HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1987 0916 CC REG ITEM 11A ITEM //. .
MOORPARK
CLINT HARPER,Ph.D. STEVEN KUENY
Mayor City Manager
ELOISE BROWN P�" '`, CHERYL J.KANE
Mayor Pro Ter F°�/`�t City Attorney
THOMAS C. FERGUSON � PATRICK RICHARDS,A.I.C.P.
Councilmember ,• Director of
JOHN GALLOWAY � � Community Development
Councilmember o��� R. DENNIS DEL2EIT
JOHN PATRICK LANE �'�Fo ��" City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V.GILLESPIE
MAUREEN W.WALL Chief of Police
City Clerk THOMAS P.GENOVESE
MEMOR A NDUM City Treasurer
TO _ The Honorable City Council
FROM : Steve Kueny, City Manager
DATE : September 11 , 1987
SUBJECT _ Request by U. S. Condominium Concerning the Transfer
of a Park Site and Payment of Park Fees
Mr. Phil Vein from U.S. Condominium requested to be placed on the
agenda concerning two (2) matters concerning Tentative Tract Map
No. 3049 :
1 . Quimby Fees
2 . Transfer of 5 .4 acres of park site to U.S. Condo
In regards to the Quimby Fees the City conditioned the project
to pay fees in lieu of land dedication. The equivalent of 1 . 5
acres is required. At present there is a disagreement between
U.S. Condo and City staff concerning the average fair market value
of useable park land (terrain of less than 4Z slope) . We don' t
agree with his appraisal as submitted. Pursuant to the City' s
Quimby ordinance provisions the City may obtain at U.S. Condo' s
expense another appraisal. They don' t want to wait several weeks
for this appraisal. The current ordinance says the City' s decision
is final, however, they may be able to protest the fee when paid
at the time the final map is filed. The two options available
are to proceed with securing a second appraisal in hopes of reaching
an agreement or including the amount of Quimby Fees in any agreement
reached on the proposed transfer of the City' s park land to U.S.
Condominium.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
I r
Mr. Vein has indicated his belief that a misunderstanding exists
concerning the proposed transfer of the 5 . 4 acre park site. The
facts of the matter appear to be as follows :
1 . The County of Ventura received the subject 5 . 4 acre
park site as a developer dedication. It is not adjacent
to a dedicated street and is in a 20% slope area.
2 . In 1979 as part of former Tract Map No. 3049 (since
lapsed) the County agreed to transfer this site to
U. S. Condo in exchange for a property of equal value
which was about 9 acres in size.
3 . Upon incorporation the County failed to transfer the
5 . 4 acre site and has now approved transfer to the
City. We are awaiting paper work.
4 . During the rezoning of this property in 1985 there
was mention of the County transfer arrangement by Mr.
Vein but it was not relevant to the rezoning action.
5 . A new Tract 3049 was filed and processed in 1986 during
Mr . Vein' s absence from U. S. Condo. It appears his
successors assumed the transfer was a part of the pro-
cessing. City staff and the contract planner do not
recall any discussion of the land transfer and there
is no mention of it in the staff reports . In addition
no condition of the Tract approval addresses the transfer.
At that time the City did not want a park in that area
and opted for the in lieu (Quimby) fee. The City Engineer
indicated that a preliminary title report was not re-
viewed by them during this time and they were not aware
of any non U. S. Condo owned property included in the
tract boundaries . Mr. Vein has indicated that he has
relied on the City approved Tract Map and is proceeding
with recordation. Further, he feels the City has an
obligation to transfer the property to U. S. Condo.
The City Engineer has indicated that this Map would
not be ready for recordation prior to November 1987 .
The City Attorney has indicated that the City has no
obligation to transfer the park site to U. S. Condo
and further that the deed or other method of conveyance
of the 5 . 4 acre site must be reviewed and applicable
laws relative to transfer or sale of the site complied
with.
It does appear to be a misunderstanding since U. S . Condo didn' t
purposely subdivide land they didn' t own without thinking it would
be transferred to them. The site is relatively steep and isolated
and is not presently planned for development by the City. I
recommend that the City Council sell the land to U.S. Condo with
the proceeds to be used for other park development . I would also
recommend that the negotiations include a resolution of the current
disagreement concerning Quimby fees . I suggest that a committee
of the City Council work with City staff to negotiate a proposal
agreement on these matters .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Appoint a committee of the City Council to discuss resolution of
the rwo issues with ominium with a report back at the
October 7 , --- council meeting