HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1983 1221 CC REGMoorpark, California
December 21, 1983
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California,
was held on December 21, 1983, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of
said City, located at 799 (\-Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
I . CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p. m. , Mayor beta Yancy- Sutton
presiding.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pedge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Beaulieu.
3. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Beaulieu, Harper, Prieto, Straughan
and Mayor Yancy - Sutton;
ABSENT: None;
OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Niall Fritz, City
Manager /Director of Community Development; Mark Allen, Jr.,
City Attorney, and Scott Field, Attorney at Law, both from the law
firm of Burke, Williams and Sorensen; Lt. Arve Wells, from the
County Sheriff's Department; and Doris D. Bankus, City Clerk.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Councilmember Straughan, seconded by Councilmember
Beaulieu and unanimously carried that the minutes of the regular meeting
of the City Council held November 16, 1983, be approved as corrected.
By general consent the matter of the approval of the minutes of the Council
Meeting of December 7, 1983, was continued to the next meeting in order
for the City Clerk to insert, at the request of Councilmember Beaulieu,
his comments regarding his decision not to support the granting of PD -294
(Prudential Overall Supply).
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. A. Development Plan No. DP -294 (Prudential Overall Supply)
Resolution of Approval
The City Manager presented resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COIJNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, CER'T'IFYING THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO. DP -294, ON
APPLICATION OF PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY
which lie had been instructed to prepare, outlining; the conditions which had
been ordered to be a part of the resolution.
Councilmember Harper requested an interpretation of the motion which was
made at the meeting of December 7, 1983, in approving the permit and
directiig the preparation of the resolution of approval with specific language
to be provided on certain conditions, questioning if, in fact, it was the intent
of the maker of the motion to include the certification of the environmental
document at that time, to which the City Manager replied that it was his
interpretation that the motion to approve the permit did include the approval
of the environmental document.
Upon inquiry, Councilmember Straughan, the maker of the motion of approval
of the permit at the meeting of December 7, 1983, stated that at the time he
made the motion he did not take into account the environmental document,
inasmuch as he did not have it in front of him at that particular time. He
stated, further, that he has since reviewed parts of the environmental docu-
ment, and has some questions as to its adequacy, stating again that it was
not included in his motion.
Upon inquiry, the City Attorney stated that state law provides that the project
cannot be acted upon by the City Council unless the environmental document
has been certified as being adequate. He then advised that the matter be
reconsidered, and that the motion to reconsider be made by a member ci the
Council who had voted in favor of approval. He further advised that after
the approval of the motion to reconsider, the Council then consider the
environmental document in terms of its adequacy, and after that has been done,
return to the question of the granting or denying of the project. Ile stated
that Roberts Rules of Order prescribe that a matter may be reconsidered at
the same meeting or the next meeting, and that an action to reconsider would
be appropriate.
After discussion it was moved by Councilmember Straughan, seconded by
Councilmember Harper and unanimously carried that the matter of the
motion to approve PD -294, taken by the Council at its meeting of December 7,
1983, be reconsidered at this meeting.
It was then moved by Councilmember Harper, seconded by Councilmember
Straughan and unanimously carried that the matter be divided, that the
question of the adequacy of the environmental document be separated from
the approval or disapproval of the project.
It was moved by Councilmember Harper that the public hearing be re- opened
on both halves of the divided question.
-2-
The Citv Attorney then ruled that the environmental document is not a part
Of the public hearing, that the Council could consider that document at this
meeting and make a decision concerning; it and if it is found to be inadequate,
then Council action would end there; however, if the environmental document
is found to be adequato, then Council could proceed to consideration of the
project. Ile stated further that if the decision of the Council were to approve
the project at this meeting, he could see no problem with that, since that was
the previous action; however, if the decision of the Council is to disapprove
the project, that action could not be taken unless the applicant is present at
this meeting and given an opportunity to be heard. Ile advised setting the
entire matter for public hearing far enough in advance to enable the Clerk
to give notice to the applicant and the public.
Council member Harper then withdrew his motion.
There was discussion between the members of the Council and staff con-
cerning whether or not Council had been furnished a copy of the environmental
document in the original packet concerning the subject project. The City
Manager advised that City records indicate the document was furnished to
all members of the Council prior to the meeting of November 16, 1983;
however some members of the Council did not recall having seen it in the
pac ket.
It was then moved by Councilmember Straughan and seconded by Council -
member Harper that the entire matter be set for public hearing, to be held
January 18, 1984, at 7:00 p. m., and that notice of the hearing be published
in the Moorpark News and The Enterprise, that notice be posted in the three
public places in the City as designated by the Council by its Resolution No.
83 -12, adopted July 2, 1983, and that notice be mailed to all property owners
as required by law, as well as all property owners within 300 feet south of
the south side of Los Angeles Avenue from Buttercreek Road on the west to
Beltramo Ranch Road on the east, which would include the Buttercreek,
Heatherwood and Heather Glen area subdivisions.
At the suggestion of Councilmember Harper, Councilmember Straughan
included in his motion the provision that notice be mailed to the Homeowners'
Associations in the area.
It was then moved by Councilmember Beaulieu and seconded by Council -
member Prieto that the motion be amended to include the provision that
notice of the hearing also be mailed to property owners on Mira Sol Drive
within 300 feet south of the south side of Los Angeles Avenue.
It was then moved by Councilmember Straughan and seconded by Council -
member Beaulieu that the main motion be amended to include the provision
that notice of the hearing be mailed to all property owners on Gabbert Road.
A unanimous vote of approval was cast on the second amendment to the main
motion. A unanimous vote of approval was also cast on the first amendment
to the main motion.
On roll call the main motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: Council members Straughan, Harper, Beaulieu, Prieto
and Mayor Yancy - Sutton;
NOES: None;
ABSENT: None.
At this point Blair Gallagher, of 1.661 Alton, Santa Ana, California, representing
the applicant, addressed Council, objecting to the action just taken by the
Council in re- opening the matter for public hearing, stating that he could under-
stand the requirement concerning the environmental document, but that
there had already been 6 public hearings on the proposed project and he felt
that to open it again for public hearing was unfair.
The following persons then addressed the Council concerning said matter:
Harry Hunt, 270 Ruth Street, Moorpark, urging that a decision be
made now;
Jerry Sloniker, 734 Carvol, West Covina, California, representing
Carlsberg Development Company, speaking on behalf of the
applicant, stating that the issues raised in the environmental
document were discussed in great detail during the
hearings and were issues of mitigation in the Negative
Declaration; also that the publicity in the newspapers as the
hearings on the project were continued from time to time
should have provided notice to the public and would have
provided ample opportunity for input. He also stated that
Carlsberg Development Company feels that the project has
had approval and is in agreement with the conditions as
approved by Council at the previous meeting.
NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. I. Romero, 396 Charles Street, Moorpark, addressed Council with a
comment concerning law enforcement in the City, and was referred to
Lt. Wells, of the Sheriff's Department.
It was moved by Councilmember Harper, seconded by Councilmember Straughan
and unanimously carried that the City Manager investigate the project sign
posting regulations now in effect in the City of Simi Valley, and make
recommendations to the Council for a similar regulation for Moorpark.
7. PLANNING MATTERS
7. A. PD -903 - Review of Condition I - School Facilities
Councilmember Straughan announced that the circumstances which previously
had prevented his participation of matters pertaining to PD -903 no longer
exist, and that, therefore, he would be free to participate in the proceeding.
Mayor Yancy- Sutton stated that she would abstain from participation because
of a possible conflict of interest, and passed the gavel to Mayor pro tem Prieto,
who then presided at the meeting.
Staff report was given by the City Manager, as outlined in his letter to the
Council dated December 21, 1.983.
-4-
It was moved by Council member Beaulieu that Condition I of Permit No.
PD -903 be rescinded, stating that he felt this developer Should not be
penalized for being more cooperative because othe-r developers object to
similar conditions. Said motion lost for want of a second.
Elaine Freeman, 19510 Ventura Boulevard, Tarzana, California, representing
the developer, Griffin Homes, then addressed Council, stating that conceptual
approval by the School Board of a site for the location of an elementary school
in the Campus Park area had been given at the School Board meeting of
November 9, 1983, and she requested that Council find that the requirements
of Condition I have been satisfied.
Charles Schwabauer, Chairman of the Moorpark Unified School District,
addressed Council, reaffirming the statements made by Jean Albee, Business
Manager of the School District, in her letter of November 15, 1983, addressed
to Niall Fritz, City Manager, and a copy of which is attached to his report to
the City Council concerning said matter.
After discussion it was moved by Councilmember Beaulieu and seconded by
Councilmember Harper that it be determined that there are adequate school
facilities available or planned for the continued development of the project
and that the requirements of Condition I have been satisfied. Said motion
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Beaulieu, Harper, Straughan, and
Mayor pro tem Prieto;
NOES: None;
ABSENT: None;
ABSTAIN: Mayor Yancy- Sutton.
Mayor pro tern Prieto then handed the gavel back to Mayor Yancy- Sutton, who
then presided and declared a recess, the time being 8:25 p. m.
The meeting convened at 8:35 p. m. , all members of the Council being present.
7. B. General Plan Amendment Screening Guidelines
Staff report was given by the City Manager, as outlined in his communication
of December 21, 1983, addressed to the City Council, and he presented
Resolution No. 83 -59, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPAR K ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING
OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
There :vas discussion concerning the screening process, after which the
following person addressed Council:
Louise Rice- Lawson, representing Building Industries Association,
requesting that the resolution be read aloud so that members
of the audience would be acquainted with matters under
discussion.
