Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 1989 577 1989 0621RESOLtTTION NO_ 89 -577 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TAE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 7I1E MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33363 of the California Health and Safety Code, the Moorpark City Council. is required to make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. The legislative body shall respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed hearing, including any extensions thereof, and may additionally respond to written objections that are received after the lieiiing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Moorpark hereby finds, determines, resolves and orders ns follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Moorpark hereby adopts the written findings, attached hereto as Attachments A through F and incorporated herein by reference, in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity received before or at the joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project, attached hereto as Attachments 1 through 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this . 21st day of June , 1989. - '/d- - I/,/ �17 -� Fl�ii.se Brown, Mayor ATTEST: 8961611.res MOORPARK ELOISE BROWN Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tem CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Coundlmember PAUL LAWRASON Councilmember SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) CITY OF MOORPARK ) SS. STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police I, Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 89 -577 _ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 21st day of June , 1989, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Harper, Lawrason, Montgomery, Perez and Mayor Brown. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 30th day of June , 1989. Lillian E. Kell man Cit.. Esc. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 WRITTEN RESPONSES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS OR TAXING ENTITIES PREPARED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT PLAIT' 1. A.Attached hereto as attachment No. 1 and incorporated herein by reference, is a letter received by the Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") and the City of Moorpark (the "City ") from Mr. Tom Ely, Board President of the Ventura County Community College District (the "District ") in connection with the proposed Moorpark Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan "). In such correspondence the District has stated an objection to both the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Plan. In this letter, Mr. Ely states that Urban Futuias, ds the principal representing the City of Moorpark with regard to both the EIR and the Plan, contends that there is no impact on Moorpark College by things that take place within the City. The Agency has no record of such a statement having been made. Additionally, the City Council has the following comments: With regard to paragraph four on page No. 5; the Agency's records indicate that a meeting was held by its representatives with the District on April 3, 1989 to discuss the proposed Plan and to the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL). The Agency has been and will continue to be available for fiscal negotiations with the District. With regard to paragraph 4 of page No. 4; section 2.13.5 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) states that any replacement or increase in enrollment generated as a result of the Redevelopment Plan's implementation would be based upon the rate of growth and development of the City and the future family size. This possible growth would not be directly attributable to the proposed Plan, but rather the development associated with the implementation of the city's General Plan. The proposed Redevelopment Plan does not establish a future ratio of growth or development approach - these policies are established in the City's General Plan. The impact of the rate of growth is a dynamic variable which must be reviewed on a regular basis. As a condition of Project approval, the Agency shall include provisions which will permit various agreements between the Agency and the District to offset any demonstrated impacts or enrollment increases. Types of agreements the Agency and District may enter into are described under C. Mitigation Measures in section 2.13.5 of the FEIR. To this date, the Agency has received no documentation from the District demonstrating impacts or enrollment increases that the proposed Plan would generate. statements that "Moorpark is bursting at the seams ", or that the District has achieved "maximum capacity or over capacity of various facilities and services at existing campuses..." (District's response to Agency's Notice of Preparation, December 12, 1988) do not constitute documentation of project impact. Rather, as stated in the FEIR, it is not possible to generate such information at this time, such analysis must be made from time to time, as projects related to the proposed Plan „x,or t-ha 49 vear life of the Plan. A. The Agency has been, and will continue to be available for negotiations with the District regarding possible impacts of the Plan upon its facilities. with regard to paragraph five, page No. 5; the offer presented to the District by the Agency was not meant to be a "finale offer, but, one that would start the negotiation process which the District has been slow to continue. 3. attachmi June 7, 1989 REDEVELOPMENT PASS THROUGH AGREEMENT between CITY OF MOORPARK and the VENTURA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTX'CT City Council Members. I am Tom Ely, Board President of the Ventura County Community College District and the elected Board Member from this area. I wish to add my objection, on the record, to both the Environmental Impact report and the Redevelopment plan, as tendered. From a physical, practical, political and philosophical standpoint the resi- dents of this community have relied upon the existence of Moorpark Col. lege consistently, since well before there was a City of Moorpark. The educational opportunities that have caused one out of nine Moorpark residents to matriculate at the college, have created significant benefits (economic & geographic) to those wishing to transfer to four year institu- tions. Vocational programs have provided job skills to allow for the fullest pos- sible employment to Moorpark residents, and have changed and been ad- justed to take into account the many new businesses which have located into the area. Since a pool of employees is created from these vocational programs, employers are assisted in hiring from the local labor force, rather than importing personnel from outside the area, thereby helping to reduce the local unemployment rate. U Company Specific Training contracts have been developed by the college, to allow for the employers to retrain their employees when the technical skills of their industry changes, thereby causing current employees to be re- educated rather than being replaced, which results in more stable area employment. Moorpark College has been long established as the leading available and reasonable center for cultural and athletic activities within the community. The plays, musical productions, art displays, d4icft performances all coupled with the baseball, basketball and football games provide a well rounded and valuable attraction for the community. The Exotic Animal Training and Management (EATM) compound provides the citizenry and school age students of Moorpark with the only zoo type compound within Ventura County, and as great as it has been, it is expand- ing to be even greater for the entire community. The Observatory is the only such facility in Ventura County, and operates to provide community lectures and special events for the public in addition to having a significant educational purpose. The Moorpark College - Paul Griffin Stadium not only houses the football and track and field activities at the college, but further provides a facility for the local scouts, boys and girls dubs, band competition within the area, and an ever enlarging joint use potential with the other education agencies within the area. The grounds of Moorpark College are used as a park for many family out- ings during the. weekends, and due to the architectural beauty, well kept landscaping, and the open area attracts a wide cross section of people from the community for family outings, and as a family recreational area. The relationship between the College District and the people of this area is not limited to the mere availability of facilities and programs, it also in- cludes personal relationships and duties. I s. I was elected by the people of Moorpark, long before there was a City of Moorpark. I have served this area for over 10 years, with the belief that the peoples government should be there to represent and provide the benefits available for the people of a community, and I have never taken that charge lighdy. When the City of Moorpark was first incorporated, I was there at the burial of the time capsule. I was there at the swearing in of the first City Council, and I've been around for• a Yot of the swearing at the City Council that has occurred since. Jim Dougherty and I may well be in the minority, among a small group of people, who have never been threatened with recall or being voted out of office. In 1981, when the 23 / 118 connector had been dropped and forgotten, it was Ruth Oren and I from the College District Board of Trustees, who reinstituted the freeway committee, and revived the interest in the connec- tor to make traffic more tolerable on the surface streets of Moorpark, and to eliminate the fear of additional fatalities which existed due to the con- gestion. It is interesting that when that first freeway committee was formed (before all of the current community "leaders" jumped on the bandwagon), our first step was to come to the new City of Moorpark and ask that the City Council provide a member to serve with us in furthering that project. Councilman Clint Harper was assigned by the City Council to sit on that committee. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Urban Futures, as the principals representing the City of Moorpark in both the Environmental Impact Report and in the Redevelopment Plan, state there is no impact on Moorpark College by the things that take place within the City. What Rubbish! Every action that takes place within the confines of a geographic proximity, touches and con- cerns every other provider of benefits to that common areas residents. A 4 . The claim that the college is not affected by additional residential and com- mercial opportunity flies In the face of the historical attendance at the in- stitution. The average age of the Moorpark College student is now 30 years of age. We are not merely talking about the children of adults who may move to the community. The effort of the vocational programs in aiding and assisting the new and existing industrial neighbors in the community will be heightened by the infusion of a larger business base. The fact is, the College District and Moorpark College specifically, are reliant for an extensive amount of their very esdstence, upon the local tax base. When this or any city diverts that tax base, they are taking away the dollars which allow the benefits we provide, to flow to the citizenry. j . If Moorpark College were operating at a 506 capacity, then there would, arguably, be adequate facilities to absorb an influx of new persons on the campus. That, however, is not the case. Moorpark is bursting at the ams. Moorpark is well over capacity, and due to the restricted state dol- lars that have flowed, or trickled, to Community Colleges in the past 10 years, the likelihood of an adequate number of new buildings being made available is not a reasonable expectation. Those involved in attempting to mitigate these problems have taken ex- traordinary steps to provide educational opportunities to the students at Moorpark College. The Moorpark College Foundation has provided the funding to build the stadium. The Foundation has provided the funds for the Observatory. The Foundation has provided the funds for scholarships to High School Honor Students who wish to study at Moorpark College. The Foundation has provided and funded "educational chairs" to provide increased instruc- tional dollars when high demand classes like laser- optics needs additional instruction. The Foundation has provided for faculty grants to encourage new study and development of programs to benefit the students. 4 �2. The foundation was formed to assist the College in doing those things which would not be possible through traditional resources, and it has done admirably, otherwise the students attending Moorpark College from this area would not enjoy the benefits that are currently available. I am quite proud of the College and the Foundations contribution to this areas citizens, since I was one of the founders of the Foundation in 1980, and the first Chairman of the Foundation Board of Directors, and still on the Board nearly 10 years later. Dr. Stan Bowers, the newly named President of the College, like his predecessors, is not new to civic involvement within the City of Moorpark. His activity with, for an example, the Boys and Girls Club has caused recog- nition that I'm sure you are all aware of It was 1n the same spirit of mutual cooperation for mutual benefit, that we approached the first and only meeting we ever had with Urban Futures. We came forward with a proposal that was indicating that we would accept less than we felt was legally justified, only to be told, by your agents, that they werc convinced that the colleges plight had nothing to do with the city or any expansion b y the ci They also Indicated that thcy had no, ob tion to make us whole. Some of their insensitive statements likc; they are tiying to provide indoor plumbing to overcome urban blight, within Moorpark, while we were attempting to build taj mah halls, is in- dicative of a complete lack of reality. Perhaps before they represent the areas residents they should read the proposed plan, rather than being in- sulting. We were then given an oral proposal, by Urban Futures, that was insult- ingly low. This was a strange acknowledgment of the validity of our claim. Or were they still convinced we have no valid claim, and merely attempting to propose making a gift of public funds? 5 4 Should this City Council wish to send one of its' members as a representa- tive to have a meeting with us over these important and potentially benefi- cial things that can be accomplished for the good of our joint constituents, we will be more than pleased to be responsive and reasonable. The people of Moorpark can only gain from such conduct. You should be informed, as was your redevelopment agent, that the funds derived from redevelopment pass through agreements negotiated with the Ventura County Community College District will accrue soley and singularly to the institution that serves the community from which the funds are gen- erated. In other words, no money from Moorpark will ever go to Ventura or Oxnard Colleges, it will stay in Moorpark. Should however, the city's responses continue to reflect a recalcitrant and obstructive view as to the needs of the citizenry, the Community College District will be forced, for the good of our constituents, to proceed with full legal recourse, to protect the assets from which the local students should be entitled to benefit. In closing, I would submit, that every new redevelopment project initiated within the county of Ventura has negotiated a pass through agreement with the College District on a good faith basis. The College District has taken pride in being fair and reasonable in these negotiations. I would suggest that it would only be wise, fair and appropriate for the City of Moorpark to provide for their citizenry who attend Moorpark College with an amicable agreement, in the same spirit that Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks deemed appropriate. a B.Attached hereto as attachment No. 2 and incorporated herein by reference is a letter received by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") and the City of Moorpark (the "City ") from Mr. Richard Wittenberg, Chief Administrative Officer for the County of Ventura (the "County ") in connection with the proposed Moorpark Redevelopment Project (the "Project "). In such letter, the County has stated that the Project will impose a significant financial burden on the County of Ventura. The City Council's response to this letter is presented below: With regard to the County's reference to Health and Safety Code subdivision (d)(12) of Section 33367 requiring that the ordinance enacting the Redevelopment Plan contain the finding and determination that "the effect of the increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from a project area..." the following facts are paramount: 1) letters were mailed (certified) to all affected taxing agencies on February 3 and February 9, and March 15, 1989 requesting that representatives of all affected taxing entities meet with Agency staff to discuss the Plan and the allocation of taxes, pursuant to Section 33670 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL). The County did not request a meeting.time with the Agency to discuss the Plan and the allocation of taxes. 2) Agency staff held an open invitation fiscal consultation meeting on March 3, 1989 which was not attended by a representative of the County's Administrative Office. However, this meeting was attended by the County Flood Control and Library Districts; no further communication was received from County officials. In fact, aside from the initial fiscal consultation meeting attended by the County Flood Control and County Library Districts, the County has not responded to any Agency communications regarding the review and mitigation of alleged fiscal impacts. 3) No reasonable agreements have been proposed. The County contends that because the Project Area is in excess of 8% of the City's sphere of influence that it must receive a 100$ tax increment pass- through (letter addressed to Steve Kueny, February 9, 1989). 4) The Agency has been frustrated in its attempts to negotiate with the County and is concerned that the County has not utilized administrative remedies as established in the CCRL to work with the Agency in mitigating purported fiscal impacts. These remedies include fiscal review, fiscal consultations, input into the Draft EIR, Draft Plan and Preliminary Report. 5) Because the County has not utilized these legal provisions, whereby, the County can present evidence of alleged significant fiscal detriment and negotiate appropriate tax share agreements with the Agency, the County has not demonstrated a good faith effort at working with the Agency to find ways of alleviating purported fiscal detriment. The Agency has documented a significant effort to communicate and work with the County to mitigate potential fiscal impacts; the County has not responded to those efforts. /0. The Agency has been and will continue to be available for negotioations with all taxing entities with respect to the Plan and the allocation of taxes. Should negotiations reveal a significant fiscal impact, the Agency is anxious to implement the appropriate fiscal remedy. The City Council does not believe that the County drafted resolution, included with its June 7, 1989 letter, constitutes a fair and reasonable tax share offer. attachment No. 2 11 • CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Wft veltu m Richard Wittenberg er Chief Administrative e Officer June 7, 1989 Moorpark City Council 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Attention: Steve Kueny, City Manager Re: Moorpark Redevelopment Project Dear Council: We understand the city is now in its redevelopment plan. As indicated Mr. Kueny of February 9, 1989, the Col joint resolution that provides a pass Mont from the Redevelopment Agency to dependent districts. Robert C. Hirienswiner Asfiitant Chief Administrative Offlrar the process of adopting in our letter to anty is submitting a through of tax incre- the County and County- The proposed Moorpark Redevelopment Project will impose a significant financial burden on the County of Ventura during the life of the project. As pointed out on page 171 of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (draft EXR) the growth inducing nature of the redevelopment project will result in acceleration of population and housing growth. The draft EIR states that the degree of increase is indeter- minable at this time. The County of Ventura will have to provide services for this increased growth, however large. The additional services which the County of Ventura will have to provide are in the areas of but not limited to: public health; indigent medical care; mental health; protective services for abused and neglected children; welfare; criminal Justice, including courts (operation and development), District Attorney, Public Defender, jails and other custody facilities and probation; property assessment; recordation; maintenance and operation of flood control channels, public libraries, and fire stations, etc. The provisions of these increased services will be a significant financial burden upon the County of Ventura. The County will have to provide these services to the growth in population resulting from the growth - inducing nature of the redevelopment plan for a period of 45 years while its revenue from the project area is frozen. RECEIVED 800 South Vic'. ....ver}ie. V"nt,!r; 9.',:C� ;f?:;5i 654-2680 ATSS 723 -2680 JUN 7 09 subdivision (d)(12) of section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code requires that the ordinance enacting the redevel- opment plan contain the finding and determination that tJhe effect of the tax increment financing will not cause a s�g- nificant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from a project area. . . ." Because of the growth - inducing nature of the Moorpark Redevelopment Project, this finding cannot be made with respect to the County of Ventura or its dependent districts unless some agreement is reached to eliminate the increased financial burden which will result. At page 49 of the draft EIR it is stated that with respect to mitigating measures that the Moorpark Redevelop- ment Agency shall enter into financial agreements with any taxing agency demonstrating a significant financial burden occurring as a result of the project. The increased services having to be provided by the County and its dependent dis- tricts as a result of the growth- inducing nature of the project is obvious and self- evident. Only the extent of the accelerated growth, as noted in the draft EIR, is not capable of present determination. Because the impact on the County of Ventura would undoubtedly be similar to the impact of other redevelopment projects within the County, enclosed is a resolution similar to those adopted with other cities on their redevelopment projects. If the Redevelopment Agency fails to enter into the required agreement with'the County and the County - dependent districts, the County elects to be allocated all tax revenues allocated to the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency pursuant to subdivisions (b) of section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code attributable to the increases set forth in both sub- divisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) of section 33676 of the Health and Safety Code. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 652 -2681 or Marty Shaw - Halloway at 654 - 2864. Sincerely, RICHARD WITTEMBERG Chief Administrative officer DJM:MSH:bl c s ��a7'm�J°q I�. 13, JOINT RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF VENTURA COUNTY AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE THE CITY OF MOORPARK, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK AND THE COUNTY OF VENTURA REGARDING PASS - THROUGH OF TAX INCREMENTS DUE FROM MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark (hereafter referred to as Agency) has initiated proceedings for the Redevelopment Project pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code 33000 et. seq.); and WHEREAS, the proposed plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project contemplates use of the tax increment provisions of California Community Redevelopment Law to achieve the Plan *s goals; and WHEREAS, Section 33326 of the Health and Safety Code that the Agency consult with each taxing agency which levies taxes on property in the project area; and Whereas, the County of Ventura (hereafter referred to as County) will continue to be required to provide regional governmental services to the present population of the Moorpark Redevelopment Project and to the growth in population resulting from the growth inducing nature of the Moorpark Redevelopment Project. WHEREAS, the area included in the Moorpark Redevelopment Project (1200 acres) does cause the total redevelopment project area within the City to be greater than 8% of the City of Moorpark's Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the County General Fund will be required to provide regional services to the present population of the Moorpark Redevelopment project and to the growth in population resulting from the growth inducing nature of the Moorpark Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, the Ventura County Fire Protection District and Ventura County Library Services District will continue to provide services in the areas and WHEREAS, Flood Control District 3 has required an infusion of over a million dollars of local funds for flood damage repairs and five hundred thousand dollars for operational expenses in recent years; and WHEREAS, a bond financing program for improvement and expansion of the flood control channel system within Zone 3 is underway,; and /y Moorpark Redevelopment Resolution Paige -2- WHEREAS, the provision of such services is provided by taxes paid by all County residents (whether living in the incorporated or unincorporated area); and WHEREAS, continuing to provide such services for the duration of the Moorpark Redevelopment Project (45 years) with the same level of property tax revenue received in 1988 would place a financial burden on the County and Flood Control District; and WHEREAS, the Agency, the County, and the City of Moorpark wish to address pass- through of tax increments due the Agency. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, AND THE COUNTY OF VENTURA HEREBY RESOLVE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: =ION 1. The Agency shall annually pass- through to the County General Fund 26.8% of all tax increments payable to the Agency from Moorpark Redevelopment Project. SECTION 2. The Agency shall annually pass- through 17.2% to the Fire Protection District. SECTION 3. The Agency shall annually pass- through 2.0% to the Library Services Agency. SECTION 4. The Agency annually pass - through to the Flood Control District 1.68 of the tax increment revenue generated from it tax levy for the subject area, SECTION 5 The Agency shall annually pass- through to the Flood Control District the full increment due the Agency for debt service on Zone 3 bonds. &F.j=JQH §2- The County's, the Flood Control, Fire Protection and Library Districts' percent pass- through each year shall be computed after deducting 20% of all tax increments payable to the Agency as a set aside for low and moderate income housing, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2, from said increments available that year. If the Agency ever determines not to use any portion of the monies set aside for low and moderate income housing purposes for such purposes, it shall forthwith pay into the County General Fund 26.8 percent, into the Flood Control District 1.6 percent, into Fire Protection District 17.2 percent, into the Library Services District 2.0 percent of any unused portion. The Agency is not hereby precluded from accumulating such monies until such time as it either uses them for low and moderate income housing purposes or determines not to do so; however, the Redevelopment Agency shall provide the County of Ventura Chief Administrative office by June 30 of each year a written report of such action during the preceding 12 months, indicating the amount of monies set aside, the expenditure made and total balance of such monies being held for this pirpose. iS-. Moorpark Redevelopment Resolution Page -3- SECTION 7. In reliance upon and in consideration of this pass- through agreement, the County is foregoing its rights to file legal actions challenging adoption of the Moorpark Redevelopment Project, it being expressly understood and agreed by the entities adopting this joint resolution of agreement that none of the provisions hereof may be disregarded, changed or eliminated nor may the length of the project be extended or other terms or provisions of the project be amended except with the express written consent of each entity through the concurrent adoption of an amended agreement. SECTION 8. The Ventura county Auditor - Controller is hereby authorized to process the annual tax increments for the subject Project to allow for the pass- through shares pursuant to Sections 1 through 6 of this agreement. An executed copy of this resolution of agreement shall be submitted to the County Auditor - Controller shall make the appropriate increment payment adjustments as provided herein. SECTION 9. This resolution of agreement is binding upon and for the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, assignees and successors. PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 1989. CHAIR, SUSAN K. LACEY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF VENTURA PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk /Agency Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Agency Counsel mrpkreso /msh /im APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /6 . C. Attached hereto as attachment No. 3 and incorporated herein by reference, is the letter received by the Koorpark Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") and the city of Moorpark (the "City ") from Mr. Tom Kimberling, vice Chancellor for Administrative services for the Ventura County Community College District (the "District "). This letter was received as an objection to the Agency's Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR") and the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan ") for the proposed Moorpark Redevelopment Project (the "Project "). The Agency forwarded to all taxing entities, on November 17, 1988, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL) notice that it was preparing an EIR for the proposed Project. The District responded to that notice with a letter dated December 12, 1988. While page two of the letter referenced materials forwarded to Urban Futures, Inc., no record of those materials can be found in Urban Futures, files. It is possible that these materials were inadvertently left out of the correspondence as no enclosure is indicated on page three of the December 12 correspondence. The Agency received no comments from the District on the Draft EIR transmitted to all affected taxing entities on March 17, 1989 by certified mail, return receipt requested. It is the Agency's responsibility to respond to all comments received on the Draft EIR and to revise findings and conclusions as necessary. without input from those entities that receive the Draft document the Agency has no way of identifying inconsistencies or inadequacies. The Agency has, as a condition of Project approval, recommended the following mitigation measure which will permit various agreements between the Agency and the District to off -set. any demonstrated impacts caused by Project related enrollment increases: 1. Establishment of hold harmless or indemnification agreements, or other Agency /District Cooperative Agreements that can be executed any time that a documented impact according to the California Community Redevelopment Law can be shown to exist by the District. Documentation of the loss of revenue submitted to the Agency, along with a request by the District to pursue such agreements, can be a part of the Agency's annual budget. Such an agreement can be considered a potential mitigation measure if and when a documented impact exists which is a result of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and /or its implementation. Any commitment of the Agency to mitigate District impacts must be based upon a consummated agreement between the Agency and the District, documentation of actual impact, and justification that said impact is due to the implementation of the Plan and /or the financing mechanism permitted by law and the constitution. Examples of cooperative agreements might include, but not be limited to, student housing, school impact fees, tax increment pass- through agreements, and construction of capital facilities. r. Future growth occurring within the Project Area could impact the Ventura Community College District at some future time during the life of the 45 year Plan. However, because of an unknown development schedule, lack of a definitive projects list or specific project development plans and the abscense of an absolute funding source, it is impossible to accurately quantify the impact at this time. Any replacement or increase of enrollment generated as a result of the proposed Plan's implementation would be based upon the rata of growth and development of the City as permitted within the City's General. Plan, and future average family size. The proposed Plan is a tool helping the city to implement the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan. The Plan does not establish a future ratio of growth or development approach. As with the General Plan, the impact of the rate of growth is a dynamic variable which must be reviewed regularly. The appropriate analysis of these growth dynamics upon the District must therefore be made from time to time as projects related to the proposed Plan are implemented. The Agency will have to rely upon documentation of significant fiscal impacts presented to it by the District to determine appropriate fiscal remedies for those impacts. Agency records indicate that the District met with Agency staff on April 3, 1989; times for additional meetings were not established at that time. The Agency has been, and will continue to be available for further negotiations with the District, whereby, the District may demonstrate the alleged significant fiscal impacts of the proposed Project upon its facilities. attachment No. 3 MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Good Evening. I am Tom Kimberling, Vice Chancellor for Administrative services for the Ventura county community College District. As a representative for the District, I am here to formally object to the Final Environment Impact Report for the prcposed Moorpark Redevelopment Plan and object to the proposed Redevelopment Plan itself. Relative to the Environmental Impact Report, the District objects to the lack of attention given the impact the Redevelopment Plan wi]1 have on the District. In the Environmental Impact Report., the District is referenced only in two shoat paragraphic on page 142. That reference recognizes that the District operates three (3) community colleges in the County and that two of those collages, speGifioally Moorpark and Oxnard, are within close proadmity to the proposed Project Area. Further, that the average age of students served by the District is thirty (30) and that one out of nine people attend a community college. No mention is made within the report as to any impact on the Community College District. General statements are included as to the impact or lack of same on the Moorpark Unified School District. our District believes the Redevelopment Plan will impact us. The projects that are described in the Plan will attract industry, commerce and residential development within and proximate to the Project Area. As such, it wiU, lead to an increase in enrollment at the Moorpark campus. At this time, the Moorpark campus is over capacity. That is, we don't have enough facilities to handle our current students let alone increased enrollments resulting from an expanded population base. Therefore, increased enrollments will require additional facilities to support our educational and support service needs. In terms of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the District also objects. We do not believe that we have had adequate =1su tation with the city and other individuals involved with the Plan to properly determine the fiscal impact upon the District,. We have only had one brief meeting with Mr. Rueny and representatives from Urban Futures to review the Plan and discuss potential mitigation to the District. During that meeting it was indicated that the Redevelopment Agency had no reluctance to establish a trust fund for the District if an agreement could be arranged. Subsequently the District provided a draft resolution of agreement for consideration by the Redevelopment Agency and City to establish a pass through of tax increment to the District that would otherwise be lost as a result of the formation of the Recevelopment Agency. To date we have not received a formal response to the proposal. V With the passage of Proposition 98, Community College and Kindergarten through 12th grade funding is adversely affected by the loss of property tax revenues to existing and new redevelopment agencies. As such, our District will lose a portion of financial support by the formation of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, we object to adoption of the proposed Plan until a suitable agreement can be arranged that will insure the District will maintain the tax increments it would have otherwise received had the Redevelopment Plan not been implemented. Thank you. mks /mpkredv2 dkll D. Attached hereto as attachment No. 4 and incorporated herein by reference, is the letter received by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") and the City of Moorpark (the "City ") from the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District (the "District ") regarding the proposed Moorpark Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan ") . Although the District has not directly stated an objection to the proposed Plan, the City Council has treated the above described letter as a written objection and the City Council's response is stated below: This letter, dated June 9, 1989 was received after the closing of the Public Hearing for the Moorpark Redevelopment Plan (June 7, 1989). Therefore, pursuant to Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the City Council is not legally required to make a written response. However, in the spirit of cooperation, the following response is presented: Letters were mailed (certified) to all affected taxing entities on February 3 and February 9, 1989 and March 15, 1989 requesting that all affected taxing entities meet with Agency staff to discuss the Plan and the allocation of taxes, pursuant to Section 33670 of the California Community Redevelopment Law. Agency staff held a general consultation meeting on March 3, 1989 which was attended by representatives of the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District. However, no conclusive tax share agreement has been negotiated; ro proposal has been brought forth by the District as of this date. However, the Agency is willing, as it has been in the past, to cooperate in negotiations and to remedy, to the best of its ability, documented significant fiscal impact upon the District that is directly related to the implementation of the proposed Moorpark Redevelopment Project. .?a. attachment No. 4 MOORPARK MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 62 MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93020 805 529 -0267 June 9, 1989 Honorable Mayor Eloise Brown City Council City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 RE: Fiscal impact of the Moorpark Redevelopment Project on the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District Dear Mayor Brown: Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the City Council, which is the Redevelopment Agency, at the public hearing and first reading of the Redevelopment Plan on June 7, 1989. Representing the Board of Trustees of the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District. In answer to your request for further information regarding service to the Redevelopment Project area, I have included this specific information and also a more descriptive justification of our concerns. This District has received and recorded no less than fifteen formal requests for service from the Project area in the last twelve months. This is 36% of the total formal requests within the District, although the acreage of the Project area is only 7% of the District.. The number and type of requests are significant and proportionally higher than the number received from the District as a whole. There was also a significant number of "word of mouth" nuisance complaints. One of our main concerns is that the level of our service to the public remain high and equitable. We fear that the use of our property tax base in an increasing annual amount will result in the cutting of needed services in order to meet our future budget. we also are concerned that property taxpayers from outside the Project area might have to pay for services delivered within the project area. As the Project area consists of older properties and a far denser population, the demand for services is high and will continue to grow. For example, swimming pools tend to be more frequently neglected, resulting in a neighborhood mosquito problem, and garbage is less likely to be bagged and wrapped, resulting in neighborhood fly problems. A second concern is that the nature of our business, operating under Section 2200 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code as a public health vector control agency requires that we be prepared to deal. with emergencies, with enough reserve funds to quickly hire personnel, and purchase materials and machinery to ro::trcl. vastly .increased populations nF eli cozca - e nrriYi -,-n r,r(7nn' cr;c nn r- •) - r•t (• - ti'- r-) -r»rk rf-.si r5rnt-, fr(-)m The potential for one or more floods high, which would result in producing la; including those that can transit malaria District was prepared and active in 1986 from an employee strike at Egg City, and were reported from just outside our City a3. within the life of the Project is rge numbers of mosquitoes, and viral encephalitis. This when a fly explosion resulted in 1987 when two cases of malaria limits in Simi Valley. In addition to the mosquito -borne diseases mentioned, there is a continued threat from flies which can carry the pathogens that cause hepatitis, typhus fever, cholera, anthrax,poliomyelitis, myiasis, intestinal worms, salmonella, dysentery, diarrhea and other enteric human and animal diseases. Flea -borne plague and tick -borne Lyme disease are a threat to this region, and this District would be involved with State and County Health authorities to prevent their spread if they should occur in the Moorpark area. The demands for our service come from the citizens complaining about nuisance problems at their home, businesses and neighborhoods. Our service is directly related to protecting the health of people and their environment. Thus, the more people the more demand for our services. Redevelopment could result in increased housing units, more residents, more visitors, more water use, more animals, more vegetation and more breeding sites for nuisance and vector organisms. The protection of the public's health is an important duty which we are empowered to perform for everyone's benefit. An area or city where insects, rats or other organisms cause discomfort and disease, sees fewer visitors, a decrease in property values and a depression of the local economy. The past few years have seen increases in such vector -borne diseas as urban viral encephalitis (which affects the young and the elderly), introduced malaria, typhus, Lyme disease and Bubonic plague. California is now, or will soon be, subject to new species of harmful insects. African12ed "killer" bees, the Asian tiger mosquito, and Chrysomya blowflies. Trends are going toward more confined animals and more residential, recreational and landscaping water sources which will increase the volume down the Arroyo Simi. All of which will far outweigh any improvement in drainage created by redevelopment public works projects. Moorpark's population is now denser, therefore more prone to vector -borne disease outbreaks, and the "urban" residents are more sensitive to rural pests. The population of Moorpark has increased approximately 165% since 1980, with an average annual rate of about 15 %. This District will still be expected to service the Redevelopment area, with a greater vector control workload, but without the revenues generated by its development. Revenues to this District are now adequate but what of the future? Recent District area growth has necessitated a second full -time employee. Soon others may be necessary. Besides the growth expected within the Redevelopment area, other residential tracts are being added, and there are three parks planned within this District (Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, Arroyo Vista "69 Acre" Park, and west Village Park), all with water impoundments, and a settlement basin irl west Village. The two sewer treatment- nlnnt-s are exnandino with �ev(�rnl new ponds, and there are rumors of another landfill in the District. Conditions demand that this District upgrade its service, not cut back. If we fail in our task of eliminating and reducing these harmful organisms, Moorpark would once again become a poor environment in which to live, work and play. It is important for the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency to help prevent the District's revenue decay. This action will prevent a severe impact to the service capabilities of the District as a whole as well as to the project area. When development does not take place, excessive service demands will not occur. However this area will grow regardless of the aid of redevelopment, since Moorpark is an attractive location for residents and visitors alike. A preliminary analysis of this project shows that our District's capacity to continue to provide the same level of service to citizens of Moorpark and environs will be seriously affected due to increased service demands and fewer dollars that will be used to provide for service needs in the future. Our District's only source of revenue is ad valorem property taxes collected within our District's boundaries. We do not receive revenues from the State of California or the Federal Government. Since we are a non - enterprise special district, we have no means of charging a fee for our services as enterprise special districts are allowed to do. The Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District will aggressively pursue the- retention of its incremental share. We wish to retain the standard inflationary amount of tax increment (based on increases in assessed value of property up to 2% of the base year) and preserve any revenue from increases in the yearly rate of tax and additional pass - through amounts up to 100% of our share. The Board of Trustees of the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District wishes to remind the Moorpark City officials that the healthful environment of our community depends largely upon the unique service which we provide, and make proper arrangements to help alleviate the financial detriment this project will cause to our District. Sincerely. f4- ' Paul L. Bindin District Manager CC: Urban Futures Incorporated The Ventura Courity Aucitor- Control.lf:r E. Attached hereto as attachment No. 5 and incorporated herein by reference, is the letter received by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") and the City of Moorpark (the "City ") from Mr. Thomas Duffy, District Superintendent for the Moorpark Unified school District (the "District ") in connection with the proposed Moorpark Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan "). Responses to General objections to the Redevelopment Plan; 1. Conditions that define blight in accordance with section 33352 of the California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) are documented in the Preliminary Reiport, February 1989 on pages 8 -66. The conditions described therein do constitute "blight" according to Section 33352 of the CHSC. 2. The Agency disagrees because of the overall reduction of availability in general Federal Revenue Sharing and miscellaneous HCDA Block Grant programs resulting from the direction taken by federal legislation. General fund and gas tax revenues have been specifically allocated to maintenance type projects and have not been available for construction or for projects specifically related to economic development. 3. Redevelopment funds cannot be used in any manner which the City chooses. These funds must be dispersed for purposes specified in Redevelopment Procedures and Activities, Chapter 4, Articles 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11. Responses to Specific Regponses to Radeyelopmen Plan: 1. Traditionally, Redevelopment Agencies in the State of California have addressed the probability of changes to the State Constitution concerned with changing school district reimbursement formula by providing for a payment to a district of any loss incurred as a result of said state law changes. Many redevelopment agencies have provided for specific formulas in agreements to mitigate any unforeseen significant fiscal impacts. 2. The EIR explains that long -term growth in the Project Area cannot be wholly attributed to the Project. Absent the Project, growth will inevitably occur. Such growth will be driven by national and local economic conditions as well as local birthrates. However, the Project will indirectly contribute to growth through housing rehabilitation and other development programs. In addition, through infrastructure improvements and other development programs, the Project may accelerate growth and may attract some regional growth to the Project Area that would otherwise not have located there. PUP. Evan without a quantitative analysis, however, the EIR is able to conclude that no matter how much growth is accelerated, and no matter how much regional growth is attracted to the Project Area, project - driven growth will not exceed zoning and general plan restrictions and will occur over a long -term period. Therefore, the impacts upon the District will not be significant because growth inducing projects will occur over the life of the Plan (45 years) . It is expected that District services and facilities will grow incrementally to accommodate project - related and city -wide growth, therefore, related impacts should not be significant. 3. Regional and local growth attracted to the Project Area as a result of redevelopment activities will not exceed zoning and General Plan restrictions, and will occur over a long period of time. Therefore, the increase in recreational demand generated by potential population increases should not be significant. Responses to Comments on SpRcific Pgolects Proposed by the Redevelopment Agency: 1. Because provision within the Plan for development of new infrastructure and /or rehabilitation of exisiting infrastructure is merely one variable that influence growth, and because the impossible to forecast with reasonable impossible, or at least misleading, to upon schools from growth caused by the rehabilitation of infrastructure. among many variables other variables are accuracy, it would be quantify the impact provision and 2. Rehabilitation means the restoration, refurbishing and /or upgrading of the structural or aesthetic integrity of an existing building. The impact from this process may attract new residents and /or businesses because of a more attractive and economically viable environment. However, this increase in population and /or economic activity is impossible to quantify at this time. However, rehabilitation will have less direct growth inducing impacts than newly constructed units. Replacement housing will have the same general impact as rehabilitation. The development of low and moderate income housing will likely produce an increase in school age population. However, this increase in population is impossible to accurately quantify at this time, due to the unknown development schedule and availability of financing. The Agency will work with the District to *valuate future impacts caused by Plan associated growth it and when such growth occurs and related fiscal impacts are documented by the District. 3. To the extent that land write -down programs, land assembly and assistance for infrastructural improvements are growth inducing will again depend upon both economic conditions and the other local and regional variables in the area. Please gee response #1 under Specific Projects. 4. The CCRL does not permit the Agency to use tax increment funds to pay for police personnel protection services. The law does permit the Agency to provide needed community facilities. 5. The impacts of growth inducing projects are noted in the EIR. The determination of whether such impacts are "significant" must be based upon guidance provided within the CEQA Guidelines and the goals and desires of the community in which those impacts occur. Therefore, while impacts must be documented to the extent feasible, it is perfectly appropriate to use the Community's goals and objectives as set forth in the General Plan as a basis for determining whether an impact will be positive or adverse. The EIR did not recommend "mitigation measures" within the meaning of CEQA because the EIR concludes that the Project will not have a " significant" impact upon schools. Therefor., no mitigation measures need to be recommended. However, the EIR has gone beyond CEQA requirements and recommended a measure which could be implemented in order to reduce „non- significant" impacts which may occur from the Project. r as- �l1 - . UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, California 930ZI June 7, 1989 Mr. Steve Kueny, City Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mr. Kueny: attachment No. 5 (805) 5Z9 -1149 RECEIVED JUN 7 09 Ck of Moorpark It is the purpose of this communication to identify objections to the redevelopment plan and to the environmental impact study developed by the City of Moorpark. General Objections to the Redevelopmen- Plan: 1. The project area is not blighted in accordance with the conditions of the Safety Code. 2. Many of the improvements identified could be financed by the City directly without having to capture income provided to other public entities from the property tax. Those improvements include more specifically the community' facilities and infrastructure development refrenced in the Plan. 3. Very few specifics have been set forth by the City within the Plan. The Plan apparently has been structured in such a way as to allow for Redevelopment Funds to be used in any manner which the City chooses. The "broadbrush" approach allows for the potential of impacts upon the School District which cannot be anticipated. Specific objections to Redevelopment Plan 1. Prior to the passage of Proposition 98 in November of 1988 under the law school districts who lost income from property taxes resulting from the creation of redevelopment agencies were reimbursed by the State of California in order to allow their income level to remain the same. The passage of Proposition 98 has brought. new cuestions to bear upon the -29• Mr. Steve Kueny June 7, 1989 Page 2 issue of reimbursement by the State. Depending upon the legislative interpretation of Proposition 98, school districts throughout the State of California may experience an aggregate loss of income as a result of the creation of new r development agencies and the continued existance of older redevelopment agencies. Recognizing that redevelopment agenci s are established for periods of time that extend as many a forty (40) years into the future, the interpretation of Propo ition 98 as well as other statutory changes could result in such losses of income, by reason of tax increment financing, may have drastic effects upon the operations of School Districts Statewide. In order to protect the Moorpark Unified School District this issue must be addressed. 2. The very nature of redevelopment and many of the objectives of the proposed redevelopment agency in Moorpark will have growth inducing effects. The School District has estimated the cost in capital outlay funds necessary to adequately house each new student resulting from new housing units and commercial /industrial development. The District has established that each new student will create a cost equaling $8,636. (This figure does not include the cost of interim housing, but only the cost of permanent housing.) In addition to the capital outlay expenditures that will be necessary for each new student, the District has estimated that for every 30 new students a cost of $39,950 for elementary and a cost of $41,270 for high school students will be required in order to hire new teachers, transport students, provide textbooks and instructional supplies and other supports necessary for the educational program. This impact on the School District should be given careful consideration in that this will bring about an ongoing annual expenditure. 