Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1994 0810 CC ADJMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California August 10, 1994 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on August 10, 1994 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 6:37 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Hunter, Montgomery, Perez, Wozniak and Mayor Lawrason Staff: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Jim Aguilera, Director of Community Development MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session under all items listed on the agenda: A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the government Code: (Number of cases to be discussed - two) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Subdivisior. (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: (Number of cases to be discussed - one) C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (pursuant to Subdivision (a) Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of Case: Conejo Freeway Properties, Ltd. vs. City of Moorpark D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN 511 -0- 050 -09 Negotiating Parties: City of Moorpark and Kirk Aikens Under Negotiation: Terms E. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) Title: City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Director of Community Services, Director of Community Development, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Chief of Police, City Engineer, and City Attorney 00058 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 August 10, 1994 F. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 15508 Mallory Court Negotiating Parties: City of Moorpark and any person interested in the property Under Negotiation: Price and Terms G. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN 511 -08 -16 (Poindexter Avenue) Negotiating Parties: City of Moorpark and Margaret I. Gisler Trust Under Negotiation: Price The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; and Jim Aguilera, Director of Community Development. The Council reconvened into Open Session at 7:06 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only items A. and C. were discussed. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, Mayor Lawrason declared a recess at 7:06 p.m. Mayor Lawrason called the meeting back to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Perez led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Hunter, Montgomery, Perez, Wozniak and Mayor Lawrason Staff: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Jim Aguilera, Community Development Director; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; Mary Lindley, Assistant to the City Manager; Don Reynolds, Administrative Services Manager; Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 00059 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 5. 6. None. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: August 10, 1994 Albert Rosen, 1770 Angus Way, Simi Valley, requested that the issue of Happy Camp development be placed on a future agenda. Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, spoke regarding commercial truck traffic in the city. Councilmember Montgomery said he wants to see Mr. Rosen's material that he brought with him this evening. He also suggested that the Council may want to consider taking a position on the Weldon Canyon Landfill issue and that it be put on the City Council agenda for the first or second meeting in September. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS: None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 9. ORDINANCES: None. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Mayor Lawrason made an announcement that the next Summer Concert in the Park will be held on Sunday, August 14, at the Arroyo Vista Community Park. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, the Mayor declared a recess. The time was 7:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:03 p.m. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to consider Item 11.B., Consider Status Report of 1993/94 Objectives and Consider 1994/95 Goals and Objectives, as the last action /discussion item on this evening's agenda. 00060 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 August 10, 1994 11. ACTION /DISCUSSION ITEMS: C. Consider Revisions to City Park Naming Policy. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. (Continued Item 11.I. from 7/6/94; Item 11.C. from 8/3/94) The staff report was deferred to Councilmember Wozniak. Councilmember Wozniak said he believes the park naming policy should exclude the possibility of naming a park after a Moorpark resident. He said the idea of naming a park after patriotic, national or military memorial figures or places is a good one. MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to 1) direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to make recommendations on names for all new park projects during or before park construction; 2) name City parks in a manner which identifies the geographic location of each park. Whenever possible the name of a street, or the street upon which the park is located may be part of the park name. In special circumstances, park names could be designated to recognize a nation or historical event.; 3) Consider the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations and adopt the chosen park name by resolution. The motion carried by 5 -0 voice vote. D. Consider City Flag Finalists. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. (Continued Item 11.D. from 8/3/94) Mr. Kueny gave the staff report. Mayor Lawrason read a letter from Moorpark residents stating that the City flag should contain the seal of the City. MOTION: Mayor Lawrason moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to establish the design of the City flag as being the City seal centered on white background, with the words "MOORPARK" in block lettering (similar to that printed on the City of Moorpark stationery). The motion carried by 5 -0 voice vote. Councilmember Wozniak said he wants to have the individuals who submitted entries to receive recognition from the City. Mayor Lawrason said a proclamation should be prepared for each of those individuals. 