HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 0525 CC ADJ ITEM 11AJOHN PATRICK LANE
Mayor
ELOISE BROWN
Mayor Pro Tern
JOHN GALLOWAY
Council member
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
BERNARDOM. PEREZ
Councilmember
MAUREEN W. WALL
City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MOORPARK
MEMORANDUM
ITEM II.It.
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYLJ. KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
A. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
THOMAS P. GENOVESE
City Treasurer
The Honorable City Council ~
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development' ~,J
May 20, 1988
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORDINANCE
Background
In March of this year a draft of a Comprehensive Planning
Ordinance was introduced to the City by a group of citizens.
Councilmember Harper brought the matter to the attention of the
City Council at their meeting of April 6, 1988. The Council set
April 20th as a date to discuss the draft CPO. The matter was not
considered by the Council and continued to April 27th. At the
April 27th meeting the Council directed the Planning Commission to
review the draft CPO and make a recommendation. On May 2, 1988
the Planning Commission had requested staff to place the matter on
their May 16, 1988 agenda.
The Planning Commission renewed a portion of the draft CPO at
their meeting of May 16, 1988 and are scheduled to meet again to
review the matter on May 23, 1988.
Summary of Planning Commission Meeting of May 16,__ 1988
Staff gave a brief summary presentation of the draft CPO and
explained various attachments provided by City staff. The
Commission was presented with a copy of the Chamber of Commerce
letter stating their opposition to the draft CPO.
PJR: rl
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
=======================================
CPOF/PCAGENDA
..
May 20, 1988
Page 2
The Commission opened the public hearing and eight persons spoke
on the matter. Five of the eight spoke in opposition to the draft
and only three spoke in favor of it. Of those who spoke against
the CPO, most were in favor of Part 11 which called for the
establishment of various ordinances to protect or regulate special
interest the City has considered for some time.
One of those speaking against the CPO was Paul Tryon from the
B. I.A.
The Commission split their decisions of the matter into two parts.
First was to be a discussion of Part I. Part 11 will be considered
at the meeting of May 23rd.
Chairman Holland introduced the idea of an automatic update of the
general plan every four years with voter approval of the plan.
Commissioner Butcher voiced concerns related to the following:
1. What would the cost of multiple elections be?
2. Who determines the population? There appears to be a lot
of different numbers for the same item.
3. There is a need for more public input into the general
plan process.
Commissioner Montgomery promoted the idea that there should be a
provision for "smaller" general plan amendments (GPA). He
suggested a two (2) year review with the four (4) year general
plan update occurring at the time of general election.
The Commission members were concerned about multiple elections for
GPA's and what effect it would have on voter turn out.
The Commission discussed the matter at length and ended their
review with the following motions:
1. That periodic updates to the Ger.era! P!an be ~rcomplishPd
every four years (approved on a 5:0 vote).
2. That the update ever four years should be confirmed by
voter approval (approved by a 4: 1 vote, Commissioner
Butcher voting NO).
3. Amendments to the General Plan can occur between the
four year renewal periods by a 5:0 vote of the City
Council if such an amendment is less than a specified
criteria (yet to be identified) (approved on a 5:0 vote).
PJR:crl
CPOF/PCAGENDA
-..
May 20, 1988
Page 3
Commissioner Lawrason stated he wanted such "criteria" to be
legally defensible. The Commission directed staff to request an
opinion from the City Attorney so as to determine if Part I A. 1, 2
& 3 is defendable and if not, what alternatives are there.
There was no Commission support for Section B of Part I regarding
a population cap and suggested this section would be rendered mute
if Section A was in place.
Staff will provide the Council with the Commission's final
recommendations at your meeting of May 25, 1988.
Recommendation
Direct staff as deemed appropriate
PJR:crl
CPOF/PCAGENDA