Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1989 0607 RDA REGMINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Moorpark, California June 7, 1989 A Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark, California was held on June 7, 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 7:20 p.m. by Chairman Eloise Brown. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Agency Members Clint Harper, Paul Lawrason, Scott Montgomery, Bernardo Perez and Chairman Brown. Steven Kueny, Executive Director; Peter Thorson, Acting Agency Attorney; Richard Hare, Treasurer; Jon Huffman and Marshall Linn, Redevelopment Consultants from Urban Futures; and Sally Coons, Recording Secretary. 3. PUBLIC HEARING A. Joint public hearing of the Moorpark City Council and the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project and the Final Environmental Impact Rep_ort (FEIR)_ re ared for the Plan. The presence of all members of the City Council was noted. Except for specific, separate actions taken by the City Council, as noted, all references to Chairman and Agency Members include Mayor and Councilmembers, respectively, for Agenda Item 9.B. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing and recognized Mr. Jon Huffman, City's redevelopment consultant from Urban Futures. Mr. Huffman highlighted the documents that were before the Agency /Council as follows: 1. Agency Report to the City Council describing the fiscal, social and economic conditions currently existing in the project area; various methods of financing the project; detailed analysis of the widespread inadequacies in relation to residential and other structures and public services infrastructure. J 2. Environmental Impact Report prepared and distributed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 2 June 7, 1989 guidelines, and identifies impacts on traffic and circulation, noise. air quality, health and safety, etc. 3. Redevelopment Plan which sets forth methods and procedures for implementation of Lite proposed public improvement project programs, maps, legal descriptions, etc. Mr. Huffman concluded with the recommendation to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency to adopt the Redevelopment Plan; and to incorporate Oic, documents before the Council into the public record. In response to Agency Member- Harper, Mr. Huffman advised the location of the language regarding the exclusion of eminent domain on residential properties. After discussion, Executive Director Kueny suggested the following language be added to the sentence reading, "All property zoned commercial or industrial that has a residential structure (house) on it and is owner occupied at the time the Redevelopment Plan is adopted is excluded from eminent domain so long as that owner occupies the rncirinnra CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Agency determined to add the language as suggested by the Executive Director. Executive Director Kueny advised that letters in objection to ' the Redevelopment Plan and /or Final Environmental Impact Report were received this date from the Moorpark Unified School District and the Ventura County Community College District. Additionally, a letter was received this date from the County of Ventura requesting an agreement regarding pass- through of tax increments. 9.B.1. John Elmore (651 E. Main Street, Ventura) representing the County of Ventura Library Services Agency, addressed the Council /Redevelopment Agency endorsing the requested 2% pass- through of tax increments to the Ventura County Library Services Agency contained in the June 7, 1989 letter from the County of Ventura. 9.8.2. Tom Ely (3278 Pletcher Street, Simi Valley) representing the Ventura County Community College District, addressed the Council /Redevelopment Agency advising that the College District objects to the adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan until a suitable agreement can be made that will insure that the College District will maintain t.1re tax increments it would otherwise receive. In response to Chairman Brown, Mr. Ely reported an enrollment at Moorpark College of 11,780 students. 9.B.3. William Mason (437 Shasta Avenue, Moorpark) advised that he did not think all the concerns of the people have Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 3 June 7, 1989 been satisfied; and that the people in the Redevelopment Project Area should have the right to vote on the Plan. 9.B.4. Barbara Shultz (116 Sierra Avenue,Moor.park) addressed the Council /Redevelopment Agency regarding the importance of early communication between the City and citizens of the community when proposals such as redevelopment are being considered. She recommended that the Project Area Committee be representative of all areas of the Redevelopment Area, residential and business; and when the Agency begins to initiate projects, preference should be given to those areas where there are long -time residents. 9.B.5. Curran Cummings (640 Bard Street, Moorpark) representing the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the Redevelopment Project and urged the Council /Redevelopment Agency to proceed with adoption and implementation of the Plan. In response to Chairman Brown, Mr. Cummings advised that he felt the Project Area Committee was representative of all areas of the proposed Redevelopment Project Area. 9.B.6. Doug Frazier (237 Sierra Avenue, Moorpark) advised that he did not believe there has been a loss in the value of homes in the proposed redevelopment area. He questioned that if low and medium cost homes are to be built, will their cost be based on Moorpark in general or the Redevelopment Area. Ile also questioned who represented Walnut Acres on the Project Area Committee. 9.B.7. Paul Binding (2258 Barbara Drive, Camarillo) representing the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District (MMAD), advised that the proposed Redevelopment Project may cause cuts in services. Ile advised that approximately 25% of MMAD's revenue is from the Project Area; and that a resolution will he forthcoming requesting a tax pass- through. In response to Chairman Brown, Mr. Binding advised that he did not readily know the number of calls received by MMAD from within the Redevelopment Area. Chairman Brown declared the PUbliC llearing closed. Acting Agency Attorney Peter Thorson advised that State law requires that Staff provide written responses to the objections submitted by the Moorpark Unified School District and the Ventura County Community College District prior to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council /Agency Board. lie recommended that no action be taken at this meeting. i CONSENSUS: By consensus, the City Council /Agency Board determined to delay all action on the Redevelopment Plan until ,June 21, 1989. Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 4 June 7, 1989 In response to Agency Member }carper, Acting Agency Attorney Thorson advised that the Community Redevelopment Law permits Redevelopment Plan approval (or amendment thereto) to be subject to voter approval. To accomplish this, Staff should be directed to draft an ordinance that would be submitted to the voters that would confirm the restrictions on eminent domain that have been placed in the Plan. In response to Agency Member Montgomery, Mr. Thorson recommended that the voter approval be handled as a separate action from adoption of the Plan. The Plan would go into effect with the base year 1.988/89, and still the voters could ratify the question of eminent domain for residential areas. In response to Agency Member Harper, Mr.. Thorson advised that after the City Council took action to place an ordinance on the ballot, it could begin writing; a ballot argument. MOTION: Council /Agency Member Harper moved and Council /Agency Member Montgomery seconded a motion to direct Staff to draft the language for an ordinance to be placed on the November, 1989 ballot, which would allow the voters of Moorpark to ratify the restrictions on eminent domain; and the results of that ratification to become an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The voice vote was unanimous. MOTION: Agency Member Harper moved alid Agency Member Montgomery r "— seconded a motion to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency at the hour of J 8:10 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on June 21, 1989. The voice vote was unanimous. ATTEST: 1— Eloise Brown, Chairman