3. The School District has historically provided for recreational needs of the community at its various campuses. This has continued since the incorporation of the City. The Casey Road site, the Chaparral Middle School site and Flory School are all within the redevelopment area and have provided substantial support to the community and to the City in particular with regard to its recreational programs. The District has experienced an increase in demands for those facilities as the population of the City has increased and expects `h.jt with redevelopment further increase in demands will b(� erne: it:n<-ed 'oy the District. Mr. Steve Kueny June 7, 19e9 Page 3 resources are not further eroded in meeting a demand which is a responsibility of the City. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Infrastructure A. Improvements of this nature are indirectly growth producing. The existing housing and facilities which will be upgraded may contribute to impacts upon the School District because of demands for existing housing. 2. Housing Program A. Rehabilitation - There is an uncertainty of impact from this program. B. Replacement Housing - Possible increases in population may occur with the replacement of dilapidated structures. This, in effect, will provide more attractive dwelling units which will be much more. marketable. C. Development of Low and Moderate Income /Senior Housing - This housing program will produce an increase in school age population. Senior housing development will produce an increase in service businesses in the area which will create a demand for new and existing housing which may have an impact on the schools. 3. Community Development Programs A land write -down program, land assembly assistance and infrastructure assistance will contribute to an increase in students. Such programs contribute to commercial and industrial development which brings about a demand for new employees who have children who impact the schools. These programs also create jobs for construction workers and truck drivers. This is like an industry. It is growth enhancing, causinq a need for housing and contributing to an increase in students to the schools. Mr. Steve Kueny June 7, 1989 Page 4 4. Community Facilities These are city services which should be provided by the City, not other agencies through the capturing of income from the property tax. The provision of services such as police protection and park and recreation facilities and services, should be supported through the City's general fund. The EYR is faulty in that it fails to recognize or provide proper mitigation measures to protect the School District from the adverse effects of the Redevelopment project as outlined above. Si TGD:jz ly, TGD:Kueny -6-5 3/. F. Attached hereto as attachment No. 6 and incorporated herein by reference is a letter dated May 25, 1989 submitted to members of the Moorpark City Council (the "City Council ") by Mr. Milton M. Adelman, Attorney's for the Moorpark Partnership. (See also the attached letter submitted by Mr. Tom Schleve received by the City on June 14, 1989.) This letter, while not written as a formal objection to the proposed Moorpark Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan ") is being treated as such by the City Council, pursuant to Sections 33363 and 33364 of the California Public Health and Safety Code. The City Council's Response is as follows: Mr. Adelman, in behalf of the Moorpark Partnership (Kornwasser) , in requesting that the City Council exclude from the boundaries of the proposed Project Area the approximate 71 acre parcel (the "subject property ") owned by the Moorpark Partnership (Kornwasser) the subject property is the subject of a development proposal currently being considered in connection with the proposed general plan Amendment. The subject property is described as lines 75 through 81 of the Project Area Map. The inclusion of the subject property within the proposPri Project does not impact the status of the properties plan land use designation or its zoning classification as they now exist or as amended from time to time. There is no cause for concern that the "Project Area boundaries appears to be inconsistent with the pending development proposal." The Plan will always be consistent with the City of Moorpark's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; the Plan does not affect land use designations. Section 552 of the Plan states the following: All development within the Project Area shall be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City, as amended from time to time. Section 523 states: New improvements in this (Project] area shall be reviewed in accordance with all of the City's Zoning, building, housing and environmental ordinances, rules, regulations and requirements... The Agency has included the subject property within the boundaries of the Project because they were found to be necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire Project. Section 33321 of the California Public Health and Safety Code states the following: A project area need not be restricted to buildings, improvements, or lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part... The City Council, based upon the evidence included within Mr. Adelman's May 25, 1989 correspondence, does not see sufficient grounds to warrant the exclusion of the subject property from the boundaries of the Project. 06'21 $g 1:: a =� +`.• _ -Q f I i',' OF Mf,0A'FuRk 02 attachment f ADELMAN & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEvS AND COUNSELORS MILTON M. AOELMAN 9595 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ADEPT L. SCHWARTZ oF97 -19001 NINTH FLOOR pOO�nT ^0ELMAN BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 -2594 TFLE ^HONE 1213) 273 -4711 May 25, 1989 Eloise Brown, Mayor Bernardo M. Perez, Mayor Pro Tem Clint Harper, Ph D, Councilmember Paul Lawrason, Councilmember Scott Montgomery, Councilmember City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: Moorpark Redevelopment Project Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: We have reviewed the proposed Project Area Map for the Redevelopment Agency and find that the boundary as described in lines 75 through 81 of the map encompass a portion of an approximate 71 acre parcel owned by Moorpa- rk Partnership (Kornwasser). The 71 acres in question are the subject of a development proposal authored by Tom Schleve which is currently being considered in connection with the proposed general plan amendment. The inclusion of a portion of the 71 acres within the Project Area Boundaries appears to be inconsistent with the pending development proposal. in view of the pending proposed general plan amendment, zone change and planned development permit applications for the 71 acres, the Project Area Boundaries should not include any portion of the 71 acres at this time. Accordingly, we request that lines 75 through 81 of the Project Area Map be changed to avoid including any part of the property in question. MMA /rk CC: Moorpark Partnership Very truly yours, I lLTON M. ADELMAN Attorneys for Moorpark Partnership RECEIVED 06/21/89 11153 E 805 529 8270 CITY OF MOORPARK 92 Tom Schleve P.O. Box 610 Moorpark, Ca. 93020 City of Moorpark 799 - Moorpark , Ave . Moorpark, Ca. 93021 Re: Proposed Redevelopment Agency Boundary_ Dear Council I have pending with the City of Moorpark a development proposal for 71. acres of land presently owners by Moorpark Partnership (the Rornwasser property). The Redevelopment Agency's proposed Project Area Boundaries, in particular lines 75 through 81 of the Project Area Map, include a portion of the 71 acres which has been designated in my development proposal as a community park. While it may ultimately be feasible to have a proposed community park within the Project Area, it appears to be inappropriate to include any - portion of the 71 acres within the Redevelopment Agency boundaries at this time. a. the general plan amendment process should be concluded before the Redevelopment Agency makes any determination regarding the inclusion of any portion of the 71 acres within the Project Area. when the city has determined the disposition of my general plan amendment, zone change and planned development permit applications, we will have a better understanding of the possible future uses of the property in question. Accordingly, I respectfully request that all 71 acres of the Moorpark Partnership (Kornwasser) property be excluded from the Redevelopment Agency project area. S ncer ly TOM SCHLEVE RECEIVEI tatai 4 L 4M