At the request of the Mayor, the resolution was read aloud by the City Clerk.
-5-
It was then moved by Council member Straughan and seconded by Council -
member I carper that Resolution No. 83 -59 be adopted; that staff be directed
to process, but not bring to public clearing General Plan Amendment requests
until, the Council initiated General Plan review has been completed; and that
thyat General Plan Amendment requests filed with the County of Ventura prior
t-6 incorporation be exempt from the screening process and be brought to
public hearing in a timely manner. Said motion carried by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Council members Straughan, Harper and Prieto;
NOES: Councilmember Beaulieu and Mayor Yancy- Sutton;
ABSENT: None.
7. C. Uniform Building Code Amendments
The City Attorney presented Ordinance No. 14, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SECTION 2
OF ORDINANCE NO. 6, AND ADDING Sec. 8.01.001 TO
THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE VENTURA COUNTY
BUILDING CODE.
It was moved by Councilmember Harper, seconded by Councilmember
Straughan and unanimously carried that further reading of said ordinance
be waived and that said ordinance be introduced.
It was then moved by Councilmember Harper, seconded by Councilmember
Beaulieu and unanimously carried that the City Attorney be requested to
prepare a modification to the Uniform Building Codes which would prohibit
aluminum wiring in residential structures from the breaker panel
into the residences.
By general consent the public hearing as required by state law was set for
January 18, 1984, at 7:00 p. m. , and the City Clerk was requested to give
legal notice of said hearing.
It was then moved by Councilmember Straughan, seconded by Councilmember
Beaulieu and unanimously carried that the resolution regarding the prohibition
of aluminum wiring as outlined above be presented at the meeting of
January 18, 1984, at the time of the hearing on the Uniform Building Code.
7.1). Building Code Fee Schedule
The City Manager gave his staff report, as outlined in his communication
to the City Council, dated December 21, 1983, and presented Resolution
No. 83 -60, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A REVISED
FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING PERMITS AND SERVICES
RENDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOORPARK CITY
BUILDING CODE
-6-
It was moved by Council member Harper and seconded by Council member
Straughan to waive further reading of and adopt said Resolution No. 83 -60,
which motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council members Harper, Straughan, Beaulieu, Prieto
and Mayor Yancy- Sutton;
NOES: None;
A13SENT: None.
8. 13USINESS ITEMS
8. A. Conduct of Meetings (Resolution No. 83 -61)
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 83 -61, entitled:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOORPARK,
ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR COUNCIL
MEETINGS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES
It was moved by Councilmember Straughan and seconded by Councilmember
Harper to waive further reading of and adopt said Resolution No. 83 -61,
which motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Straughan, Harper, Beaulieu, Prieto
and Mayor Yancy - Sutton;
NOES: None;
ABSENT: None.
8. B. Adoption of Ordinance No. 12 re Payment of Monies
By general consent Ordinance No. 12, which had been introduced at the Council
Meeting of December 7, 1983, was continued to the meeting of January 18, 1984.
8. C. Disaster Council Agreement
Councilmember Prieto, delegate to the United Disaster Council, reported that
he had attended a meeting of the Council on Friday morning, December 16,
1983, at which meeting the Disaster Agreement was discussed, and it was
recommended by the Disaster Council that the agreement in its final form
be sent to the member cities for execution; that the majority of the delegates
were in agreement and that the conditions in the draft agreement were
acceptable. He stated that the annual cost for participation has not yet been
determined, since there is no way to determine the cost until direction has
been given by the Disaster Council.
Mayor Yancy- Sutton stated that she also attended said meeting and that she
feels that we should be concerned with cost, but that it is important to proceed
with the Disaster Agreement.
Upon inquiry from Council member Beaulieu,
that under the Disaster Agreement the Count y
preparedness and would instruct City staff on
disaster.
Council member Prieto reported
would prepare a plan for
how to operate in case of a
It was then moved by Council member Prieto and seconded by Council -
member Straughan that said Disaster Agreement be approved in concept
and that, when finalized, the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to
execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City, which motion was
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Prieto, Straughan, Beaulieu, Harper
and Mayor Yancy- Sutton;
NOES: None;
ABSENT: None.
Councilmember Prieto also requested the Mayor to proclaim the week of
January 29, 1984 at Disaster Survival Week, and suggested ways of
emphasizing disaster preparedness. By general consent, Councilmember
Prieto will meet with the City Manager and prepare recommendations
for the next meeting of the Council.
8. D. County Solid Waste Management Plan Task Force
Councilmember Straughan was appointed Delegate to the Task Force for
and on behalf of the City, with Mayor Yancy - Sutton to serve as alternate.
