Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1989 0524 CC ADJMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California May 24, 1989 An Adjourned Meeting of the City Council 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 7:06 P.M. by Mayor Brown. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Harper. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Clint Harper, Paul Lawrason, Scott Montgomery, Bernardo Perez and Mayor Eloise Brown. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager /City Clerk; Susan Cauldwell, Administrative Assistant; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Carolyn Dyer, Records Clerk. 4. PROCLAMATIONS. COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL._P_RESENTATIONS None were presented. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: Councilmember Montgomery requested that Item 11.J. Joint Study Session regarding Redevelopment Process be moved up. Councilmember Harper also requested that Item 10.A. be discussed. Mayor Brown reordered the agenda to read 10.A. and 11.J. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS: William E. Mason, 437 Shasta Avenue, Moorpark stated he appreciated the Redevelopment Study Session on May 22, 1989 and the following meetings. Mr. Mason stated that this item was to important for the five Councilmembers and would like to see this item of redevelopment put on the ballot of the next election or calling a special election since this affects many people in Moorpark. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California 2 May 24, 1989 Cynthia Hubbard, 4126 Santa Rosa Drive, Moorpark and for the record is an interested member of the Moorpark Unified School District School Board also attended the May 22, 1989 Redevelopment Study Session. She was interested in the tax dollar. The consultants stated that instead of the City getting the 8% on the tax dollar the Redevelopment Agency would receive this money. The school district is hiring an attorney to come in and protect its share of the tax dollar. She feels other agencies will come back and tell the taxpayer that they will have to raise taxes to recapture the amount that they lost. In this case Redevelopment could cause a higher tax in Moorpark, not only for the downtown area but for everyone. She asked to have this issue addressed at this meeting. There was also concern in property values in the Redevelopment area. She stated concern that the real estate agent would need to inform potential buyers if the property they are interested in is in the redevelopment area and if so would there be potential loss income to the seller. Would like to see the above two issues discussed at this meeting. Councilmember Perez stated that the real estate industry generally feels that the redevelopment area results in property values increasing instead of decreasing. Barbara Schultz, 116 Sierra, Moorpark is concerned with redevelopment and asked who the seven committee members were. City Manager Steven Kueny explained the committee 4s made up of residents in the project area and very concerned with the residential area. Barbara Schultz then commented that the money would come from the increase in property value when the property is sold or developed and perhaps it would come to the point where a project though it affects the surrounding neighbors would go through anyway because it would generate more redevelopment dollars. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS: None were presented. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None were presented. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None were scheduled. 10. COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: A. Appointment to _Parks _ and _ Recreation Commission. Councilmember Harper stated his nomination was John Roberts. Councilmember Perez that before the vote is taken that his vote was determined on his personal observations and discussions about the prior park and recreation experience of Mr. Roberts. It has nothing to do with the November Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California 3 May 24, 1989 election. Councilmember Montgomery stated it had been a difficult decision. The November campaign is over and forgotten. He respects Councilmember Harper and knows he would not have put his name forward if he had not been confident in him. Councilmember Montgomery requested that this vote for the Parks and Recreation Commission be a roll call vote. Councilmember Harper commented that he would like to know publicly why the Council felt this nomination was not acceptable. Councilmember Lawrason commented he was in agreement with Councilmember Harper recommendation. He is very impressed with John Roberts abilities and was going to vote for him. Mayor Brown called for a roll call vote with Councilmembers Harper and Lawrason voting yes and Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez and Mayor Brown voting no. The nomination of Mr. John Roberts was defeated. Councilmember Harper then asked for reasons for rejection on the roll call vote. He will bring another nomination to the next meeting. AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO BECAME THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK. 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 _M—y .... 3, J"9. 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 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 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 Moorpark, California 8 May 24, 1989 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 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 dollars. Upon adoption of the share in the amount of new tax loose any existing tax dollars. May 24, 1989 plan, the other agencies do not dollars generated but they do not 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. 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 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.B. 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. � f�" e d4' 6 1'� Eloise Brown, Mayor ATTEST: