HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1989 0524 RDA SPCW
The Special Meeting of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Moorpark, California was held on May 24, 1989 in the Council Chambers
of City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,
California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The Meeting was called to order at the hour of 7:30 P.M. by
Chairman Brown.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was not recited.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Agency Members Clint Harper, Paul Lawrason, Scott
Montgomery, Bernardo Perez and Chairman Eloise Brown.
Steven Kueny, Executive Director; Richard Hare, Agency
Secretary; Susan, Cauldwell , Administrative Assistant;
Cheryl Kane, Agency Attorney; Carolyn Dyer, Records
Clerk.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were none.
\ 5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Consider approval of minutes for the Redevelopment Agency
Meeting of May 3, 1989. Agency Member Lawrason moved and
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California 4 May 24, 1989
Agency Member Harper seconded a motion to approve the minutes
as presented. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
6.A. Joint Study Session - Agency/City Council .
Executive Director Steven Kueny stated the intent of the
meeting was to allow the City Council to review redevelopment
matters with the consultant and legal counsel as they prepare
for the joint public hearing on the plan, environmental
impact report and any related matters. As a result of the
excellent turn out at May 22, 1989 workshop, other matters
should be discussed including eminent domain since it was the
main topic discussed at the workshop. Council should review
their action of May 17, 1989. It is intended that the Agency
would take whatever action the Council takes on that matter
to insure consistency. There is still the subject of
addressing the non-conforming use area, for example
residential structure on High Street. It is also intended
that the Council review the content of the letter that was
directed to be mailed out as soon as possible and is to be
translated into Spanish. Three Councilmembers were in
attendance at the Workshop on May 22, 1989 and staff
encourages a critique from the Council so that the next
workshop will be more informative and to the point for the
residents. General observation at the Workshop was that the
audience was restless and wanted to get to the point. They
wanted their questions answered and did not necessarily want
to see the slide presentation or to hear the history and
facts of redevelopment. Question is should the slide
presentation be shown at the next workshop, whether the
citizen' s guide should be translated into Spanish, and the
use of small groups for question and answer time.
Agency Member Lawrason asked for clarification on giving
consideration in terms of nonconforming residential uses, in
commercial and industrial areas. Executive Director Kueny
stated that the Council wanted any referenced eminent domain
residential area removed from the plan and other documents
and to come back to the Council with an exhibit showing those
non-conforming uses that would be subject to eminent domain
and their precise location. There are fewer than 20
(approximately 12-15) locations on High Street and Moorpark
Avenue that have owner occupied residential dwellings in a
commercial zoning district.
Agency Member Lawrason suggested that at the time of the
adoption and compliance that those properties also are
exempted. Executive Director Kueny clarified the difference
between owner occupied at the time of plan adoption as
opposed to the time that it became non-conforming generally
back in 1980. If they are owner occupied on the date the
plan is adopted, they would be exempt. Agency Member
Lawrason has had discussions with two property owners that
would fall into this category and have genuine concerns.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California 5 May 24, 1989
Chairman Brown asked if these properties had been purchased
since the zoning had been changed. Agency Member Lawrason
stated he did not know when the properties had been purchased
but were owner occupied residents that are non-conforming to
the zone.
Agency Member Harper stated he was not able to attend the May
22, 1989 workshop. The main concern from the press reports
was concern on eminent domain in residential areas and the
members of the public were not very reassured by the staff
and consultants that the Council intends to remove that
section from the plan and that future Council after required
public notice and public meetings could reinsert this back
into the plan and change what this Council has established.
To finalize this issue, a ballot measure initiated by the
City Council should be placed on the next available ballot
which would eliminate the use of eminent domain in
residential areas. If that is adopted by the voters, it then
requires either another ballot measure to be placed or use of
the initiative process to overturn that decision which would
be virtually impossible. Putting this in form of a ballot
measure to be voted by the voters should once and for all put
the issue to rest that this Council has no intention upon
using eminent domain for redevelopment purposes in
residential zoned areas. Agency Member Harper than asked the
Agency Attorney to comment on the legality of the issue.
Agency Member Lawrason asked the vote of the citizens would
be within the Redevelopment area only. Agency Member Harper
stated that that would be something the Agency Attorney would
need to address. Agency Member Perez asked whether they
would be proceeding with the processes now or later. Agency
Member Harper would like to see the Council move ahead with
adoption of the plan and allow the voters to vote after plan
adoption. Agency Attorney Cheryl Kane stated that if she was
understanding the proposal , the redevelopment plan would be
adopted with the power of eminent domain attached. There
would be no power of eminent domain relative to residential
part of the plan and you would be adding that back in as a
result of an election if the voters approved it? Agency
Member Harper stated that the plan would be adopted with the
power removed relative to residential areas and subsequent to
that put on the ballot. Agency Attorney Cheryl Kane answered
with a qualified yes and would like the opportunity to
further review it before the June 7th meeting. Agency Member
Montgomery stated to direct the Agency Attorney to review
this and to get a little clearer explanation on what is meant
by residential since everyone has a different idea on what it
means. There were two or three issues raised during the
public comments portion of the meeting which he would the
consultant to address again.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California 6 May 24, 1989
Agency Brown stated that the Council can adopt the
redevelopment plan eliminating eminent domain in residential
zoned areas and have a ratifying vote for the next ballot.
The question has been raised on who shall be voting on that
change. Would it be the entire electorate or simply those in
the redevelopment area. Cheryl Kane, Agency Attorney, stated
that the vote is a vote of the Council to either approve or
not the redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan itself is
adopted by an ordinance and that being a City ordinance and
she stated she would have to assume at this point that it
would have to be a city wide vote since it is adopted as an
ordinance.
Agency Member Harper stated his preference is to have the
vote only within the area boundaries. If this cannot be done
then he feels quite confident that there would be city wide
support.
Agency Member Montgomery asked staff what percentage of the
population lives within the redevelopment area. Consultant
Jon Huffman stated that the mailing consisted of 1,300 in the
redevelopment area. Executive Director Steve Kueny estimated
25% or less of the City' s residents live in the redevelopment
area. Chairman Brown and Agency Member Lawrason would like
to see the vote in the redevelopment area only. Agency
Member Montgomery stated that in regards to the use of
eminent domain, it seems pretty clear that the Council is
(.: very unanimous that no eminent domain shall be used in
residentially zoned property. The question still arises with
regard to the non-conforming uses. His personal feeling is
that those that are owner occupied and continue to be owner
occupied should be exempted. Agency Member Perez asked the
question regarding what if some of these residences are not
strictly residential , such as a business coming out of these
residences. Chairman Brown stated that if the residence is
primarily a persons home that is sufficient. Agency Member
Montgomery asked Agency Member Perez if he was asking about
home occupation permit or if he was talking about a
commercial business that is also used for a residence.
Agency Member Perez commented for Agency Members Harper and
Montgomery that Chairman Brown, Agency Members Perez and
Lawrason attended the May 22, 1989 workshop and as the
Executive Director pointed out that when it gets down to the
small groups of people talking to either the City Manager,
consultants, Councilmembers or members of the PAC committee
that it went a long way in dispelling rumors and
misinformation that has been given out regarding
redevelopment and specifically eminent domain. Future
workshops should have a consistent message that the
redevelopment plan is not going to bulldoze down any houses.
Agency Member Harper stated that the problem with eminent
domain will keep resurfacing. He stated that if the avenue
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California 7 May 24, 1989
of ballot measure is available for eminent domain then it
should be used. Agency Member Perez stated that the Council
has been trying to do their homework and get the information
out.
Agency Member Lawrason felt that the May 22, 1989 workshop
was very powerful and that those that were here got the
message, painful but extremely valuable process of what
public interchanges can do. He feels that there is a turning
point and that the educational process even though it was
stimulated by something negative has begun and hopefully it
will be a little more positive. Residents got very valuable
information from that workshop. The Council is very
concerned and responsive to the residents and hopefully this
will continue.
Agency Attorney Cheryl Kane stated that a vote on use of
eminent domain as contained in the Redevelopment Plan will
require a city wide vote. There is no limitation relative to
the referendum clause to limit the vote only to the residents
of the redevelopment area. Any referendum or initiative on
the redevelopment plan would also be subject to the city wide
vote. She will look at the issue further but tentatively
that would be her decision. She will have a definite answer
on June 7.
