Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2002 0227 CC SPCMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mooroark. California February 27, 2002 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on February 27, 2002, in the Community Center of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 6:39 p.m. 2. INVOCATION: Reverend Michael Sezzi from Holy Cross Church, gave the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tempore Mikos led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers, Mikos, Millhouse, Wozniak (arrived at 7:11 p.m.), and Mayor Hunter. Absent: Councilmember Harper Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Hugh Riley, Assistant City Manager; Ken Gilbert, Public Works Director; Dana Shigley, Administrative Services Director; Mary Lindley, Community Services Director; Walter Brown, City Engineer; Captain Robert LeMay, Sheriff's Department; Deborah Traffenstedt, Acting Community Development Director/ Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk, and La -Dell VanDeren, Deputy City Clerk. 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS: None. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark. California Paae 2 February 27, 2002 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Traffenstedt stated that there was one speaker card for a Corey Kutler. Mr. Kutler was not present when called. Mayor Hunter stated that they would take Public Comment later in the meeting, if Mr. Kutler returned. 7. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: None. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Councilmember Millhouse stated that he had seen Mr. Kutler prior to the start of the meeting where he had related the issues regarding confusion in the Municipal Code concerning signage. Councilmember Millhouse suggested that the Planning Commission look at the code regarding what is permitted for advertising, especially for new businesses. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, Public Comments were taken, as Mr. Kutler had returned to the meeting. Corey Kutler, representing Great Clips for Hair, 551 W. Los Angeles Avenue, spoke about his recent experience with Code Enforcement due to a violation in the temporary signage for his new business; the confusion in the Municipal Code regarding the use of balloons and roof top signs for advertising; and his need for a 60 -day temporary sign permit. Mayor Hunter directed staff to bring a Resolution back to the Council for consideration, asking the Planning Commission to study the temporary sign matter and a Box Item memo to the Council with staff's response to the issues raised by Mr. Kutler. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Consider Draft Ordinance Regulating Wireless Communications Facilities within the City of Moorpark by Adding Chapter 17.42 and Amending Chapters 17.08 and 17.20 of Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code, and Repealing Ordinance No. 275 upon the Effective Date of the New Ordinance (Zoning Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 February 27, 2002 Ordinance Amendment No. 2001 -03). (Continued Open Public Hearing from City Council meeting of February 6, 2002). Staff Recommendation: 1) Take public testimony and close public hearing; 2) Waive full reading and introduce Ordinance No. 278 for first reading; and 3) Direct staff to schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance No. 278 for March 6, 2002. Ms. Traffenstedt gave the staff report. In response to questions from Council, Ms. Traffenstedt stated that an Administrative Permit would only be allowed for pre- approved locations and only and under a separate process designated in the Ordinance; the only difference between the Administrative Permit process and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process is who is the decision - making body; and that additional language will be included in the agenda report on stamped Page 49, No. 7, to indicate that the radio - frequency report will include signal strength exhibits with calculations including measurements under maximum loading conditions. Mayor Hunter announced that the public hearing remains open. Gregory W. Sanders, attorney representing Sprint PCS, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800, Irvine, CA, stated that Sprint continues to support the adoption of this Ordinance. Hugh J. Finlay, a Moorpark resident, stated that he represents the residents of his Homeowners Association and read a prepared statement expressing their concerns about the definitions of Major and Minor facilities; that the 200 -foot setback should be changed to a 300 -foot setback; that aspects of the Santa Barbara County wireless communications Ordinance soon to be adopted should be incorporated into this Ordinance; and this Ordinance should be standardized with the regulations of Ventura County, which has telecommunication sites just beyond Moorpark's city limits. He presented the Council with copies of the prepared statement. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Paae 4 February 27, 2002 Mayor Hunter asked the City Attorney to provide follow up after reviewing the document more thoroughly. Tony Banducci, a Moorpark resident, spoke on behalf of over 60 residents and expressed their desire that the setback requirement be changed to 300 -feet; their support of the minor issues raised by the engineers; and their support to adopt this Ordinance with correction of those issues. Robert Demyan, a Moorpark resident, concurred with Mr. Banducci's comments; requested information on who are the participants in the peer review committee for the reports submitted by an applicant; expressed concern regarding screening and visual impact of the sites; and referred the Council to the City of Simi Valley's Ordinance No. 986 dealing with design elements in regard to landscape guidelines for wireless communication installations. Tony Geivet, a Moorpark resident, spoke in support of the Ordinance; questioned whether the 200 -foot setback requirement is sufficient; asked if the Peach Hill Reservoir site is considered a Major or Minor facility; inquired how it can be prevented from becoming a Minor facility for use as an antenna farm; asked if any of the permits issued for the Peach Hill Reservoir site are exempt; inquired about what assurances are provided to allow the public to speak to the issue of Minor sites, which exceed the height requirements; and emphasized that the public should be allowed to comment on Major and Minor facilities in proximity to their private properties. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that he has completed his examination of the document presented earlier in the meeting by Mr. Finlay. He stated that the 200 -foot setback is the City's requirement for all "other structures "; in regard to visual impact, it would be difficult to differentiate between wireless uses and any other uses; and there are other visual impact controls in the Ordinance regarding camouflage. He further stated that since no "other structures" are restricted, it would be possible for wireless carriers to argue, that since there is no visual reason to support the greater setback, a greater restriction in setback must be Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Paqe 5 February 27, 2002 because of health, safety, and comfort reasons, which is against Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations; no other city he deals with has a 300 - foot setback limit; and some cities approaching build - out in more urban areas, have even less of a restriction. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that the definitions for Major and Minor facility are based on the type of facility mount that is being used as it relates to the visual impact. He cited an example of a Minor installation to be one incorporated on an existing utility pole, which would be less noticeable, as opposed to a more visible, stand -alone monopole, which would be considered a Major facility. He went on to state that determining Major vs. Minor in terms of consumption of power is within the FCC's jurisdiction, not the City's. In response to Mayor Hunter, Ms. Traffenstedt stated that the County of Ventura does not have a specific setback requirement for a wireless facility. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that the wireless industry can monitor its own facility; however, there would not be the capability of monitoring someone else's facility. He went on to state that in a colocated facility, he believes the City can negotiate a joint survey by notifying all users of the standards to be met, with the cost of the survey divided between them, and one report issued. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that the City would be still be consistent by tracking individual installations in a colocated facility using the Federal Radio Frequency (RF) emission standards at a single facility for a single user. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that an amendment to the Ordinance could be drafted if later determined to be necessary to address the cumulative effect of a colocated facility in regard to the federal standards. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that the limit of one field study in a 24 -month period Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 February 27, 2002 resulted from a compromise between staff's request for 12- months and the industry's request for 36- months. Councilmember Millhouse stated on notice that if there is a it will not be acceptable; Assistant City Attorney that considered at a later date if necessary in dealing with the he would rather move forward Ordinance. that the carriers are huge cumulative effect, he concurs with the an amendment could be it is determined to be cumulative affects; and with approval of the Councilmember Mikos stated that the 24 -month period seems acceptable for dealing with the concern of the cumulative effects when additional installations are added to one site. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that the Council could move forward with approval of the Ordinance as it is and direct staff to study the issue of cumulative effect and whether there is a need for an amendment to the Ordinance. In response to Mayor Hunter, Ms. Traffenstedt stated that the peer review committee refers to contract staff who would review certain components of an application dealing with their expertise, such as an RF expert under contract with the City who would be consulted to see if they concur with the conclusions in the report. In response to Mr. Kueny, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that the definition of colocation or colocated means the location of multiple antennas, which may be owned or operated by one or more service providers, at single or adjacent parcels or lots, and may or may not be mounted to a common supporting structure wall or building. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wohlenberg stated that he is satisfied with the definitions for Minor Facility and Major Facility. Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Ms. Traffenstedt introduced Ordinance No. 278 for first reading. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Paae 7 MOTION: Councilmember Mikos Millhouse seconded a motion to Ordinance No. 278. The motion Councilmember Harper absent. February 27, 2002 moved and Councilmember waive further reading of carried by a vote 4 -0, MOTION: Councilmember Mikos moved and Councilmember Millhouse seconded a motion to declare Ordinance No. 278 introduced for first reading. The motion carried by a vote 4 -0, Councilmember Harper absent. Mayor Hunter confirmed that the second reading of the Ordinance would occur on March 6, 2002; the effective date would be 30 days after the second reading, and the moratorium would expire on that effective date. B. Consider Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 for Construction of a 357,621 Square Foot Commercial Center, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5321 for Subdivision of Approximately 29 Acres into Eight Lots on Property Located South of Los Angeles Avenue and East of Miller Parkway, on the Application of Zelman Retail Partners, Inc. Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and continue the item, public hearing open, to March 6, 2002. Mr. Kueny deferred presentation of the staff report. Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing. Robert Exel, representing Zelman Retail Partners, 515 South Figueroa, Suite 1230, Los Angeles, CA, requested that this item be continued to the meeting of March 6, 2002, to allow the applicant to finalize the review of the conditions of approval and to provide better exhibits. He introduced Lloyd Laycook, consultant from Laycook & Associates, as available for questions. Ruth Fritkin, a Moorpark resident, emphasized the need to make this center, which is visible from both State Routes 23 and 118, a shopping attraction such as the Commons in Calabasas and the Promenade in Thousand Oaks, because the city of Moorpark cannot afford another retail failure. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 February 27, 2002 Bryce Eddy, a Moorpark resident, representing several families in the Serenata Communities, stated that this is an opportunity to build a great town center. He spoke in opposition to the type of retail stores selected for the center. MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Mikos seconded a motion to continue this item to March 6, 2003, with public hearing open. The motion carried by a voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Harper absent. 10. PRESENTATION /ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Consider Elimination of the Eastbound Riaht -Turn Lane at Spring Road from the Concept Design for the Widening of Los Angeles Avenue Between Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue [Project 8013]. Recommendation: Direct staff to proceed with a project design which does not include a right -turn lane for eastbound traffic at Spring Road. Mr. Gilbert gave the staff report. In response to Mayor Hunter, Ms. Traffenstedt stated that there were no speakers. MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Mikos seconded a motion for staff to proceed with the Concept Design for the Widening of Los Angeles Avenue between Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue, which does not include a right -turn lane for eastbound traffic at Spring Road. The motion carried by a voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Harper absent. 11. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Mikos seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by a roll call vote 4 -0, Councilmember Harper absent. A. Consider Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 5, 2001. Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as processed. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 February 27, 2002 B. Consider Approval of Warrant Register for Fiscal Year 2001 -2002 - February 20, 2002. Manual Warrants 108404 - 108410 Voided Warrants 105528 Pentamation 108543 (additional remittance copy) Payroll Liability 108411 - 108419 Warrants $261,545.43 $ (85.10) $11,166.13 Regular Warrants 108420 - 108531 & $31,702.01 108532 - 108577 $859,015.60 Staff Recommendation: Approve the warrant register. C. Consider Authorizing the Use of $217,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Affordable Housing Funds for Property Acquisition (6479 Penn Avenue, #B). Staff Recommendation: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2002- 1947, authorizing the acquisition of 6479 Penn Avenue, Unit #B, Moorpark, California 93021 with CDBG Affordable Housing funds and the re -sale of same, with deed restrictions consistent with HUD requirements, to a qualified low income household, and 2) Direct the City Clerk to accept an interest in the real property which is the subject of the agenda report. D. Adopt a Budget Amendment Resolution and Confirm Contract Authorization for Repairs to the Apricot Room at the Community Center. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2002 -1948, amending the FY 2001/02 budget by transferring $147,000 from the General Fund Reserve to the Facilities expenditure budget (1000.7620), and confirm the City Manager's approval of an agreement between the City and Alan Bornstein Construction for repairs to the Apricot Room at the Community Center at a cost not to exceed $134,220. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED) 12. ORDINANCES: None. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Paae 10 February 27, 2002 13. CLOSED SESSION: Mr. Kueny announced that the Council would be going into Closed Session to discuss Item 13.F. MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Mikos seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for discussion of Item 13.F. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Harper absent. The time was 7:45 p.m. F. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: Assistant City Manager, Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, City Engineer, Chief of Police, Director of Administrative Services, Director of Community Development, Director of Community Services, and Director of Public Works. Present in closed session were Councilmembers Mikos, Millhouse, Wozniak, and Mayor Hunter; Steven Kueny, City Manager; and Deborah Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk. The Council reconvened into open session at 8:29 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that Item 13.F. was discussed and that there was no action to report. 14. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Hunter adjourned ATTEST: 0.� S. I Deborah S. Traffenste City Clerk