Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1992 0323 CC JNTMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California March 23, 1992 A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on March 23, 1992 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lawrason called the City Council to order at 7:15 p.m. Chairman Wesner called the Planning Commission to order at 7:15 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Lillian Kellerman. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, and Mayor Lawrason. Absent: Councilmember Wozniak. Commissioner Brodsky, May, Miller and Chairman Wesner. Absent: Commissioner Torres. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; Lillian Kellerman, City Clerk. 4. ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Mutual Concerns and Issues of the City Council and Planning Commission Mayor Lawrason suggested bi- annual joint meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission. He indicated that the Council and Commission had been provided with possible topics for tonight's discussion. Chairman Wesner said he had raised the issue of whether the Planning Commission should be dissolved. He asked for a response as to the cost benefits -- dollar costs, staff and citizen savings if that dissolution should occur. He said another consideration is that if the Council is going to do the same work that the Planning Commission has already done, then the Planning Commission is just an unnecessary layer of government. He asked for ways the Planning Commission could be more efficient if it were not dissolved. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 March 23, 1992 Mr. Kueny responded that the costs involved in supporting the Planning Commission are the honorarium paid to Commissioners, cablecasting of the meetings which costs approximately $150.00 per meeting and staff costs which may or may not be paid by the developer applicants. Mayor Lawrason said that the Planning Commission function in the City was an important one and he supported retaining the Commission. Councilmember Talley said the Planning Commission is very necessary to the City. He said that the Commission's role in technical review and "screening out" the information that ultimately comes to the Council is very important. Commissioner May expressed her thanks for the joint meeting. She said she hoped for a better flow of the information from the Commission to the Council. Commissioner Brodsky stated his frustration with the transmittal of some of the information from the Planning Commission to the City Council. He said he had many examples where the decisions made by the Planning Commission relative to the General Plan were unrecognizable in the final form presented to the Council. He said the same was true with Commission review of projects and the information that the Council received pursuant to that review. AT THIS POINT in the meeting Commissioner Torres arrived. The time was 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Montgomery said that with regard to the General Plan, staff had indicated to the Council that they had worked with the City Attorney to revise language in the General Plan after the Planning Commission review but that the changes made were not substantive. He said the City Council will have to determine what is substantive because the newly adopted General Plan would need to be consistent with what the Planning Commission had reviewed. He said the Council had very carefully considered every recommendation made by the Planning Commission. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Chairman Wesner said that an example of a project where he had a concern with the process was the Guny project. He said the issue of a private driveway was not discussed by the Commission but had been discussed extensively by the the City Council. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 March 23, 1992 Councilmember Montgomery suggested that the Planning Commission might want to provide verbal testimony to the City Council on projects reviewed by them. He said that the Chairman or Vice Chairman could speak at the public hearing on a project entitlement. In response to Chairman Wesner, Mr. Kueny said he did not think there were any negative legal implications to the Planning Commission providing verbal testimony to the Council but that the City Attorney would need to respond on this matter. In response to Chairman Wesner, Mayor Lawrason said that areas where he felt the Planning Commission could provide efficiencies to the Council would be in the creation of development standards. He suggested that a written synopsis of the Council review of a project would be helpful to the Council. Councilmember Perez said that he felt the Planning Commission was doing a great job. He said with regard to specific projects, there would be times when the Council would "re- hash" some of the work done by the Commission. Councilmember Montgomery suggested the following as being important for the Commission in their role: (1) Getting the most from an applicant in terms of public benefits; (2) "Dig deeper ", get the most information from the applicant; (3) Ensure a "high degree" of accuracy in the information transmitted to the Council from the Commission; (4) Work on the development of needed ordinances. Councilmember Montgomery suggested that the drilling ordinance needed to be reviewed and amended. Mayor Lawrason said he disagreed that the Commission should be "getting the most from an applicant ". He said he believed it was the Commission's role to review objectively, not to make deals. He said what the Council expected was a fully conditioned entitlement. He recommended that the Commission review staff reports transmitting information concerning Planning Commission review and action on a project to the Council to ensure that the reports convey the information as determined by the Commission. Mr. Kueny said that when the Council has set a policy, the Planning Commission should adhere to that policy until the policy is changed. He said in many areas the Council is the final decision maker. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 March 23, 1992 Chairman Wesner asked for a determination of when the Commission is the final decision maker. In response to Chairman Wesner, Mr. Kueny gave the example that with regard to the McDonalds' Planned Development, the Commission is the final decision maker. Mr. Kueny said that staff would have to do a better job in its transmittal report to the Council so that any issue discussed by the Commission is fully reported in the staff report. He said that in addition, items going to the Council from the Commission would routinely be provided to the Commission when the Agenda Packet was provided to the Council. Councilmember Montgomery suggested that the Planning Commission recommendation be more visibly displayed in staff reports. Commissioner Brodsky said that with regard to the "accuracy" comment by Councilmember Montgomery, 99% of the Commission's information comes from staff, that is the source of the information from which the Commission makes its decisions. He also said that the Commission did not set its own agenda. Councilmember Talley said that it is the responsibility of the staff and the Planning Commission to put credence into what the Planning Commission does. He said the staff must make sure that the Commission is informed of what they can and can't do. Commissioner May said that the Planning Commission has the "first cut" at projects, and that perhaps the "weeding out" of misinformation is a valid role. In response to Commissioner May, Mr. Kueny stated that it shouldn't be the Commission's responsibilities to weed out inaccuracies in staff reports and that staff needs to provide accurate information. Councilmember Brodsky expressed concern with the ability of the Commission to have access to the City Attorney and City Attorney opinions. Chairman Wesner said the Commission needs to know what "assets" are available to them between meetings. Mayor Lawrason said the Council needs to discuss by what methodology the Commission can be allowed some legal access. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 March 23, 1992 Mayor Lawrason said that the overcrowding issue is a very good subject for the Planning Commission to address. He said that the City of Thousand Oaks has created an ordinance regarding this subject. Commissioner May said that she would like to see steps taken to implement the Downtown Plan. She said she felt this was a subject the Planning Commission could effectively work on. Mayor Lawrason said that to summarize the Council and staff could do a better job in helping the Commission by giving clear direction and keeping communication open so that information transmitted represents exactly what the Commission recommended. He said he would like the Commission to realize that the Closed Session litigation and other involvements and information which the Council is privy to sometimes creates a different perspective at the Council level. Chairman Wesner said he concurred that a written synopsis of Commission actions; a representative of the Commission to give testimony to the Council; helping the Director of Community Development work on the creation of development standards when there is a "lull" in Commission work. He said the Commission is the technical body and it was the goal of the Commission to provide the Council with a good, clear, technical analysis of projects. 5. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Lawrason adjourned the City Council at 9:00 p.m. Chairman Wesner adjourned the Planning Commission at 9:00 p.m.