MOTION: Agency Member Harper moved and Agency Member Lawrason
M ;. seconded a motion that the Council direct the Agency Attorney to
come back with a report at the June 7, 1989 meeting regarding the
mechanism and form to be used to place on the ballot a measure
allowing the voters to vote on the restrictions of having eminent
domain in residential zoned areas. Motion carried unanimously be
voice vote.
Agency Member Montgomery wanted to make sure that we have
done a similar action as the Redevelopment Agency that we did
with the City Council . So far he has not heard that.
MOTION: Agency Member Montgomery moved and Agency Member Perez
seconded a motion that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the same
restrictions that the City Council adopted regarding eminent
domain. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Agency Member Montgomery stated there' s a need to direct
staff to send out a notice to the same individuals and to
identify specifically those cases where there will not be the
use of eminent domain.
MOTION: Agency Member Montgomery moved and Agency Member Lawrason
seconded a motion to direct staff to send out letters as quickly
as possible in Spanish to the same individuals who received the
original letter and to identify specifically those cases where
there will not be use of eminent domain. Motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
Minutes of the City Council May 24, 1989
Moorpark, California 8
Agency Member Montgomery stated that the letter seemed to be
a little wordy and he would like it to be a little clearer.
He did like the part which stated that the City Council has
taken action to redraft the plan and all other related
documents. The part he found not clear is the specific
terminology to not use condemnation in any residential area.
He would like to see this letter go out before the next study
session so that people will know at the next session.
Executive Director Steven Kueny stated that that is the
goal . The letter needs to be translated and hopefully have a
mailing go out on Friday if Council approves. Agency Member
Montgomery stated that the time lapse between the first and
second letter is very crucial . A third letter when it is
finally decided that there will be a ballot measure.
Executive Director Steven Kueny stated that the issue of
non-conforming use still needs to be addressed and action
could possibly be included in the letter.
MOTION: Agency Member Lawrason moved and Agency Member Montgomery
seconded a motion to have a non-conforming residential use (house
in other than residential zoned areas) exempt from eminent domain
if the home is primarily an owner occupied residence at the time
the plan was adopted and add this into the letter. Motion carried
unanimously by voice vote.
Agency Member Montgomery volunteered to get with staff to help
r ,�1 clear up the language for the letter. Executive Director Steven
Kueny stated this would need to be done at this meeting. Chairman
Brown stated that three sentences should be sufficient. Executive
Director Steven Kueny stated that a map should clear up any
questions.
Chairman Brown stated that there were complaints with the slide
show since it was done in English and was to long a presentation.
She then asked the consultants to respond to any questions from
the floor. Marshall Linn, Urban Futures Consultant then addressed
the taxation issue relevant to school district. They do not lose
any money at all . School district like to see these redevelopment
plans adopted. The first source of funds comes for lack of gain,
and secondly monies put into a trust fund and are used for capital
expenditures over and above the money that the district would have
gotten. Another question was what happens to value of
properties. There is no loss in valuation of properties and some
properties have gone up in the project areas because of the
improvements to sidewalks and gutters. Agency Member Harper asked
time of sale of the property would the disclosure of the
redevelopment project apply. Consultant Marshall Linn responded
that he thought that was a legal question. Agency Attorney,
Cheryl Kane said that not that she was aware of but that she was
not familiar with the matter. This will be checked on.
Consultant Marshall Linn stated that there are no instances were
the county has asked for increases in taxes during redevelopment.
Secondly, other taxing jurisdictions do not loose any tax
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California 9 May 24, 1989
dollars. Upon adoption of the plan, the other agencies do not
share in the amount of new tax dollars generated but they do not
loose any existing tax dollars.
A resident (unnamed) of the, Virginia Colony area, asked about
residential areas that received the mailing. He felt that eminent
domain would then take his property since he is on the 118
Highway. Agency Member Harper stated that the right of eminent
domain could be used to widen the road since it is a state
highway. This has nothing to do with the Redevelopment project.
