Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1990 0723 CC SPCMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California July 23, 1990 A Special meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California was held on July 23, 1990 in the Council Chambers of City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Perez called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. Present were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. 2. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for a discussion of all items: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). D. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School District. E. Litigation concerning Moorpark Unified School District vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. H. Negotiations for Real Property on the North Side of Tierra Rejada Road East of Spring Road (Pacifica Corp.) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8. I. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. J. Litigation concerning Colonial Mortgage vs. City of Moorpark. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 July 23, 1990 K. Negotiations for Real Property for portion of Moorpark College (Ventura County Community College District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers, Steven Kueny, City Manager; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Lawrason seconded a motion to adjourn from Closed Session. Mr. Kueny reported that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only item 2.B. as listed above had been discussed. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a 10 minute recess was declared. The Council reconvened into Open session at 7:19 p.m. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Brown led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Brown, Harper, Lawrason, Montgomery, and Mayor Perez. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Pat Richards, Community Development Director; John Knipe, City Engineer; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; and Lillian Kellerman, City Clerk. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jerry Robings, 5156 McGrath St., Ventura, of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn., addressed the Council regarding his Association's opposition to the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance (CPO) . He stated that the CPO would result in inefficient government and $250,000 in court costs when the CPO was challenged. Councilmember Lawrason stated his agreement with the cost and legal challenge that would ensue. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 July 23, 1990 Councilmember Harper said citizens should have the right to be directly involved in the general plan amendment process and should be able to have direct input in how their City will look in the future. John Newton, 165 High Street, Ste. 204, read a letter to the Council on his views opposing the CPO. Councilmember Harper stated that Mr. Newton would have an opportunity to write an argument against the CPO. Judy Reynolds, 1830 Lockwood Avenue, #110, Oxnard, of Development Planning Services, representing the Levy Company asked that a letter from DPS be entered into the record. Jack Dwyer, 641 Kendale Lane, Thousand Oaks, representing the Ventura County Economic Development Association, addressed the Council regarding his opposition to the CPO. He said it is the Council's job to make planning decisions for the benefit of Moorpark and placing an artificial cap on development will stifle business and result in higher housing prices. Councilmember Harper responded that the Council was only asking for the opportunity for the citizens to vote on whether they wanted to be directly involved in significant development in the City. Councilmember Lawrason said he agreed with Mr. Dwyer about the potential fiscal impact on the City if the CPO was adopted. Councilmember Harper responded that historically development doesn't pay its own way in the City. Gary Austin, 17512 Von Karman Ave., Irvine, of Messenger Investment Company, said that there is tremendous confusion over the CPO and that his company was concerned about the legal issues and fiscal consequences of the document. He said they would like to make available to the City some of the information provided by their consultant relative to those issues and consequences. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that in the application of the CPO over time, some landowners will be subject to it and some will not; that some landowners may be treated differently is not a violation of the law. She explained why the Carlsberg project was a reasonable exception because of its specific plan designation under the current general plan. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 July 23, 1990 Phil Vein, 6910 Queen's Court, of Phil Vein & Assoc. Consultants, said that the CPO document was not very clear especially with regard to the numbers quoted and read from page 6, (17.60.050 - C) of the CPO. He said that legal challenges would follow its adoption. Councilmember Harper said he would like to see the section read by Mr. Vein stricken. Bob Holmes, 751 Daily Dr., Camarillo, of the Building Industry Association, said the City Council should not give away the power to decide land use issues. He said that if that happened you will not see planning that had the benefit of professional staff input. 6. DISCUSSION /ACTION: Consider Revised Draft Ordinance Relative to a Comprehensive Praaram for General Plan Amendments Councilmember Harper said that the electorate should be directly involved in the General Plan process. He said that they should have the opportunity to vote to see if that is what they want. He said he believed the electorate could make a reasonable decision. Councilmember Brown acknowledged that the City had an active electorate but said they might not have the time to become fully informed on complex planning issues. She said the City had a growth measure in place that seemed to be working and that the CPO should be addressed at a later date before Measure F expires. Councilmember Lawrason said that he totally agreed with Councilmember Brown. He said he was bothered that the CPO would take away from the Council's land use responsibilities. He said that he didn't want to draw the litigation that he believed was inevitable with the document. He said he had a problem taking Carlsberg out of the process. Mayor Perez said that Measure F works only in the context of our present General Plan. He said he felt it appropriate for the citizens to make a decision on the growth of the community. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 July 23, 1990 Councilmember Harper said that the City could not run from the spectre of litigation. He said the CPO is a compromise ordinance. He said that to move the CPO along he would be willing to exempt all the general plan amendments now in process from the CPO. Councilmember Brown said that the General Plan is defensible without this ordinance. She said the ordinance leaves too much unsaid and is too confusing. Councilmember Montgomery said that he had worked intensively on the draft ordinance. He said that he had become concerned that the ordinance would involve the City in litigation with only a 50/50 chance of winning. He said defense of the ordinance could cost $250,1000. He suggested another course of action would be to appoint a subcommittee to sit down with members of the building industry with the intention of drafting a compromise ordinance using the current draft as a starting place. He said he had received commitments from some of the companies that might sue the City, to sit down and work on the ordinance with the Council; the Council to have the final review of the document. He said it was the only fiscally responsible thing for the Council to do. Mayor Perez said the Building Industry Association couldn't waive the rights of their whole industry to litigate. Bob Holmes, of the Building Industry Association (BIA) said we have an interest in sitting down and discussing the ordinance. He said he felt it right to have those impacted by the ordinance, discuss it with the City and have their input considered. Councilmember Brown said the City had a history of successful negotiation with the BIA and that a special election could be held when the ordinance is ready to be voted upon. Councilmember Lawrason said that the idea had some merit and that he would volunteer to be on the committee. Councilmember Harper said that the draft ordinance is being attacked because it will become a model that will be adopted statewide, and is perceived as a threat to the building industry. Measure F is not effective because it exempted the largest builder in the City. He said he would not serve on the committee. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 July 23, 1990 MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Lawrason seconded a motion to refer the matter to a committee consisting of Councilmember Montgomery and Mayor Perez. Mayor Perez requested a recess before taking the vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting Mayor Perez declared a 10 minute recess. The Council reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Mayor Perez stated that he would like to wait until the August 1, 1990 meeting to decide on the issue. Councilmember Harper indicated that he felt the Council should vote tonight as the deadline for submitting ballot measures to the County for consolidation with the November election is Wednesday, July 25. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Lawrason seconded a motion to Table the motion to the August 1, 1990 meeting. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -1, Councilmember Harper dissenting. 7. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for a discussion of all items: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). D. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School District. E. Litigation concerning Moorpark Unified School District vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 July 23, 1990 H. Negotiations for Real Property on the North Side of Tierra Rejada Road East of Spring Road (Pacifica Corp.) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8. I. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. J. Litigation concerning Colonial Mortgage vs. City of Moorpark. K. Negotiations for Real Property for portion of Moorpark College (Ventura County Community College District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and that only items 7.B., 7.D.11 7.E., had been discussed. 8. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Harper seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 9:46 p.m. rV\ Bernardo M. Perez, Mayor ATTEST: