HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2013 0320 CCSA REG ITEM 10B ay Counci�Mae Ung ITEM 10.13.
-_r MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Moorpark California February 27, 2013
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on February 27,
2013, in the Community Center of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,
California.
1 . CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Parvin called the meeting to order at 7:18 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Mikos, Millhouse, Pollock, Van Dam, and
Mayor Parvin.
Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Hugh Riley, Assistant City
Manager; Deborah Traffenstedt, Deputy City Manager;
David Bobardt, Community Development Director; Dave
Klotzle, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Joseph Fiss,
Principal Planner; and Maureen Benson, City Clerk.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
4. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None.
5. PRESENTATION/ACTION/DISCUSSION:
A. Consider Public Workshop on General Plan Amendment Pre-Screening
No 2012-02 to Expand the City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) and
Establish Land Use Designations on Approximately 3,844 Acres Generally
North and East of Moorpark College and Campus Hills Currently Outside
the City Corporate Boundaries on the Application of Residential Strategies
LLC for Coastline RE Holdings Moorpark Corporation. Staff
Recommendation: Refer application to Community and Economic
Development Committee for recommendation.
Mr. Fiss presented the City's process for handling the application.
Mr. Frank Foster of Residential Strategies, representing Coastline RE
Holdings, presented "The Preserve at Moorpark" outlining the goals of the
59
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark California Page 2 February 27, 2013
proposal and the items to be addressed in a future environmental impact
report (El R) for the project.
Joe Perez, a Moorpark resident in Campus Hills, expressed concerns
regarding the traffic congestion and circulation near the college and the
sole evacuation route for this area.
Jerry Davis, representing Palm Communities, which specializes in
workforce affordable housing, spoke in support of the project as an
opportunity to bring this type of housing to the City.
Sergei Akimtsev, a Moorpark resident near the proposed development,
stated his concerns about traffic congestion and the high fire hazard in the
area.
Tim Saivar, a Moorpark resident, stated he is pro-development except in
this area. His comments cited annexation only generates one-half the tax
benefit for the City; increased traffic at the college; and the voters have
twice defeated an extension of the City Urban Restriction Boundary with
the Hidden Creek and North Park projects.
In response to Mayor Parvin, Ms. Benson summarized one written
statement card from Suzanne and Kerry Wilson, residents of Moorpark,
expressing concerns regarding increased traffic in the project area and the
need for an access road behind the project to connect with Spring/Walnut
Canyon Roads rather than Collins/Campus Park Drives.
Mr. Foster responded to the residents' concerns by stating traffic and
environmental issues would be studied in an EIR once the application is
submitted. He stated the property tax revenues would not be detrimentally
impacted by this project.
A discussion among the Council, Mr. Foster, and staff focused on the land
proposed for development also being up for sale; whether 96 homes on
40-acre lots had been considered; whether the applicant has visited the
area during peak traffic hours; whether drainage to residents below the
project has been considered; the need for the open space proposal for the
project to be dedicated to the City; and whether the applicant will
ultimately work with the County of Ventura on the current zoning for 10
acre lots, which would not go to the voters of Moorpark, but the Ventura
County Board of Supervisors as the deciding body.
In response to Councilmember Millhouse, Mr. Ennis and Mr. Kueny stated
staff could return on March 20, 2013, with options to follow the current
process of having the review of the project go before the Community and
Economic Development Committee prior to coming to the Council or to
bypass the Committee and go straight to the Council for decision.
60
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark California Page 3 February 27, 2013
In response to Mayor Parvin, Mr. Foster stated, whichever process is
decided upon; they wish to move forward and would not withdraw the
application.
MOTION: Councilmember Millhouse moved and Mayor Parvin seconded a
motion to bring this item back on March 20, 2013, with analysis of the process
and options for the Community and Economic Development Committee to review
the application or to bypass the Committee and go straight to the City Council for
review. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
6. CLOSED SESSION:
None was held.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Mayor Parvin moved and Councilmember Van Dam seconded a motion to
adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 8:59 p.m.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Maureen Benson, City Clerk
61