An (unnamed) citizen of Moorpark asked about the taxes of the
redevelopment project. Steven Kueny, Executive Director stated
that until the home is sold the taxes would not increase. When
the home is sold then there would be increased taxes due to the
turn over in property. The difference between the price house is
sold at and the value on the tax roll is the basis for the taxes
to be received by the Redevelopment Agency. The real potential
increase in value will come with the development of vacant
property. Chairman Brown stated that every time a house is sold in
this area, taxes do increase and is an additional tax on each
house.
Doris Schumain, Simi Valley, stated that she has property in R-1
area which is non-conforming. Agency Member Montgomery stated
that all residentially zoned property is exempt from eminent
domain without exception. Executive Director Steven Kueny stated
that the residential zoned property is exempt.
Chairman Brown stated that the Council does not like to have
redevelopment but this is the best available means for getting the
area fixed. Instead of having the tax dollars going somewhere
• else, they can be spent on addressing areas of need in the City.
Linda Plaks, 661 Walnut, stated for the record the Redevelopment
Plan has been going on for a long time. There is a problem in the
area and she understands the process and how it works. It has
been looked at in many ways and the Plan did not just happen. It
has been thoroughly thought out. Agency Member Lawrason stated
this process has been going on for a long time. The Project Area
Committee has met and at the time the public did not show up for
the meetings. It took a mailing of a notice that seemed to be
threatening to get the public in the area interested. Hopefully
as the Plan goes on there will be communication to understand the
process. Barbara Schultz stated she worked for the press and
everything she read she was under the impression the project area
was on Moorpark Avenue and High Street and was not aware at all
that it also included her area until she received the mailing.
Agency Member Lawrason responded to her question by stating that
the Plan had been a matter of public record for a long time.
At the hour of 9:25 P.M. , Mayor Brown called a 10 minute recess. The
meeting reconvened at the hour of 9:31 P.M.
1
_.�
III Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California 10 May 24, 1989
Executive Director, Steven Kueny, commented that staff will
proceed with distribution of handouts and there will be dialogue
with the public at the next work shop. Agency Member Lawrason
asked if there would be any small groups at the next work shop.
Steven Kueny stated that they will have a brief introduction and
highlight the points and then open for discussion and offer to go
into small groups if desired by those attending the workshop.
Agency Member Perez suggested the Project Area Committee members
come to the meeting.
AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNED. The
time being 9:41 P.M.
12. ORDINANCES:
None were presented.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
It was requested that Item 10.B. - Appointments to Moorpark
Disaster Council and Item 11. I. - Consider appointing City
representative to 1990 Census Steering Committee be brought back
to the June 7, 1989 meeting.
14. CLOSED SESSION:
Mayor Brown asked which items would be discussed in Closed
Session. Steven Kueny recommended all items listed on the agenda:
A. Personnel .
B. Litigation concerning Boething vs. the City of Moorpark.
C. Litigation concerning the City of Moorpark vs. Boething.
D. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(b)(1).
E. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
F. Negotiation for real property at 280 Casey Road (former high
school site - Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8.
G. Negotiation for real property known as Buttercreek Park with
Boething pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8.
H. Negotiation for real property on a portion of Community Focus
area of PC-3 (Urban West Communities) pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8. •
I. Negotiation for real property known as Arroyo Vista Community
Park with Fedele/Braun pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8.
J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern
California Edison.
K. Personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Lawrason
seconded the motion to go into Closed Session and discuss the
above Closed Session items. Motion carried unanimously with a
aQ
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California 11 May 24, 1989
voice vote. Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session and Mayor
Brown stated it was not anticipated to announce any actions out of
Closed Session. The time was 9:46 P.M.
15. ADJOURNMENT:
The City Council reconvened into open session at 9:57 P.M. The
City Attorney stated only agenda items 14.A. Personnel; 14.8.
Litigation concerning Boething vs. the City of Moorpark; 14.C.
Litigation concerning the City of Moorpark vs. Boething; 14.E.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c); 14.J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs.
Southern California Edison were discussed and there was no action
to report.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Perez
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The voice vote was
unanimous. The time of adjournment was 9: 58 P.M.
Eloise Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
+1
o
`•:..:,- /�/rte L
/ 4Priit-a— dati&A07.-4
Richard Hare, Cit T ,���V�
,rawf
SAT J