8. E. Approval of Warrants
It was moved by Councilmember Straugghan and seconded by Council member
Harper that demands totaling $14, 771. 38, as approved by the City Manager,
be approved, and that warrants be drawn for each of the following, to wit:
DEMAND NO.
CLAIMANT
AMOUNT
116
Ventura Regional County Sanitation
Dis tr ict
$ 695. 89
117
Tri- County Dictating Systems
729.28
118
Bank of A. Levy
1,383.92
119
IBM
74.50
120
Pacific Telephone
161.58
121
John C. Gedney
1,500.00
122
More Copy Systems, Inc.
339.20
123
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
7,460.50
124
Tri- County Dictating Systems
13.99
125
Leta Yancy- Sutton
103.25
126
U. S. Postmaster
20.00
127
Mary J o Rasey
343. 05
128
Niall Fritz
1,1.80.97
129
Doris D. Bankus
675.25
1.30
Suzanna Prieto
200.00
TOTAL
$ 1.4, 881.38
Motion carried by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Council members Straughan, Harper, Beaulieu,
Prieto
and Mayor Yancy - Sutton;
NOES:
None;
A13SENT:
None.
-8-
Members of the Council expressed pleasure at the success of the community
Christmas Party which had been held at the Community Center on December 16,
particularly commending Suzanna Prieto, who coordinated the entire event.
It was agreed that the Mayor would write a letter of appreciation to Mrs. Prieto.
8.1'. Work Program
The City Manager presented his prioritized draft of the 1983-84 Work Program,
and participated in a discussion of the items with members of the Council.
He was commended by Council for his very reasonable recommendations, and
the following comments or suggestions were made:
Item D. 3A and D. 4 - The Mayor requested that she and Council member
Beaulieu; wFo are the members of the Finance Committee, be kept apprised
of the progress on both items and that they be fully informed before the items
are presented to the Council.
Item F - The Mayor requested that the plans for the addition to the
Community--17e-nter be a top priority item, and stated that she would like to see
the plans as soon as possible.
Item H -3 - At the request of Councilmember Harper, the proposed
ordinances under this item were prioritized as follows, after discussion by
members of the Council:
(1) Discharge of firearms
(2) Hillside development
(3) Recreational Vehicle Parking
(4) Roofing materials
(5) Building restrictions in fault zones
6) Noise
Under this item, the proposed ordinance on aluminum wiring was
requested earlier in this meeting.
Item K - Under this item, Mayor Yancy- Sutton requested the City
Manager to contact the delegates to the Countywide Planning Program and
request that they provide periodic reports to the Council. She also requested
the City Manager to furnish a report on the Stationary Source Air Quality
Rule.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
The City Manager reported that he had received a copy of the Draft EIR for
the Simi Valley General Plan Amendment pertaining to 1.38 acres in Tierra
Rejada Valley in the Moorpark sphere of interest. Fie said he learned from
reading the newspaper that the Simi Valley Planning Commission was holding
a hearing on the proposal, and that he attended that hearing, having already
submitted his written comments concerning the Draft EIR. At the request
of the applicant the matter was continued to January 1.1, 1984; however, the
Planning Commission did review the EIR and it was certified. Ile stated
that the Simi Valley Planning staff is recommending denial of the application;
that he plans to attend the meeting on January 1 I, and will keep Council
informed.
-9-
Mayor Yancy-Sutton suggested that since Councilmember Harper is On
the ad hoc Planning Committee, he be kept informed specifically on the
matter and possibly accompany the City Manager at the meeting of
January 11, 1984, in Simi Valley.
The City Manager stated he would be reporting to the City Council at the
next meeting regarding the City's taking a position concerning the annexation.
Councilmember Straughan stated that as the Council representative on the
VCAG Transportation Policy Planning Committee, he would be attending a
meeting on January 9, 1984, at which the Committee will commence the
process of prioritizing for the County the expenditure of funds on the
highway system. Both Caltrans and the State Transportation Commission
have adopted policy positions supporting as first priority the interchange of
the #118 and #23 Freeways, and are moving forward with a segment of
Highway 126. At his suggestion, it was the consensus of the Council to
instruct Councilmember Straughan to support the following priorities:
(1) the interchange of #118 and #23 Freeways;
(2) the continuation of the segment of Highway #126 in the
current STIP; and
(3) the improvement of the intersections at Rice and at
Rose Road.
The Mayor abstained from participation, since 'she would be making a
decision on another level.
The City Manager was requested by the Mayor to furnish a report on the
entire proposal for the development of Tierra Rejada Valley, including the
lake.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Straughan,
seconded by Councilmember Beaulieu and unanimously carried that the
meeting be adjourned, the time being 9:40 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
APPROVED:
011 r or w"
-10-