complete, eliminating any risk to the City that the project will not be completed as committed. Should I not complete the renovation, then the City would not be obligated to draw down the Mr. Hugh R. Riley May 14, 2002 Page 4 funds. The City should be clear that the economics of the project will not support the added debt, so there is a need for the $500,000 in Section 108 funds so that I can repay the lines of credit and equity advances. The City's risk after drawing down the funds is secured by the deed of trust on both the theater and the adjacent building where the combined values substantially exceed the mortgage by the lender and the Section 108 loan. 6. Alternative Funding As noted, the project meets the requirements of the CDBG program. As an alternative to the Section 108 Loan structure, I would again agree to complete the project from my own resources. The City could then repay the $500,000 from a commitment of $100,000 of CDBG funds each year for five years. The CDBG fund demand would actually be less than $100,000 annually if the ticket surcharge amounts were rebated back to me during that period. The net amount of the CDBG funds over the five years would be approximately $409,501. This approach eliminates the need to apply for the Section 108 Loan through Ventura County. We stand ready to discuss the information provided in this letter and the attachments. I am advised by Mark Briggs & Associates that this program is a sound structure and a workable program under either the Section 108 or CDBG program. At the appropriate time, we are also ready to be part of the group that discusses this approach with Ventura County. Attachments j anss /moorpark/riley2 MASTER RENOVATION BUDGET Theater on High ➢ Municipal Permits & Fees ➢ General Construction: including compliance with all codes, Fire, ADA, etc. ➢ HVAC Systems; Replace ➢ Projection Systems: 35mm projector, speakers, amps, com- puterized sound syncing systems ➢ Projection Screen ➢ Curtains, Masking ➢ Acoustic Finishes ➢ Cyc Curtain ➢ Audio & Lighting Controls ➢ Concession Stand, millwork, equipment, turnkey ➢ Ticketing /Box - Office systems /software ➢ Marquee ➢ Phone,cable,DSL lines ➢ Miscellaneous: poster cases, FFE Subtotal ➢ Contingency @ 5% ➢ Original investment plus architectural work to date $27,500.00 $515,000.00 $35,000.00 $43,000.00 $31,000.00 $12,800.00 $18,000.00 $4,200.00 $15,500.00 $48,000.00 $20,000.00 $44,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $834,000.00 $41,000 + $325,000.00 Total estimated project cost. $1,200,000.00 VENTURA COUNTYXITY OF MOORPARK SECTION 108 REPAYMENT - HIGH STREET THEATER moorpark2 May 13,2002 Fully Amortizing Over 20 Years Drawdown Assumptions November 1,2002 $ Fees Underwriter $ Legal & Accounting $ Trustee Fees $ Wire Transfer Fees $ Total Fees $ Total $ 500,000 Historic costs for fees 3,000 (55 to 60 basis points) 150 ($300 per $1 MM of notes) 6,000 ($250 to $300 per years in term of repayment) 50 ($50 per draw down event) 9,200 509,200 Repayment Assumptions Average Interest from August 2, 2001 Public Offering Principal amortization over 20 years 5.72% Interim Interest based on May 3, 2002 3 -Month LIBOR plus 20 basis points 2.12% Assumed Public Offering Date for Funding August 2,2003 Section 108 Repayment Repayment Sources Tax Theater Required Increment Fees CDBG $ 1,856 $ August $ 15,122 August February Fiscal Year $ 22,381 $ 1,931 $ 22,620 Principal $ 1,969 Interest 27,144 Interest $ 2,009 Total 27,687 Ending Fiscal Year $ Payment $ 11,391 Payment Payment Payments $ 10,727 Balance 2002 -03 Payment of Fees) 29,382 $ 9,200 $ 29,969 $ 10,105 $ 2,218 $ 30,569 2002 -03 $ - $ - $ 2,650 $ 11,850 $ 500,000 2003 -04 $ 14,000 $ 2,650 $ 13,900 $ 30,550 $ 486,000 2004 -05 $ 15,000 $ 13,900 $ 13,471 $ 42,370 $ 471,000 2005 -06 $ 15,000 $ 13,471 $ 13,042 $ 41,512 $ 456,000 2006 -07 $ 16,000 $ 13,042 $ 12,584 $ 41,626 $ 440,000 2007 -08 $ 17,000 $ 12,584 $ 12,098 $ 41,682 $ 423,000 2008 -09 $ 18,000 $ 12,098 $ 11,583 $ 41,681 $ 405,000 2009 -10 $ 19,000 $ 11,583 $ 11,040 $ 41,623 $ 386,000 2010 -11 $ 21,000 $ 11,040 $ 10,439 $ 42,479 $ 365,000 2011 -12 $ 22,000 $ 10,439 $ 9,810 $ 42,249 $ 343,000 2012 -13 $ 23,000 $ 9,810 $ 9,152 $ 41,962 $ 320,000 2013 -14 $ 24,000 $ 9,152 $ 8,466 $ 41,618 $ 296,000 2014 -15 $ 26,000 $ 8,466 $ 7,722 $ 42,188 $ 270,000 2015 -16 $ 27,000 $ 7,722 $ 6,950 $ 41,672 $ 243,000 2016 -17 $ 29,000 $ 6,950 $ 6,120 $ 42,070 $ 214,000 2017 -18 $ 31,000 $ 6,120 $ 5,234 $ 42,354 $ 183,000 2018 -19 $ 32,000 $ 5,234 $ 4,319 $ 41,552 $ 151,000 2019 -20 $ 34,000 $ 4,319 $ 3,346 $ 41,665 $ 117,000 2020 -21 $ 37,000 $ 3,346 $ 2,288 $ 42,634 $ 80,000 2021 -22 $ 39,000 $ 2,288 $ 1,173 $ 42,461 $ 41,000 2022 -23 $ 41,000 $ 1,173 $ - $ 42,173 $ - Repayment Sources Tax Theater Required Increment Fees CDBG $ 1,856 $ 13,572 $ 15,122 $ 1,893 $ 18,096 $ 22,381 $ 1,931 $ 22,620 $ 16,961 $ 1,969 $ 27,144 $ 12,512 $ 2,009 $ 27,687 $ 11,986 $ 2,049 $ 28,241 $ 11,391 $ 2,090 $ 28,805 $ 10,727 $ 2,132 $ 29,382 $ 10,965 $ 2,174 $ 29,969 $ 10,105 $ 2,218 $ 30,569 $ 9,175 $ 2,262 $ 31,180 $ 8,175 $ 2,308 $ 31,804 $ 8,077 $ 2,354 $ 32,440 $ 6,878 $ 2,401 $ 33,088 $ 6,581 $ 2,449 $ 33,750 $ 6,155 $ 2,498 $ 34,425 $ 4,629 $ 2,548 $ 35,114 $ 4,003 $ 2,599 $ 35,816 $ 4,220 $ 2,651 $ 36,532 $ 3,278 $ 2,704 $ 37,263 $ 2,206 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: HUGH RILEY, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER_ SUBJECT: MEETING BROADCAST- CAMERA COVERAGE DATE: MAY 15, 2002 CC: STEVE KUENY, CITY MANAGER As a result of the repairs to the roof /ceiling in the Apricot Room that damaged the conduits for the required robotics, we have been unable to reinstall the remote cameras formerly located at the rear of the meeting room. These cameras provided the wide -angle group and close -up views during the meetings. We expect to complete the installation of the new equipment by the meeting of June 5. If full range of camera angles is not available by then, staff will arrange for a third camera mounted on a tripod as used for the meetings in the Citrus Room.