Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1992 0513 CC SPCMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California May 13, 1992 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on May 13, 1992 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lawrason called the meeting to order at 5:53 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak and Mayor Lawrason Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney 2. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for a discussion of all items listed on the agenda: A. Personnel. B. Personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). D. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). E. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District Case No. 107569 vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. H. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. I. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 6:08 p.m. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 May 13, 1992 Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only Closed Session Items 2.E and 2.F. were discussed. AT THIS POINT IN the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 6:08 p.m. Mayor Lawrason called the meeting back to order at 6:25 p.m. President Baldwin called the Moorpark Unified School District Board of Education to order. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by School Board President, Tom Baldwin. 4. ROLL CALL: City Council Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Staff: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk; Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk. School Board Present: Board Members Barker, Castro, Harper, Nainoa, and President Baldwin. Staff: 5. DISCUSSION: Robert Mason, Attorney; Tom Duffy, Superintendent; Areli Hernandez, Secretary. Mayor Lawrason gave opening remarks stating the City is pleased that there is a separation now between the Casey Road property issue and the redevelopment issue. President Baldwin stated that they came prepared with a proposal. (He passed the proposal out to City Councilmembers and City staff.) He indicated that some language has been included which will protect both agencies. The District's proposal stated that the Moorpark Unified School District will accept the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency's proposal as presented in the letter from Mayor Paul Lawrason dated April 7, 1992, with modifications and /or clarifications as discussed below. 1. The percent of pass through shall be 14.25 %. 2. The District will receive 100% of the taxes normally accrued and payable to the District from the new taxes generated as the result of the development of the Casey Road Site. 3. The Agency will finance the construction of a new maintenance facility for the District in the amount of $750,000. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 May 13, 1992 4. The Agency agrees to the inclusion of language as proposed in the Board of Education's proposal as recognition of the potential need for renegotiation of the redevelopment settlement should future legislation or case law have a negative effect upon the District General Fund or pass through funding. Mr. Baldwin explained that this language would protect the Redevelopment Agency against whatever future legislative enactments take place, and will not increase what the City owes the District. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Baldwin said the Board of Education came to closure last evening regarding this proposal and that is why they were unable to provide the information sooner to the City Council. Councilmember Montgomery stated that there is a discrepancy on the "split" between the last two offers. He said that to effect a split between the School District's latest proposal and the City's latest proposal would result in $35,962,209. Mr. Duffy explained that it was his understanding from the previous meeting that 14.25% was what was desired by the City. He said in the sixteenth year it would be 14.25% and in their previous proposal it would have topped out at 18.5 %. He clarified that under the new scenario, the District would be getting approximately $3 million less. Councilmember Montgomery asked if the School District would have a problem with the dollars being split exactly in half between the last two proposals. Mr. Baldwin said it is something they could certainly consider. Councilmember Montgomery said the City had modified the offer made on April 7 to simplify the percentage gain so the District receives more money earlier with higher percentages being realized sooner. Clint Harper asked if these new figures could be presented to them in a spreadsheet and distributed for discussion. Councilmember Montgomery spoke to Item No. 2, which was the request of the District for assistance with a new maintenance facility. He asked if this had been mentioned before as he did not recall any discussion on the matter. He also asked if this is being presented as an addition to the 50/50 split or as part of that split. Mr. Baldwin indicated that it is in addition to the 50/50 split and the District had introduced it in generic terms, but not specifically. Ms. Kane asked if the intent of the proposal is to redirect the pass through so the District would not be penalized if future legislation caused a negative effect on the pass through funding or if it is the District's intent that the additional money coming from the Agency to the District would make up that shortfall? Mr. Mason said if there was any shortfall to be made up, it would only equal whatever the District would be entitled to under the Agreement. Mr. Baldwin said if there is a change in law whereby the State takes away the money the City would give the District, then the District wants to be able to come up with a new agreement that would allow the District a chance to circumvent whatever law the State has put in place. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 May 13, 1992 AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 7:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Baldwin said the District will agree to a 14% pass through at year 7. Councilmember Montgomery spoke regarding the Casey Road site taxes. He said the assumptions were that 120 homes would be built on the Casey Road site and sold for $250,000 each. Based upon the District's share of tax, that would result in $100,000 per year being forwarded to the District. Assuming total construction and that they were all sold ten years from now based upon the growth figure of 5 %, the District proposal is requesting an additional $9,835,000 over and above the 50/50 split of the difference of the City and District's previous proposals. Mr. Baldwin said Councilmember Montgomery's figure is higher than he computed -- the District started with the $6 million they are requesting for the property and then computed the 1% taxes as $60,000 per year and then computed 38% of the $60,000 which is $22,800 