00061 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 August 10, 1994 Councilmember Montgomery said he believes the entries that were submitted should be stored in the City's archives. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, said the Moorpark Arts Committee will send thank you letters to those who participated in the contest. E. Consider Possible Revision to Ventura Count y Library Expansion Plans Requiring Use of City Property and Plan Revisions. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. (Continued Item 11.E. from 8/3/94) Mr. Kueny suggested that the Council may wish to continue this item to August 17, 1994 as there will be new information provided at a meeting scheduled to be held with County staff on August 15, 1994. MOTION: Mayor Lawrason moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to continue this item to the meeting of August 171 1994. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. F. Consider Property Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with Cone o Freeway Properties Limited and with Moorpark Freeway Properties. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. (Continued Item 11.F. from 8/3/94) Mr. Kueny gave the staff report. He indicated that staff prefers the version of the agreement prior to the comments of the applicant being inserted. He continued by saying that on page 3, line 7 of paragraph (4), the term "development standards" should be clarified with more specific language. Mr. Kueny said the City Attorney believes it does not affect the Uniform Building Codes and that was his concern. He expressed concern that some detail may have been overlooked. He wants this project to be capable of being conditioned when it comes before Council and that standard conditions of approval that are standard in the Residential Planned Development are the ones that will be reflected in the Specific Plan. Councilmember Hunter read excerpts from the draft Settlement Agreement and stated two concerns: 1) He said he believes the builder is requesting an exemption to Measure F if a successor to Measure F is adopted in 1995; and 2) He said the builder is also asking for an exemption to the proposed hillside preservation ordinance. He said he is opposed to both exemptions being included in the 00062 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 August 10, 1994 agreement. Councilmember Montgomery said he wants to delete the language in the "proposed amendment" to paragraph (4) - applicant's Insert #1 so it reads as follows: Defendants agree that all residential development allocations awarded to Plaintiffs and /or its successors pursuant to Amended Measure F shall vest on December 31, 1995, the expiration date of said ordinance. Vesting shall mean that Defendants agree not to rescind, set aside or otherwise annul by subsequent action or new growth management ordinance ( "Successor Ordinance ") allocations received by Plaintiffs and /or its successors under existing Amended Measure F. The following language would be deleted from this paragraph: Provided Plaintiffs are not in default of this agreement, Defendants agree that Plaintiffs and /or its successors shall receive residential development permit allocations and building permits under a Successor Ordinance, or no ordinance, without numeric limitation any one year as area necessary to achieve timely build out of the project as determined by the Plaintiffs and /or its successors. Councilmember Montgomery said he would also insert language in this paragraph with regard to an annual cap on the number of building permits that would be approved. He stated that he would like no reference in this paragraph to hillside preservation. In addition to the above issue, Councilmember Montgomery said he supports vesting of allocations for Carlsberg because if the City does not allow vesting, it conveys the message to Carlsberg, that they must either build to completion within a 24 month period of time or less or at least pour pads and that a court of law would consider them vested if they met those conditions. He said otherwise the City could take Carlsberg's allocation away from them. It might result in a number of concrete pads that would sit for a long while. Councilmember Hunter said he is concerned that the Council is considering indefinite vesting amounts for the developer. 00063 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 August 10, 1994 Councilmember Wozniak said he has concerns about the use of the word "exempt" when it comes to the way measure F and the hillside ordinance would be enforced for this developer. He said the change in wording as proposed by Councilmember Montgomery is not supported by him because it allows the applicant to build outside of the restrictions of Measure F. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Aguilera said the real controlling issue is not allocations, but the number of building permits. Councilmember Hunter said the applicant is not making a concession by agreeing to abide by Measure F. He said it does not make sense to exempt a developer from a law that is to be developed in the future. He stated that the definition of "vesting" is his concern. In response to Council question, Ms. Kane explained that if a developer has obtained a building permit and has substantial work performed on the land then that allocation would be considered vested. She said it is a legal concept that vesting occurs when substantial monies have been expended and substantial work has been done. Ms. Kane continued by stating that usually means if you have a foundation you have achieved substantial work and that allocation becomes vested. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to allow the applicant's representative, Ron Tankersley, to address the Council. Ron Tankersley, 2800 28th Street, Santa Monica, said he is aware that under Measure F they would be granted the allocations that they would normally be entitled to and that the City would not remove any of those allocations when Measure F expires. He said, however, that as a developer, he is relying on the City to process their applications in a timely manner and the question arises as to what would happen if the Council chooses not to process them in a timely manner. The developer would then by default have placed themselves under the new Measure F type ordinance. He said the protection has to be there that if that happens, he will be exempt from that new ordinance. He said he is not able to provide a specific number of permits that will be applied for at a given time because he expects to have multiple builders who will be vying for permits. He said that 200 permits a year is marginal for them to accept. He continued by saying that this is more 00064 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 August 10, 1994 a quota system than a growth management system. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, the Mayor declared a recess. The time was 9:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:57 p.m. Councilmember Wozniak proposed language to be added to the agreement extending the provisions of current Measure F as it stands right now which would allow the Carlsberg developer the ability to build under those requirements. He continued by explaining that this provides the applicant the leeway to apply or not apply for allocations. He explained that the developer will not apply until he knows whether or not he can vest the allocations and if the developer is not able to vest, then those allocations would go back into a pool for him to draw from. Mayor Lawrason indicated his support for the proposal resolving this matter. Mr. Tankersley said it is an excellent resolution as they are knowledgeable of the provisions of Measure F and are willing to abide by them. Councilmember Hunter asked if there is a significant threat of litigation due to favoritism being granted to one developer. Ms. Kane said a development that is in existence under the pre- existing standards do not have to come up to the new standards. It only applies to those who apply subsequent to those new standards. She said it is like treating this developer as a use and is similar to the situation when the courts ruled Urban West Communities exempt from Measure F. She said Urban West Communities was considered a legal non- conforming use that was in existence before Measure F was adopted. MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Mayor Lawrason seconded a motion to extend the provisions of Measure F to the development of the Carlsberg project. The motion carried by 4- 1 roll call vote, Councilmember Hunter dissenting. In response to Mr. Kueny, Mr. Tankersley said he would accept the wording in the "Obligations and Covenants" section, paragraph 5.(a)(6) as follows: "Defendants shall not amend the SEIR, the Amended Specific Plan or the Carlsberg Ordinance without the express written concurrence of Plaintiffs." 000O Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 August 10, 1994 Mr. Kueny said it is his understanding that the grading in the Specific Plan is what the Council agreed to allow. Mr. Tankersley stated that little sub ii through little sub iv in newly numbered paragraph 5, page 3 will remain as previously written. Councilmember Montgomery said the language in the section referenced by Mr. Tankersley above should conform to the Hillside Ordinance -- the Specific Plan and the Settlement Agreement both conforming. Mr. Tankersley agreed to this item. Mr. Kueny said staff will work with the developer to further define the terminology "development standards ". Mr. Kueny noted the following outstanding items in the document: 1) On page 5, paragraph (4), sixth line down, the date should be changed from March 31, 1995 to April 30, 1995; 2) Page 6 - Staff will work with the applicant to come to a resolution; 3) Page 7 - Staff will work with the applicant to come to a resolution; 4) Page 8 - a) Regarding the percentages cited in the third paragraph, staff's understanding is that these are agreeable to both the City and the applicant; b) The lined out portion in the first and fourth paragraphs are acceptable to both parties; C) The word "Amended" should be inserted before the last word on the page to read "Amended Carlsberg Specific Plan" 5) Relating back to paragraph 5(b) (6), the third word "may" should be moved to in front of the word "elect". It would then read "the defendants, in their sole and unfettered discretion, may elect ".... 00066 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 10 August 10, 1994 Mr. Tankersley said he can agree with the concept that the City can elect not to collect the fee, but said that also implies that the applicant can negotiate with the County and that the City could waive its right to collect any citywide mitigation fees. Mr. Kueny clarified that is not the City's intent. The City would treat the Carlsberg project as it does every other development with the fee yet to be determined. Mr. Tankersley said he has a concern about that. He explained that it is his understanding based on the Environmental Impact Report that all of the Carlsberg development's impacts have been identified so there are no unknown mitigation measure for which they will be assessed in the future. He said he agreed to pay one fee and does not believe there are any unmitigated traffic measures that he should be assessed in the future. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Kueny said that if the City Council feels there are no unknown impacts that would be mitigated by contributions to the AOC or other funding vehicles, then the citywide traffic mitigation covenant could be deleted by the City Council. He said under this option, the Council would forego that $2 million and Mr. Tankersley would have to deal with the County and, further, if the EIR does not indicate that there are any unknown traffic impacts the Council could delete TC -18. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to recess the City Council meeting to Closed Session to discuss Conejo Freeway Properties vs. City of Moorpark as listed on the agenda as 14.C. The time was 10:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 10:50 p.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney, and Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager. Mr. Kueny stated that only item 14.C. was discussed and no action was taken. Mr. Kueny recommended that the City can delete reference to the citywide traffic covenant in the Supplemental EIR as well as in the Settlement Agreement document. 00067 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page it August 10, 1994 Mr. Tankersley said that concept is acceptable, but he would like traffic mitigation excluded from the development standards. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Mayor Lawrason seconded a motion to direct staff to revise and prepare the Settlement Agreement and to return this item on the agenda of the first City Council meeting in September; concurrently to be considered at the same City Council meeting that the Specific Plan is considered. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. G. Consider Possible City Action for Improvements for state Route 118 (SR118) at Railroad Crossing West of City Limits. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. (Continued Item 11.G. from 8/3/94) Councilmember Montgomery gave a brief report. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to direct staff to assign this item to the Transportation and Streets Committee and request that they meet with County Supervisor Howard to explore measures that would provide for straightening the road at the railroad crossing. H. Consider Intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and Villa Del Arroyo Mobilehome Park. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. (Continued Item 11.H. from 8/3/94) Councilmember Wozniak said he wants to see some signage in the area of this intersection that states something to the effect "dangerous intersection ahead" or similar wording. Councilmember Montgomery said he believes signage is needed at the egress to the mobilehome park, also, to warn those drivers exiting the park. Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, spoke and recommended that the use of a convex mirror might assist in providing better sight distance at the intersection. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to direct staff to prepare a warrant study for traffic control or signalization at this intersection. 00068 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 12 August 10, 1994 I. Consider Extending Dorothy Wall /Metrolink Wall Westerly to Professional Building. Staff Recommendation: direct staff as deemed appropriate. (Continued Item 11.I. from 8/3/94) Councilmember Perez presented this item to the Council. He asked if the Council wants the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (MRA) to participate in this project. He believes the extension of the wall is a good idea and a good chance for the MRA to become involved. Mayor Lawrason asked if there is a similar need for the wall to be extended to the west. Councilmember Perez said no, but that a wall would enhance the area. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to request Councilmember Perez to work with staff to develop cost proposals to determine whether the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency or the City of Moorpark will fund the project and to bring this recommendation back to the City Council for consideration. J. Consider Public Works Projects Priority List. Staff Recommendation: The Budget and Finance Committee and staff recommend that the projects listed in the combined projects list be accepted for funding by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency as recommended in the report with design work to proceed. (Continued Item 11.J. from 8/3/94) In response to Councilmember Hunter, Councilmember Montgomery explained that Valley Road was not included at this time because it cost too much and it was a matter of priority. Mayor Lawrason added that it did not look like an economically viable situation with all things considered. Mr. Kueny stated that City staff had recommended it be included, but the Project Area Advisory Committee did not. He said it is the lowest priority of the street projects and that the PAAC determined that for the amount of money compared to the number of citizens it would benefit for the same project done elsewhere the same amount of money would benefit more people. 00069 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 13 August 10, 1994 MOTION: Mayor Lawrason moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to accept the projects listed in the combined projects list for funding by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency with design work to proceed. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. B. Consider Status Report of 1993194 Objectives and Consider 1994[95 Goals and Objectives. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. (Continued item). MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to continue this item to the first City Council meeting in September. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 12. CLOSED SESSION: None was held. 13. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 11:06 p.m. Paul W. LAwkason Jr., ayor 0 00"0