The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 1984 0425 CC PC JNT SPC 411 Moorpark, California April 25 , 1984 A joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, Californa, was held on April 25 , 1984 in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue , Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. , Mayor Leta Yancy- Sutton presiding. 2 . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by James A. Hartley, Chairman of the Planning Commission. 3. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Roger Beaulieu, Clinton D. Harper, Albert Prieto, Jerry Straughan and Mayor Leta Yancy-Sutton; ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: Commissioners Doris Miller, Suzanna Prieto, Tom Schleve, Jim Weak and Chairman James A. Hartley; ABSENT: None. OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Marshall W. Julian, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, Attorney at Law, from the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen; Lt. Arve Wells, County Sheriff' s Depart- ment; and Doris D. Bankus , City Clerk. 4. PRESENTATIONS Lt. Arve Wells, of the County Sheriff ' s Department, gave a presentation on a proposed defensible space and building security ordinance, outlining minimum standards designed to safeguard property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials , use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures within the City relating to building security. He distributed written material relating to the subject matter and urged that Council consider adoption of such an ordinance , stating that he had made a similar presentation to the Planning Commission, and had instituted some of the proposed measures in the project review procedures in which his department is involved. S -1- ® 5. DISCUSSIONS 5.A. Public Noticing Requirements The discussion on this matter covered a briefing by the City Manager regarding existing city requirements for giving notice on development projects , and Attorney Cheryl Kane explained state law requirements . It was the general consensus that the present method of noticing was sufficient. 5.B. Hearing Procedures Attorney Cheryl Kane led the discussion on the conduct of public hearings , covering such specifics as conflict of interest concerns , announcement of names of individuals giving testimony, whether or not witnesses must testify under oath, and the order or format of the hearings. During the discussion reference was made to the rules of conduct heretofore adopted by Council , wherein the subject matter has been addressed, and it was agreed that the Planning Commission be furnished a copy, with the suggestion that that body also adopt rules of conduct similar to those adopted by the Council. ADDED AGENDA ITEM Attorney Cheryl Kane gave a brief explanation of the difference between a regular ordinance and an urgency ordinance, describing ® the adoption procedures governed by state law. 5.C. Streamlining the Permit Process There was considerable discussion regarding methods of stream- lining permit processing, with the possibility of granting the Planning Commission authority to take final action on some matters; also a suggestion that the Council might only review those matters which had been heard by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Straughan stressed the need for a study regarding the permit procedure, stating that a small developer has to go through the same process and expend the same amount of fees as a larger developer , which mitigates against the owner of the smaller piece of property. There was discussion concerning the establishment of an architectural review committee , and the general consensus was that the Planning Commission should serve as such a committee. There was also a general agreement that the Planning Commission should be given more authority to act, and the Commissioners were advised by Council to report back with a recommendation concerning those areas in which it was felt the Commission should be given more authority. In this connection, it was agreed that the resolu- tion designating those items which go to the Planning Commission for final decision, and those which go to the City Council for final decision, should be reviewed. -2- 411 Commissioner Miller stated that she felt it would be helpful to have the case planner from the County available at the Commission meetings when cases are heard. There was discussion concerning the possibility of providing the Commission Meeting packets earlier than they are now being prepared, in order to give more time for the Commissioners to study the matters coming before them. Matter referred to staff. The Mayor declared a recess , the time being 9 : 15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9 : 32 , all members of the Council and the Commission being present. 5 .C. Streamlining the Permit Process S .D. Response to Commissioner Miller 5.E. Roles of the Planning Commission and the City Council The Mayor announced that as to Items C and E, and a portion of Item D, it had been agreed that the Planning Commission will consider such matters and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning policy. S.D. Response to Commissioner Miller ® Communication dated March 12 , 1984 , from Commissioner Miller, was reviewed, with each item receiving attention if it had not been addressed previously or by written response. 6. OTHER MATTERS COUNCILMEMBERS OR COMMISSIONERS MAY WISH TO DISCUSS Attorney Cheryl Kane presented three communications for filing, and distributed copies to Council and Commission members , as follows: (1) dated April 10 , 1984 in re legal representation at Commission Meetings; (2) dated April 12 , 1984, in re term of office of Commissioners and development agreement ordinance; and (3) dated April 20 , 1984 , in re conduct of Planning Commission Meetings. There followed a discussion re development agreements , and it was agreed that the City Attorney' s office would provide an analysis of current legislation regarding the subject matter. Councilmember Harper reiterated that the Planning Commission should provide Council with a recommendation or request concerning the matters they would like to consider, stating that he would like to see the Commission become more pro-active rather than re-active. Commissioner Miller stated that she would like to see the Com- mission study and make recommendations concerning an improved sign ordinance. Council direction was to go forward with it. -3- Commissioner Schleve expressed concern regarding preservation of trees along the Caltrans rights-of-way in areas of the City, • and both Councilmember Harper and Mayor Yancy-Sutton commented that Caltrans representatives have been most cooperative with the City since incorporation, and felt they would be receptive. Commissioner Weak suggested that a representative from the Planning Commission serve on the committee along with Councilmember Harper and others regarding the traffic problems on Highway #118 near Princeton Avenue and Condor Drive. Commissioner Hartley raised the question of the propriety of discussing a project which is merely in the embryo stage of develop- ment, and Attorney Cheryl Kane responded. Councilmember Harper commented that he was concerned with the level of staffing in the Planning Department and would like the subject to be discussed. The Mayor stated that she felt it was a matter which should be discussed properly as a budget item. There being no further business to be brought before the two bodies at this time, it was moved by Councilmember Straughan, seconded by Councilmember Beaulieu and unanimously carried to adjourn, the time being 10 : 50 p.m. It was also moved by Commissioner Miller , seconded by Commissioner Weak and unanimously carried that the meeting stand adjourned, the time being 10 :50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, III )5/A14L,A4,44L,/ Doris D. Bankus City Clerk G' APPROVED: sZ -_,2112 r �f y��yG% �/- , 0, le Y hairman, Planning Co fission -4-