for the first year. That figure was inflated by 5% a year. Mr. Baldwin said the site is not on the tax rolls at all right now and if the District should develop it, it becomes of value to the City. He added that the District should be able to develop their own property. Councilmember Montgomery reiterated that the Casey Road site proposal has not been given to the Council in this form previously. He said the item that was discussed with Council was the shared use of this facility. Mr. Baldwin said they would like agreement on Item No. 1 of their proposal, that the attorneys be allowed to meet and resolve language differences with Item No. 4 and No. 5. Councilmember Montgomery asked if the District would agree to limit Item No. 5 of their proposal to the Community College District since they are an agency of a similar nature. Mr. Baldwin said it is something to be considered. Councilmember Montgomery said he would agree to Item No. 1 with a 50/50 split, and Item Nos. 2 and 3 need to have the dollars remain at $35,962,208. He said if amounts from Item Nos. 2 and 3 are subtracted, he agrees with that being done. With regard to Item No. 4, he would like Ms. Kane to review the language and if there are changes needed she would let the Council know. He said Item No. 5 needs to be reviewed again by both agencies, but the District needs to consider limiting it to the Community College District. Mr. Baldwin expressed concern that an agreement be reached quickly before the trial date of August 3. Mr. Montgomery said he is concerned that the District has moved from its previous position of $39.3 million and is up to $42.6 million. He can accept Item Nos. 2 and 3, provided they are capped under the $35 million even though they may be paid in advance. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 May 13, 1992 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that the attorneys representing the City and the School District could communicate regarding proposed language as discussed this evening, reporting back to their respective agencies for concurrence. B. At Risk Youth Program Councilmember Perez requested that a second Boardmember be appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee. Boardmember Sam Nainoa was appointed by the Board of Education to serve with Pam Castro on that committee. C. Future Meetings CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council and the Board of Education determined to meet again on May 27, 1992 at 6:30 p.m.; each agency to provide their proposals to the other no later than 5 p.m. on May 22, 1992. RECESS, CITY COUNCIL TO RECONVENE AT THIS POINT in the meeting, the Mayor declared a recess. The time was 8:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; Deborah Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk; Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk. 6. ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Consider Letter of Agreement with Moorpark Melodrama Concernin Installation of Security Fencing. Staff Recommendation: Approve agreement subject to approval of final language by City Manager. Mr. Kueny gave the staff report. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to waive their rules of procedure to accept a late staff report and to allow Linda Bredemann to address the Council. Linda Bredemann, 11984 Silvercrest Street, spoke as owner of the Moorpark Melodrama Theatre (18 High Street). She requested the Council consider her offer to pay for the construction of a fence around the parking lot across the street from the Moorpark Melodrama Theatre. She said the fence should remain longer than one year as she feels it is not fiscally sensible for her to pay for construction if it is to be removed after one year. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 May 13, 1992 Mr. Kueny clarified that the City is hoping to exercise its option on the property and, as part of the work program, to establish some reuse of the property. He said the one -year period allows the Council some flexibility in what is done with this piece of land. In response to Councilmember Perez, Mr. Hare said Mrs. Bredemann should be responsible for maintenance and liability of the fence is she constructed it. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to direct staff to prepare an agreement for the City to construct, maintain and accept liability for a fence with a set back of 3 feet from the sidewalk on the north /south leg of the fence; the fence to be constructed after the cost of construction is deposited by Ms. Bredemann; Ms. Bredemann to be responsible for reimbursing the City for 50% of the cost of maintenance; if replacement of the fence by the City occurs within 3 years, a pro rata reimbursement will be made to Ms. Bredemann; there will be a three year renewal period for the agreement; the agreement to be subject to final language approval by the City Manager. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (HEARING IS CLOSED) A. Consider General Plan Update Land Use and Circulation Elements, Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, and Environmental Impact Report (GPA -89 -1 and Zone Change 89 -1). Staff Recommendation: Continue Council discussion. Mr. Richards gave the staff report. The following consensus actions were taken by the Council with regard to the General Plan documents: FEIR CLARIFICATION MEMO CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to correct the spelling of the word "December" and replace "due" with the word "related" on the first page of the FEIR Clarification Memo. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to delete " "A" Street (Casey Road to SR -118 Bypass Arterial)" from the list of additions on page 4 of the FEIR Clarification Memo and to make the appropriate revisions where necessary throughout the General Plan documents to reflect this change. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise "Liberty Bell Road" to "Gabbert Road" in the third paragraph of the first column on Page 5 of the FEIR Clarification Memo and to revise "Walnut Canyon" to "Walnut Creek" in the tenth paragraph of the same column. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that on page 7 of the FEIR Clarification Memo, the Specific Plans would show maximum density numbers rather than density limit numbers and a footnote would be added to explain that there is a density limit; the totals (dwelling unit and population) on page 8 to be revised to reflect the aforementioned change, and "du" is to be deleted after the population totals. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 May 13, 1992 The Council discussed the Estes property land use designation and General Plan Amendment. Mayor Lawrason said the Council could consider giving the applicant (Estes) credit for the money spent for activities already accomplished in the General Plan Amendment process. Mr. Kueny indicated that giving credit could be considered in looking at use of the environmental document and the General Plan Amendment only, the other necessary entitlements would have to follow in either case. He said staff could do an analysis of what Estes had contributed in the General Plan process, what it would cost to process the entitlement of a new application, and then report to Council on that information. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to direct staff to provide the information as outlined by Mr. Kueny above. Exhibit A to Resolution 92 -855 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to delete the last sentence of paragraph 2, beginning "Additionally, circulation..." The Council discussed updating population figures. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that dwelling unit and population figures need to be revised throughout the document to reflect the changes to Table 3 of the Land Use Element. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise the first paragraph of page 18, to read "The EIR indicates that this effect be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following mitigation measure: 1) the City shall implement a waste reduction program to achieve the solid waste diversion requirements of AB939." Exhibit C to Resolution No. 92 -855 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise the third paragraph of page 3, by placing a period following "circulation elements" and deleting the phrase, "and prior to approval of any new specific plans in the City ". CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise the first paragraph of page 4 by placing a period after the words "and adopted" and deleting "prior to Council approval of any zone change associated with the current update to the land use and circulation elements" and to insert as the last sentence, "During the interim, projects will be conditioned to comply with program as adopted." Resolution No. 92 -856 - Resolution Adopting Land Use and Circulation Element CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise the third paragraph in the Resolution to read as follows, "whereas, the City Council held Public Hearings on January 22 and 29, February 1, 8, and 12, and March 18, 1992, and considered at meetings on February 26, March 11, April 8, 22 and 29, May 6, and on May 13, 1992, the draft Land Use and Circulation Element of the Moorpark General Plan "; to change the Resolution 89 -855 similarly. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 May 13, 1992 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise page 2 of the Resolution to delete Section 3 and Section 4 and to renumber the following sections consecutively; to revise the new Section 4 to read "that the City Council finds that the adoption of the Land Use and Circulation Elements identified in Exhibits 1 and 2 are not substantially modified from the drafts considered by the Planning Commission." CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to delete the second bullet under the paragraph headed Redevelopment on page number 6. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise Policy 13.4 on page 15 to read "The City shall work with the business community in a cooperative manner to encourage desired businesses to locate in the City and to remain in the City." CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise the last paragraph on page number 26 to read, "the number of dwelling units shall not exceed 415, unless the Specific Plan area property owner agrees to provide public improvements, public services, and /or financial contributions..."; and to revise all Specific Plan portions of the document with the same language. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise the first paragraph on page 31 to indicate "Specific Plan 9" rather than "3 ". CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise paragraph number 3 on page 48 to read, "consider preparation of additional elements of the General Plan (such as community design, economic development, public services, air quality, financial element) in order to encourage further implementation of provisions contained within the Land Use Element." CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise the Valley Floor (Exhibit 1) to reflect a more descriptive name. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise Planning Area Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4), to show area of interest, and County designations outside Moorpark's study area; and to correct "Specific Plan No. 5" to read, "Specific Plan No. 8" in the note. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined not to revise the Horizon Lines (Exhibit 5), a revision of this exhibit to be done in conjunction with the drafting of the Hillside Ordinance. Circulation Element CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise street names throughout the document that were changed from Princeton Avenue. Circulation Element Highway Network Figure 2 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to delete "A" Street from Casey Road to the State Route 118 bypass; to delete "B" Street from the westerly terminus of the State Route 118 bypass to Los Angeles Avenue behind the American Products building; to designate Spring Road between High Street and the State Route 118 bypass as a rural collector. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 May 13, 1992 Circulation Element Bikeway Network Figure 3 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise figure 3 to show Moorpark Avenue as a Class 3 bike path from Poindexter Street to Los Angeles Avenue; to delete the Liberty Bell connection north of Los Angeles Avenue; to bring the exhibit into conformance with figure 2. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 92 -855 certifying the final EIR and adopting findings, statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program, as modified by the Council tonight. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 92 -856 adopting the revised Land Use and Circulation Elements, as modified by the Council tonight. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 7. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for discussion of all items listed on the agenda. A. Personnel. B. Personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). D. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). E. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District Case No. 107569 vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. H. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. I. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 11:33 p.m. The meeting reconvened into Closed Session at 11:40 p.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; and Steven Kueny, City Manager. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 12:16 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only Closed Session Item 2.A. was discussed. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 10 May 13, 1992 8. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 12:16 a.m. Paul W. Law aeon Jr., M or ATTEST: