HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2003 0401 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2003 -440
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY - APRIL 1, 2003
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
799 Moorpark Avenue
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public
Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion
item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing
or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion
of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary
for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of
the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item
of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing
must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation
of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion
item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon
each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in
lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion items. Copies
of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the
Community Development Department /Planning and are available for public
review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the
Community Development. Department at 517 -6233.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 1, 2003
Page No. 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2003 (Adjourned
from March 18, 2003 meeting).
B. City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint
Meeting Minutes of May 8, 2002.
C. City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint
Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2003.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2003 -440)
A. Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -03, for
Construction of a Wireless Communications Facility on
an Existing Southern California Edison High Power
Transmission Tower, Located South of Tierra Re'ada
Road on Open Space Area and Southwest of Brookhurst
Court, on the Application of Infranext, Inc. for AT &T
Wireless (Assessor Parcel Number 506 -0 -010 -615)
(Adjourned from March 18, 2003) (Staff: Paul Porter)
Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept public testimony and
close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No.
PC -2003- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-
03, with the location of the antenna equipment as
submitted in the application and the ground mounted
equipment placed in a vault, subject to conditions.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Consider Scheduling of a Summer Meeting Recess to
Coincide with City Council Recess.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2003 \030901 pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
April 1, 2003
Page No. 3
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. April 15, 2003:
• Zoning Ordinance Amendment on Entitlement Process
• CPD 2002 -01; GreenWay Development, Inc.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
------------------------ - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's
Department at (805) 517 -6223. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to
this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II).
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2003 \030401 pca.doc
ITEM: 6.A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 4, 2003
Paae 1
1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March
2 4, 2003, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center;
3 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
4 1. CALL TO ORDER:
5 Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7 Commissioner Pozza led the Pledge of Allegiance.
8 3. ROLL CALL:
9 Commissioners Lauletta, Peskay, Pozza, Vice Chair DiCecco
10 and Chair Landis were present.
11 Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community
12 Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager;
13 Walter Brown, City Engineer; Scott Wolfe, Principal
14 Planner; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary.
15 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
16 None.
17 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
18 None.
19 6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
20 A. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2003.
21 MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Commissioner Lauletta
22 seconded a motion to approve the minutes of February 18,
23 2003, with a correction to reflect, "the Commission
24 recommended the applicant explore alternate locations for
25 the project" on Page 4, line 1.
26 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
27 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030304 pcm.doc
000001
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 4, 2003
Paqe 2
1 None.
2 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3 (next Resolution No. 2002 -439)
4 A. Consider Commercial Planned Development No. 2002 -02, a
5 Request to Convert Existing Single Family Residences
6 to Commercial Office Use, for Property Located at 98
7 and 100 Leta Yancy Road. (Assessors Parcel Number 506-
8 0- 050 -400 & -410) (Staff: Scott Wolfe)
9 Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
10 accept public testimony and close the public hearing.
11 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2003- approving
12 Commercial Planned Development No. 2002 -03 subject to
13 conditions.
14 Scott Wolfe presented the staff report and noted the
15 addition of one condition to the Special Conditions of
16 Approval:
17 • Prior to the issuance of any Zoning Clearance or
18 Certificate of Occupancy and within thirty (30)
19 days of the approval date of this permit, the
20 applicant shall come into compliance with the
21 provisions of the Assignment and Assumption
22 Agreement, dated October 23, 2002, to the
23 satisfaction of the City Manager.
24 The Commission questioned staff on aspects of the
25 proposal; including, correction to the location of the
26 Caltrans storage yard, grading requirements, existing
27 building foundation, drainage and hydrology standards
28 and requirements, existing condition of the residences
29 and scope of work required to convert them, future
30 development phasing /timing, and landscaping.
31 Chair Landis opened the public hearing.
32 Thomas Kestly, applicant, described the structure, and
33 his intent to enhance the condition of the residential
34 property.
35 The Commission questioned the applicant on the timing,
36 improvements and procedures to complete the project.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030304 pcm.doc
000002
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 4, 2003
Paae 3
1 Chair Landis closed the public hearing.
2 The Commission discussion included support for phased
3 improvements to bring the non - conforming use into
4 compliance with current zoning; however the Commission
5 expressed concern with the lack of detail on the
6 submitted plans, and concern with approval without
7 having plans that meet code requirements.
8 • Mr. Hogan suggested conditions that might be added to
9 address Commission concerns.
10 MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner Peskay
11 seconded a motion to approve staff recommendations and
12 adopt Resolution No. PC- 2003 -439; recommending to the City
13 Council conditional approval of Commercial Planned
14 Development Permit No. 2002 -02 with conditions as amended:
15 • Add to Special Conditions: Prior to the issuance of
16 any Zoning Clearance or Certificate of Occupancy and
17 within thirty (30) days of the approval date of this
18 permit, the applicant shall come into compliance with
19 the provisions of the Assignment and Assumption
20 Agreement, dated October 23, 2002, to the satisfaction
21 of the City Manager.
22 • Add to Special Conditions: Prior to the issuance of
23 any Zoning Clearance or Certificate of Occupancy and
24 within thirty (30) days of the approval date of this
25 permit, the applicant shall submit plans redrawn in
26 compliance with these conditions and applicable code
27 requirements, subject to the approval of the
28 Community Development Director and City Engineer.
29 • Add to Special Conditions: The landscaping for the
30 residential site shall be brought up to the standards
31 of the neighborhood; including but not limited to,
32 trimming of the pepper trees, removal of dead or dying
33 plant material, addition of appropriate ground cover
34 and other plant material; including property facing
35 Unidos Avenue, and maintained free of weeds, trash and
36 debris to the satisfaction of the Community
37 Development Director.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030309 pcm.doc
000003
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of March 4, 2003
Paae 4
1 • Page 24, Standard Condition No. 4: eliminate the
2 words, "building foundation slab in place and
3 substantial work in progress."
4 • Page 24; Standard Condition No. 7; add subparts of the
5 standard hold harmless condition.
6 Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
7 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
8 Chair Landis indicated that he had asked that Vice Chair
9 DiCecco represent the Planning Commission at the City
10 Council meeting on March 5, 2003, in the event it had
11 questions on Commercial Planned Development Permit No.
12 2000 -04 (M &M Development).
13 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
14 A. March 18, 2003:
15 • CUP 2002 -03, Infranext, continued from February 18,
16 2003.
17 B. April 1, 2003:
18 Mr. Hogan provided the Commission with a brief overview of
19 future agenda items.
20 11. ADJOURNMENT:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
MOTION: Commissioner Lauletta moved and Commissioner Pozza
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Kipp A. Landis, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030304 pcm.doc
oecOC4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
ITEM: 6. B.
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Moorpark, California May 8, 2002
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Planning
Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on May 8, 2002, in
the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark
Avenue, Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Hunter called the City Council meeting to order at
6:37 p.m.
Chair Otto called the Planning Commission to order at 6:37
p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Planning Commissioner Kipp Landis led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL:
City Council
Members Present: Councilmembers Harper, Mikos,
000005
Wozniak, and Mayor Hunter.
Absent:
Councilmember Millhouse.
Planning Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners DiCecco, Landis,
Parvin, and Chair Otto.
Absent:
Commissioner Haller.
Staff Present:
Steven Kueny, City Manager; Hugh
Riley, Assistant City Manager; Ken
Gilbert, Public Works Director;
Walter Brown, City Engineer; Dave
Bobardt, Advanced Planning
Manager; Deborah Traffenstedt,
Acting Community Development
Director and Assistant to City
Manager /City Clerk; and Blanca
Garza, Deputy City Clerk.
000005
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 2 May 8, 2002
1 4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
2 Ms. Traffenstedt stated that there were no public speakers.
3 Mayor Hunter congratulated Commissioner Janice Parvin as
4 the recipient of the Moorpark Chamber of Commerce Citizen
5 of the Month Award.
6 5. PRESENTATION /ACTION /DISCUSSION:
7 A. Consider Presentation on FEMA Study of Arroyo Simi and
8 Related Matters. Staff Recommendation: Receive
9 presentation by Ventura County Flood Control District
10 (no agenda report).
11 Mr. Kueny stated that a representative from the Flood
12 Control District will give a presentation relative to
13 the FIR (Flood Insurance Rate) Map and the impact of
14 this process on current developments in the City.
15 Sergio Vargas addressed the Council and Commission as
16 the principal engineer of the Planning and Regulatory
17 Division of the Ventura County Flood Control District.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Mr. Vargas provided a background for the need to
update the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. He stated
that the significant growth in the Calleguas Creek
Watershed since 1986 has prompted FEMA to update the
FIR Map to allow local communities to administer their
own flood insurance programs. He also stated that as
a result of this determination, the Flood Control
District, acting as a local sponsor, entered into an
Agreement with FEMA in 2001, for a flood insurance
study within the Calleguas Creek Watershed. Mr.
Vargas provided a schedule of information to the
Council and the Commission that outlined the hydrology
study currently underway. He stated that the Flood
Control District has requested that the Calleguas
Creek portion of the FIR Study be given high priority
by FEMA.
Councilmember Mikos asked if the high priority request
was specific to the Moorpark portion of the Calleguas
Creek watershed or a more generalized area.
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 3
Mav 8, 2002
1 Mr. Vargas responded that the areas they requested for
2 priority are Moorpark and Camarillo with the entire
3 Arroyo Simi in Moorpark being part of that area.
4 Councilmember Wozniak asked when the City could expect
5 the numbers for the cubic feet per second (cfs) rate
6 of flow.
7 Mr. Vargas responded that the District is performing a
8 quality review and can only release draft cfs numbers.
9 He stated that 22,300 cfs is the number they have
10 currently estimated based on rainfall patterns of the
11 previous 13 years.
12 Councilmember Wozniak asked if the affected cities
13 will have the opportunity to comment on the cfs
14 numbers.
15 Mr. Vargas stated that a hydrology study is a
16 statistical approach and the District tries to
17 formulate a consistent, reliable statistical model.
18 He stated that the numbers can be shared with the
19 cities, but the results will be based on statistics.
20 Councilmember Harper stated that some developers with
21 approved projects in the downtown area have been told
22 that until the flood map is approved they cannot begin
23 construction, because the required mitigation will be
24 to raise the height of the foundation pads.
25 Mr. Vargas stated that the FEMA flood insurance
26 program requires that the flood map be revised before
27 construction can occur in the floodplain.
28 Councilmember Harper asked if the side of the Arroyo
29 Simi could be bermed rather than raising the height of
30 all of the construction pads in the downtown area.
31 Mr. Vargas responded that the District would be
32 willing to work with the developers to accelerate the
33 proposed improvements to the Arroyo Simi channel.
34 Councilmember Harper stated that it appears
35 unreasonable to require the developers to now import
36 large amounts of dirt to raise the foundation pads
00000'7
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 4
May 8, 2002
1 when it is intended, ultimately, that the channel will
2 be widened and the potential flooding problem may no
3 longer exist.
4 Mr. Vargas stated that the determination must be made
5 by the City, since each community administers its own
6 floodplain program.
7
Mr. Kueny requested that the City Engineer be allowed
8
to explain one specific project that has been approved
9
and what the options are for allowing that developer
10
to proceed with construction.
11
Mr. Brown explained that any developer who wants to
12
pull building permits, currently, must utilize the
13
current FEMA FIR maps. He stated that the difficulty
14
for developers who have yet to design or complete the
15
design of their improvements is that in that process
16
the City would look to the issue of water surface
17
elevations in the Arroyo and have them design their
18
system accordingly. He stated that a developer could
19
proceed using the existing FIR maps, but if changes to
20
those maps occur mid - construction, then the developer
21
would be in a very difficult position.
22 Councilmember Harper stated that it does not seem
23 necessary to require the raising of the foundation
24 pads if the rechannel ization of the Arroyo Simi will
25 remove the flooding potential once it is completed.
26 Mr. Brown explained that it is not a feasible thing
27 that lenders would ignore the FIR maps, so financing
28 would become difficult for the purchasers.
29 Councilmember Harper said it has been suggested that
30 an overlay zone be created to charge all development a
31 fee for Arroyo Simi improvements and use those
32 contributions to accelerate the funding and occurrence
33 of the rechannelization project.
34 Mr. Kueny explained that the problem is that the full
35 funding is not collected until the last house is
36 actually built in the project. He stated that in the
37 interim the City could have an assessment district,
1 IIIC
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 5
Mav 8. 2002
1 but many of the contributors' projects are not yet
2 approved.
3 In response to Mr. Kueny, Mr. Vargas confirmed that
4 the Flood Control District does not currently have the
5 funding available to perform the rechannelization of
6 the Arroyo Simi.
7 Mr. Kueny requested that the City Engineer explain the
8 Shea Homes project, as an example, and what is being
9 done relative to the flood issue.
10
Mr. Brown stated that the City is investigating with
11
the developer's engineer to raise the level of the
12
lots and the pads. He stated that they are dealing
13
with the 26,900 cfs and the 22,300 cfs numbers. Mr.
14
Brown went on to state that the Flood Control
15
District's efforts to establish an accurate cfs number
16
is essential as there are significant cost differences
17
between designing for each rate of flow.
18
Mr. Gilbert stated that once the rechannelization
19
project is constructed, the full cfs would be
20
contained within the channel. He stated it is a very
21
significant project with a lot of right -of -way design
22
and funding issues to resolve. Mr. Gilbert stated
23
that the City and the developers must work with the
24
data that is currently known.
25
In response to Councilmember Harper, Mr. Vargas stated
26
that the estimated cost for the rechannelization
27
project through the City of Moorpark is over five
28
million dollars.
29
Councilmember Harper asked if a partial
30
rechannelization project is possible to protect the
31
land that is in question on the north side of the
32
channel.
33 Mr. Vargas explained that due to the sequence of the
34 construction it is not feasible to do so.
35 In response to Commissioner DiCecco, Mr. Vargas stated
36 that the consultant is lagging behind schedule in
37 getting the project to FEMA. He stated that a
000009
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 6
Mav 8. 2002
1
conservative estimate for approval of the FIR map
2
could feasibly be extended by 2 -1/2 to 3 -1/2 months
3
beyond the projected January, 2003 date.
4
In response to Commissioner Parvin, Mr. Vargas
5
explained that the schedule for the capital
6
improvement project is independent of the FEMA study.
7
Chair Otto asked what is dictating the pace of the
8
FEMA study schedule.
9
Mr. Vargas responded that the Ventura County Flood
10
Control District is providing data for the FEMA study,
11
but that they do not have contractual control over the
12
consultant performing the study, because it is being
13
done with FEMA oversight.
14
Chair Otto asked if the higher priority being
15
requested for the Moorpark area really has any
16
advantage, since we have to wait for the final figures
17
prior to any potential developer benefiting from that
18
information.
19
Mr. Vargas stated that it would have an impact when
20
the results are final, and it does give an advantage
21
over other communities who have other components to be
22
submitted, reviewed, and approved.
23
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Vargas
24
confirmed that the FIR map study is based on the
25
environmental impact report that was done several
26
years ago. He further explained that since that study
27
did not include the various projects that are
28
currently being considered in Moorpark, it should not
29
affect the timetable for the 2005 -2006 project,
30
because some of the right -of -way has already been
31
designated by the Board of Supervisors and there is
32
plenty of time to acquire the remaining land necessary
33
for the construction.
34 Councilmember Mikos asked how the existing homeowners
35 in the downtown area are going to be impacted relative
36 to the cost of their flood insurance and the status of
37 their property.
00010
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 7
Mav 8. 2002
1
Mr. Brown responded that the FEMA flood insurance
2
program provides for flood insurance for persons who
3
are found to be within the floodplain. He also stated
4
that if the floodplain were determined to be larger
5
than it was before, those persons that were now
6
included in the larger area would be eligible to buy
7
flood insurance on a subsidized basis. He further
8
stated that if those homeowners elect to refinance or
9
sell the property, they would be eligible to purchase
10
that flood insurance. Mr. Brown stated that, in the
11
case of a homeowner constructing an addition to an
12
existing structure, FEMA typically does not want to
13
increase their exposure to flooding claims and,
14
therefore, discourages increases to property values
15
within the floodplain.
16
Mr. Gilbert stated that the current FIR map has all of
17
the area south of Los Angeles Avenue in the flood
18
plain. He continued by stating that the new FIR map
19
will possibly have a larger floodplain.
20
John Newton, 165 High Street, addressed the Council
21
and the Commission. He stated that it is important
22
for the improvements to be accelerated and that it
23
should be a formal request to FEMA to do so. He also
24
stated that FEMA should be requested to release the
25
surface elevation information as soon as possible so
26
developers can proceed.
27
In response to Councilmember Harper, Mr. Kueny
28
provided a summary of affected projects. He listed
29
them as being Colmer, Shea Homes, and two projects for
30
General Plan Amendment, USA and LT. He stated that
31
400 units have been approved and there are
32
potentially, 400 additional units. Mr. Kueny stated
33
that staff will meet with the Ventura County Flood
34
Control District to determine the status of the funds
35
for the project.
36
Councilmember Mikos expressed concern that part of
37
this floodplain development includes affordable
38
housing.
39
This item was concluded with no action required.
O -0011
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 8 May 8, 2002
1 B. Consider Goals and Objectives for Fiscal year
2 2002/2003. Staff Recommendation: Consider and
3 discuss Goals and Objectives for FY 2002/2003.
4 In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Kueny suggested that
5 the Planning Commission be requested to provide
6 comments and ask questions relative to the stated
7 Goals and Objectives.
8 Mayor Hunter opened the item for discussion.
9
Commissioner
Parvin requested the status of the item
10
to develop a
plan and conceptual
design for City entry
11
signs. (Item
G.11, page 11 of the
staff report.)
12
Mr. Kueny stated
the City has
not budgeted for the
13
entry signs
so there has been no
progress.
14 Commissioner Parvin asked if the City has considered
15 working with the service clubs relative to this item.
16 Mr. Kueny stated that there has been a proposal
17 submitted, but he is not certain of the status of that
18 proposal. He explained that service clubs typically
19 participate when it is on private property at the site
20 to introduce what clubs are available in the City
21 versus the kinds of welcome signs located in the
22 right -of -way.
23 Mayor Hunter asked if the City would be open to a
24 service club proposal to build one or more entry or
25 monument signs on City -owned property, theoretically,
26 in the center median, and if the Council approved of
27 such a sign.
28 Mr. Kueny stated that it would be a Council decision.
29 Chair Otto inquired on the status of the Business
30 Recovery Plan. (Item G.8, page 11 of the staff
31 report)
32 Mr. Kueny clarified that this item is not relative to
33 Economic Development, but is part of the Disaster
34 Recovery Plan for the City.
000012
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 9
Mav 8, 2002
1
Chair Otto stated that his question is that a concern
2
in previous years has been attracting and retaining
3
retail businesses in the City. He asked if this is
4
still a concern and area of focus for the City.
5
Mr. Kueny stated that the City works on this objective
6
without an adopted plan. He said attraction of
7
businesses is pursued through the landowners and their
8
brokers on an ongoing basis. Relative to the
9
retention of businesses, Mr. Kueny stated that the
10
City works in conjunction with the Economic
11
Development Collaborative of Ventura County (EDCVC) on
12
an informal basis and assists troubled businesses to
13
refine their business plans. He explained that the
14
City is also in contact with businesses periodically,
15
to see how they are doing.
16
Chair Otto suggested the need for a more explicit goal
17
for this item.
18 Mayor Hunter suggested that perhaps this item should
19 be given more of a priority than the City has given to
20 it in the past and include it as one of the top ten
21 goals for the City.
22 Chair Otto concurred with the Mayor's suggestion.
23
Commissioner Landis commented relative to Items 19 and
24
27 (pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) . He suggested
25
that Item No. 27, "Work with property owner to improve
26
west City entry ", be a companion item to top priority
27
Item No. 4. He stated that Item No. 19, "Utility
28
undergrounding projects" needs to be addressed as it
29
relates to the utility poles on Los Angeles Avenue and
30
the improvement of the west entrance to the City.
31
Commissioner Landis also suggested that another
32
priority should be to relieve the traffic congestion
33
on the 23 freeway.
34
Mr. Kueny stated that the City does have a project for
35
the utility undergrounding, which was delayed because
36
of the energy crisis. He stated that the City is
37
participating with Southern California Edison in a
38
plan for the service lines from Gabbert Road to
000013
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 10
Mav 8, 2002
1 Millard Avenue to be undergrounded, which will leave
2 only the transmission lines above ground.
3
Mr. Gilbert stated that the entire process of
4
undergrounding the utility service lines along Los
5
Angeles Avenue would take approximately 1 -1/2 to 2
6
years to complete.
7
Mr. Kueny stated that this is a long standing, multi -
8
million dollar goal to underground the transmission
9
lines along Los Angeles Avenue. He explained that the
10
City will be working on a funding source in the future
11
to underground the transmission lines. He continued
12
by stating that the City is hopeful that Caltrans will
13
establish a policy that will allow a raised Los
14
Angeles Avenue median that can be landscaped to
15
enhance the west entrance to the City.
16
Mr. Kueny stated that the City has had discussions
17
with the property owner of Specific Plan No. 1,
18
relative to where Muranaka Farms is located, to
19
address possible truck parking violations at the west
20
entrance to the City.
21
Mr. Kueny responded to Commissioner Landis' question
22
relative to alleviating traffic congestion on the
23
State Route 23 freeway. He stated that an additional
24
lane on SR -23 is proposed to be constructed and
25
completed within four years.
26
In response to Mr. Kueny, Mr. Gilbert stated that
27
Caltrans is in the design mode for the proposed
28
project, complete with sound walls and the widening of
29
all of the bridges from here to Highway 101. He
30
stated that Caltrans proposes to be under construction
31
with this project within approximately two years.
32
Mr. Kueny added that it is the City's understanding
33
that any further widening projects for SR -23 would not
34
be beneficial until design changes are made to the
35
connecting Highway 101.
36
Commissioner DiCecco commented relative to Item No. 6,
37
"Conduct an Organization and Management Study (0 &M
38
Study) and prepare an implementation plan ", (page 3 of
000014
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 11
May 8, 2002
1 the staff report). He suggested that this item be
2 deferred until the actual construction of the new City
3 Hall, since most of this information will be utilized
4 in the programming and the organization of the new
5 facility. He commented that if the 0 &M Study is done
6 prematurely to the construction of the new City Hall,
7 it will be outdated information relevant to the needs
8 to be designed into the proposed new facility. He
9 also commented that he is an advocate of the senior
10 center and teen center being developed on the same
11 site or possibly on the site of the existing City
12 Hall.
13 Relative to Item No. 18, "Expand Poindexter Park ",
14 Commissioner DiCecco suggested that Poindexter Park be
15 considered as a skatepark location and that there is
16 substantial community support for such a facility.
17 Commissioner DiCecco suggested that the City consider
18 and expedite a municipal code revision to allow second
19 dwelling units for property owners. He stated that
20 property owners in the City are transitioning to need
21 housing for elderly parents to live with them.
22 Mayor Hunter suggested that Chair Otto's
23 recommendation relative to the heightened level of
24 business proactivity and retention within the City be
25 adopted and moved to what will become the list of the
26 top 10 goals of the City.
27 Councilmember Mikos suggested replacing Item No. 10,
28 which has been accomplished with this evening's
29 discussion, with something relative to Affordable
30 Housing. She stated that it could serve a dual
31 priority with Business Retention and the Arroyo Vista
32 Park development.
33 Mayor Hunter concurred that it can be done in
34 conjunction with issues surrounding Arroyo Vista
35 Community Park.
36 Councilmember Wozniak stated that he is concerned that
37 the Council needs to keep the top 10 priority items
38 manageable for staff. He concurs with Chair Otto
39 about moving the item that requested a concern for
000015
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 12 May 8, 2002
1 attracting and retaining quality retail businesses in
2 the City to become a focus.
3
Mayor Hunter stated
that the City must enhance its
4
proactive stance to
pursue businesses to the City
5
which meet the needs and
the requirements of the City.
6
Councilmember Harper
used the Zelman project as an
7
example and stated that
the Council needs to be as
8
proactive as possible
in this regard, but they must be
9
aware of the private
sector economics that drive such
10
retail development.
11
Mr. Kueny stated that
these comments will be provided
12
to the Council in a
formal session on their Council
13
agenda so they can
contemplate and finalize the
14
language of the Goals
and Objectives.
15 Councilmember Mikos suggested that she wants to see
16 the East Los Angeles Avenue widening project receive a
17 higher priority.
18 Mayor Hunter queried the Council and Commission for
19 further comments relative to priorities on the agenda.
20 Commissioner Parvin suggested a volunteer section for
21 the City's webpage.
22 Councilmember Mikos commended staff for the
23 accomplishments that have been done relative to the
24 Goals and Objectives.
000016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Minutes of the City Council
and Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paae 13
Mav 8, 2002
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Otto adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting
at 8:05 p.m.
Mayor Hunter adjourned the City Council meeting at
8:05 p.m.
William Otto, Jr., Chair
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
City Clerk
0000li
ITEM: 6.C.
1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Moorpark, California
February 26, 2003
3 A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Planning
4 Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on February 26,
5 2003, in the Community Center of said City located at 799
6 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
7 1. CALL TO ORDER:
8 Mayor Hunter called the City Council meeting to order at
9 6:42 p.m.
10 Chair Landis called the Planning Commission to order at
11 6:42 p.m.
12 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
13 Steven Kueny, City Manager, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
14 3. ROLL CALL:
15 Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Harper, Mikos,
16 Millhouse, Parvin, and Mayor
17 Hunter.
18 Planning Commissioners
19 Present: Commissioners DiCecco, Lauletta,
20 Peskay, Pozza, and Chair Landis.
21 Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Hugh
22 Riley, Assistant City Manager; Ken
23 Gilbert, Public Works Director;
24 Mary Lindley, Community Services
25 Director; Barry Hogan, Community
26 Development Director; David
27 Bobardt, Planning Manager; Deborah
28 Traffenstedt, Assistant to City
29 Manager /City Clerk, and Maureen
30 Benson, Deputy City Clerk.
31 4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
32 None.
000018
Minutes of the City Council
Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 2 February 26, 2003
1 5. PRESENTATION /ACTION /DISCUSSION:
2 A. Consider Joint City Council/ Planning Commission Public
3 Workshop to Discuss the North Park Specific Plan
4 Project and Review Process for the Proposed
5 Construction of 1,650 New Houses on 3,544 Acres
6 Generally North of Moorpark College on the Application
7 of North Park Village, LLC (General Plan Amendment No.
8 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 and Zone Change No.
9 2001 -02). Staff Recommendation: Conduct Public
10 Workshop.
11 Mr. Hogan introduced David Bobardt, Planning Manager,
12 who gave a PowerPoint presentation of the Review
13 Process for the North Park Specific Plan including the
14 Environmental Review, Entitlements, Jurisdictional
15 Boundaries, and Other Permits. He introduced Vince
16 Daly and Kim Kilkenney representing North Park
17 Village, L.P.
18 Vince Daly, Project Manager and Principal of Daly
19 Owens Group, 31304 Via Colinas #103, Westlake Village,
20 provided a brief history of those who have helped in
21 the planning of the proposal and introduced the
22 consultants who will be working on the project.
23 Kim John Kilkenney, Vice President of Village Group
24 and North Park Village, L.P., 350 West Ash Street,
25 Suite 730, San Diego, gave a PowerPoint presentation
26 explaining the site location, ownership, goals, and
27 proposed land use and circulation. He emphasized the
28 goals of the project to be the preservation of natural
29 resources including open space, hillsides, oak trees
30 and farm land and the provision of quality planning to
31 benefit the community of Moorpark.
32 In response to Councilmember Harper, Mr. Kilkenney
33 stated that the number of affordable rental units was
34 calculated at 20 -units per acre.
35
36
37
Mr. Kueny clarified that
being negotiated and will
Agreement.
the calculation is still
be part of the Development
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Kilkenney
described the timeline for the project in order to
000019
Minutes of the City Council
Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 3 February 26, 2003
1
make the November 2003 ballot and stated that meeting
2
the deadline is optimistic.
3
Councilmember Mikos stated that voters could approve
4
the project with or without changing the City Urban
5
Restriction Boundary line; she is concerned that
6
Planning Area A is too close to sensitive habitat; and
7
that the issues previously raised by the City Council
8
concerning Planning Area A have not been addressed.
9
In response to Councilmember Millhouse, Mr. Kilkenney
10
stated that North Park's proposed lake is one -half the
11
size of the lake in Westlake; however the usable
12
portion is comparable.
13 In response to Councilmember Millhouse, Mr. Kilkenney
14 stated that the new freeway interchange is designed to
15 be the primary entrance for students traveling to
16 Moorpark Community College.
17 In response to Chair Landis, Mr. Kilkenney stated that
18 once the project is approved by the voters it could be
19 completed in six years plus any additional time added
20 for the length of any recession.
21 In response to Councilmember Parvin, Mr. Kilkenney
22 stated that the property along the freeway interchange
23 would need to be purchased from Unocal.
24 The City Council and Planning Commission expressed
25 interest in Mr. Hogan's suggestion for an onsite tour
26 and asked that it also be open to the public.
27 In response to Councilmembers Harper and Mikos, Mr.
28 Hogan stated that the PowerPoint presentations would
29 be made available on CDRom, as well as on the city's
30 website.
31 This item was concluded with no action required.
32 B. Consider Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year
33 2003/2004. Staff Recommendation: Consider and
34 discuss Goals and Objectives for FY 2003/2004.
35 Mr. Kueny introduced the process the City Council goes
36 through each year to consider goals and objectives at
37 a time when they can be tied to the budget.
000020
Minutes of the City Council
Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 4 February 26, 2003
1 Mayor Hunter stated that the Council considered these
2 objectives and goals within the last few days and
3 invited the Planning Commission to discuss them.
4
In response to Commissioner DiCecco, Mr. Kueny stated
5
that in regard to the state budget crisis, Moorpark's
6
philosophy is not to rush into anything; the city has
7
sufficient reserves to maintain current levels of
8
service and treat this as a transition year; if budget
9
cuts become permanent, other options will need to be
10
explored; and that there are limited options of
11
revenue in Moorpark without going to the voters.
12
In response to Commissioner Pozza, Mr. Kueny stated
13
that with the cooperation of Caltrans, within 24- to
14
30- months, Los Angeles Avenue, west to the freeway
15
will be improved with a raised median to create a more
16
aesthetically pleasing appearance and provide some
17
mitigation to the truck traffic.
18
Mayor Hunter stated that the top 10 objectives were
19
developed by the City Council for their broadest
20
appeal and greatest community benefit.
21
In response to Chair Landis, Mr. Riley stated that the
22
Police Services Center will be completed in October or
23
November of 2004.
24 In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Riley stated that the
25 city will go out for bid next month on the realignment
26 of the intersection at Flinn Road.
27 In response to Commissioner Pozza, Councilmember Mikos
28 stated that on last year's list and this year's list
29 of top 10 objectives she has been trying to gain
30 support to add the improvements to Los Angeles Avenue
31 East.
32 In response to Councilmember Parvin, Mr. Kueny stated
33 that sufficient funding has been set aside for
34 improving all of Los Angeles Avenue.
35 Mr. Gilbert stated that the City Engineer is
36 finalizing the design for retaining walls on the north
37 side of Los Angeles Avenue East; considerable time
38 will be needed to obtain the right -of -way to 40 -50
000021
Minutes of the City Council
Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Paqe 5 February 26. 2003
1
affected parcels; and the project could possibly go
2
out for bid in two years.
3
Councilmember Millhouse explained how items move
4
forward on the Objectives List and invited the
5
Planning Commissioners to make additions to the list.
6
In response to Councilmember Harpers' concerns about
7
emergency response confusion with two streets having
8
the name of Los Angeles Avenue, Mr. Kueny stated that
9
the Transportation /Streets Committee will be
10
discussing potential renaming both Los Angeles Avenue
11
East and Spring Road at their meeting in April.
12
In response to Commission Peskay, Mr. Kueny stated
13
that the progress in revitalizing downtown Moorpark is
14
proceeding; public facilities will act as anchors with
15
the Police Service Center and the proposed City Hall
16
serving as bookends, and the new Fire Station in the
17
middle, to attract the private sector to locate to
18
High Street; a developer for a business office project
19
has expressed interest with restaurants to follow; and
20
that the renovation of the Theatre on High Street will
21
further enhance interest in businesses locating to
22
High Street.
23 In response to Councilmember Parvin, Mr. Kueny stated
24 that lighting for the multi - purpose court used by
25 roller hockey enthusiasts at Arroyo Vista Recreation
26 Center, is not a budgeted item.
27
Councilmember Millhouse stated that at a recent Youth
28
Sports Liaison meeting, the Arroyo Vista Recreation
29
Center Phase II schedule was discussed and build -out
30
has been approved, including a softball diamond,
31
lighting and paved parking. He went on to comment
32
that there are no funds available to provide lighting
33
for the multi - purpose court used for roller hockey and
34
suggested working with local businesses in the
35
community to raise funds.
36
In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Kueny stated
37
that the ground breaking ceremony for the fire station
38
will be on Thursday, May 8, 2003.
39
In response to Councilmember Parvin, Mr. Hogan stated
40
that it is has been suggested by the Council Committee
000022
Minutes of the City Council
Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 6 February 26, 2003
1 on Affordable Housing and Community Development that
2 the commercial demand study to determine appropriate
3 range of commercial acreage for city build -out be part
4 of the General Plan study, which the City Council will
5 be considering March 19, 2003.
6 Mayor Hunter complimented the Planning Commission for
7 distinguishing themselves as energetic, individual
8 thinkers and congratulated them for work well done.
9 6. CLOSED SESSION:
10 Mayor Hunter announced that the City Council would be going
11 into closed session to consider Item 6.A.
12 MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Millhouse
13 seconded a motion to adjourn to closed session for a discussion
14 of Item 6.A. on the agenda. The motion carried by unanimous
15 voice vote. The time was 7:55 p.m.
16 A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
17 Title: Assistant City Manager, Assistant to City
18 Manager /City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, City
19 Engineer, Chief of Police, Administrative Services
20 Director, Community Development Director, Community
21 Services Director, and Public Works Director.
22 7. ADJOURNMENT:
23 Chair Landis adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at
24 7:55 p.m.
25 AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was declared. The time
26 was 7:55 p.m. The Council reconvened into closed session at
27 8:10 p.m.
28 Present in closed session were Councilmembers Harper,
29 Mikos, Millhouse, Parvin, and Mayor Hunter; Steven
30 Kueny, City Manager; Hugh Riley, Assistant City
31 Manager; Ken Gilbert, Public Works Director; Barry
32 Hogan, Community Services Director; and Deborah
33 Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk.
34 The Council reconvened into open session at 8:35 p.m. Mr.
35 Kueny stated that Item 6.A. was discussed and that there
36 was no action to report.
000023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Minutes of the City Council
Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 7 February 26, 2003
Mayor Hunter adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:35
p.m.
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
City Clerk
Kipp Landis, Chair
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
000024
ITEM: B.A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal Planne
DATE: March 18, 2003 (PC Meeting of 4/01/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -03, for
Construction of a Wireless Communications Facility on an
Existing Southern California Edison High Power
Transmission Tower, Located South of Tierra Rejada Road
on Open Space Area and Southwest of Brookhurst Court, on
the Application of Infranext, Inc. for AT &T Wireless
(Assessor Parcel Number 506 -0- 010 -615)
BACKGROUND
On February 18, 2003, this project was considered by the Planning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. As a result of the
issues brought up at the public hearing, this matter was continued
(public hearing open) to March 18, 2003, and then continued to
April 1, 2003. The continuance was to allow the applicant time to
research options of screening ground mounted equipment and to
determine the feasibility of relocating the pole mounted cellular
equipment to the next utility pole, further from the residences.
DISCUSSION:
Issues raised at the February 18, 2003 public hearing were:
• Screening of ground mounted equipment.
• Feasibility of relocating the pole mounted equipment to the
next utility pole, further from the residences.
Screening of Ground Mounted Equipment: Based on the recommendation
of the Planning Commission and issues raised by the public at the
public hearing, the applicant has included three (3) alternative
designs for the ground mounted equipment area. The original
proposal included above ground equipment, located within an
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030401 staff
report.doc 000025
Honorable Planning Commission
April 1, 2003
Page 2
approximately twenty foot (20') by eight foot (8') area, enclosed
by a six foot (61) high chain link fence, painted green to blend
with the surrounding hillside. The three (3) alternative designs
for the equipment area include:
• Alternative 1 - Block Wall - This alternative is to replace
the chain link fence with a block wall to surround the
equipment area. The block wall could then be painted to blend
in with the hillside. The small GPS and LMU antennas
originally proposed to go in the fenced area would be placed
on the antenna array on the pole with the proposed antennas.
• Alternative 2 - Vegetation - This alternative is to keep the
proposed chain link fence and place drought- resistant
shrubbery around the fence, as irrigation will not be
possible.
• Alternative 3 - Vaulting - This alternative is to place all
equipment below grade. The only visible additions would be an
approximately three foot (31) high retaining wall to prevent
water and mud from running over the hatch, and a small
electrical meter cabinet which would be placed in front of the
retaining wall. Two (2) vents would be placed on the ground
next to the hatch, one (1) for air intake to the vault and one
(1) for air output. These vents are very small, so as to
lessen visual impact. The GPS and LMU antennas originally
proposed to go in the fenced area would be placed on the
antenna array on the pole with the proposed antennas.
In reviewing the screening options presented for the ground mounted
equipment, staff recommends placing the equipment in a vault, which
provides optimum screening of the equipment from the surrounding
residential uses, as all equipment (with the exception of an air
input, output vents and a small electrical meter) will be placed
below grade level. Special Condition No. 1 has been modified and
Special Condition No. 2 has been added, reflecting this
recommendation.
Feasibility of relocating the pole mounted equipment to the next
utility pole, further from the residences: The Planning Commission
also requested that alternative Southern California Edison (SCE)
power poles, specifically two (2) poles, located south of the
proposed pole and further up the hill (south), be reviewed by AT &T
Wireless engineers to determine whether coverage objectives could
be met. After studying the poles and generating coverage maps, it
was determined that relocating the site to either of the
alternative poles would reduce the required coverage along Tierra
Rejada Road, and that coverage objectives could not be met. The
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030401 staff
report.doc
000020
Honorable Planning Commission
April 1, 2003
Page 3
applicant has provided Radio Frequency (RF) exhibits (see
attachments e, f, and g) which depict the expected coverage areas
of the two (2) alternative poles.
In reviewing the before and after Radio Frequency (RF) Coverage
exhibits, it is apparent that locating the cellular equipment on a
pole further south of the existing residential properties, does not
achieve the goal of providing better cellular coverage in the
target area along Tierra Rejada Road. Therefore, staff recommends
that the cellular equipment be mounted on the SCE utility pole as
proposed in the application. Additionally, lowering the height of
the antennas to a maximum height of thirty -five feet (35') above
grade serves to better screen the antenna's from surrounding
properties.
STAFF RECONMENDATIONS
1. Accept public testimony and close the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. PC 2003- approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2002 -03, with the location of the antenna equipment
as submitted in the application and the ground mounted
equipment placed in a vault, subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution No. PC -2003- with Conditions of Approval.
2. Alternative Design Material
a. Alternative 1 - Block Wall - before and after pictures (3
each).
b. Alternative 2 - Existing Fence with Similar Drought
Resistant Vegetation before and after pictures (3 each).
C. Equipment Vaulted before and after pictures (3 each).
d. Picture of Originally Proposed SCE Tower Pole and
Alternative Poles Reviewed.
e. RF Coverage Taken From Alternative Pole #1730422.
f. RF Coverage Taken From Alternative Pole #1604072.
g. RF Coverage of Original Coverage along Tierra Rejada
Road.
3. Staff Report for PC Meeting of March 18, 2003 (without
attachments).
4. Staff Report for PC Meeting of February 18, 2003 (without
draft Resolution).
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030401 staff
report.doc 000027
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2002 -03 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON AN EXISTING SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON HIGH POWER TRANSMISSION TOWER
LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
PROPERTY, SOUTH OF TIERRA REJADA ROAD AND SOUTHWEST
OF BROOKHURST COURT, ON THE APPLICATION OF
INFRANEXT, INC. FOR AT &T WIRELESS (ASSESSOR PARCEL
NO. 506 -0- 010 -615)
WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings on February 18, 2003,
March 18, 2003 and April 1, 2003, the Planning Commission
considered Condition Use Permit (CUP) No. 2002 -03, on the
application of Infranext, Inc. for AT &T Wireless, requesting
approval of a wireless communications facility consisting of the
installation of six (6) panel antennas and one (1) microwave dish
mounted upon existing Southern California Edison (SCE) High Power
Transmission Tower No. 1604071E, located within the Southern
California Edison property, south of Tierra Rejada Road and
southwest of Brookhurst Court.
WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 18, 2003, the Planning
Commission considered the agenda report and any supplements thereto
and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and
considered public testimony both for and against the application
and then continued the matter, public hearing open to subsequent
meetings; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2003, the Planning Commission closed the
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concurs with the Community
Development Director's determination that this project is
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 as a
Class 3 exemption for the construction of new small structures or
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: Based upon the
information set forth above, it is determined that this application
with the attached conditions, meets the requirements of the City of
Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.44.030 in that:
PC ATTACHMENT 1
000028
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 2
A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent and provisions
of the City's General Plan, and Title 17 of the Municipal Code
in that the proposed use, height setbacks, and improvements
are consistent with requirements of City Code requirements
when conditioned.
B. The proposed use is compatible with the character of the
surrounding development because the site is currently used by
Southern California Edison for high power electrical
transmission lines and the use of utility poles has been
designated as an appropriate location for the cohabitation of
cellular sites.
C. The proposed use will not be obnoxious or harmful or impair
the utility of the neighboring properties or uses as the
proposed use is designed to blend in with the colors of the
terrain and the existing high power transmission line.
D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, as the
project has been conditioned to protect the public's health
and safety.
E. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual
character and design of the surrounding properties, in that it
is designed so as not to detract from the physical and visual
quality of the community. The color of the antennae is
proposed to be painted to blend in with the existing SCE
structure. In addition, the proposed equipment cabinets and
fencing will be painted to blend into the surroundings.
SECTION 2. WIRELESS FACILITIES FINDINGS: Based upon the
information set forth above, it is determined that this application
with the attached conditions, meets the requirements of the City of
Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.42.060 in that:
A. The proposed facility will not create any significant blockage
to public views as the cellular facility will be placed on an
existing electrical transmission tower.
B. The proposed facility will enhance communication services to
the City due to its ability to provide increased communication
capabilities.
C. The proposed facility will be aesthetically integrated into
its surrounding land uses and natural environment, since it
will be painted to blend into the existing electrical
transmission tower.
D. The proposed facility will comply with FCC regulations
regarding interference with the reception or transmission of
other wireless service signals within the City and surrounding
community.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
resolution.doc
000029
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 3
E. The proposed facility will operate in compliance with all
other applicable Federal regulations for such facilities,
including safety regulations, as AT &T operates its wireless
network in compliance with its FCC license and FCC rules and
regulations concerning frequency emissions and /or radio
frequency interference. The transmission densities emanating
from the facility will not exceed current American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) recommended maximum exposure levels
for wireless transmission frequencies which do not have the
potential to significantly impact the community. In all cases,
Effective Radiated Power (ERP), and its associated
electromagnetic (EM) radiation power densities are a small
fraction of the maximum permissible exposure set by ANSI, or
the more restrictive exposure standard put forth by the
National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement
(NCRP) .
F. The public need for the use of the facility has been
documented by the applicant and verified by city staff to be
consistent with California law in that the proposed cell site
will provide a substantial increase in the coverage area (an
increase from weak coverage to good coverage in the target
area).
G. The applicant will provide at its own expense, a field survey
or other method consistent with Federal law to provide written
verification that the facility is in compliance with
applicable Federal regulations regarding electromagnetic
frequency emissions. This radio - frequency (RF) report shall
also include signal strength exhibits, including calculations
and measurements under maximum loading conditions. Such field
survey shall be provided to the City upon request, not to
exceed one (1) such request in any 24 -month period.
SECTION 3. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL: The Planning
Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -03
subject to the Special and Standard Conditions of Approval included
in Exhibit A (Special and Standard Conditions of Approval),
attached and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Community
Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in
the book of original resolutions.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
reso'_ution.doc 000030
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 4
The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 1st day of April 2003.
Kipp A. Landis, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K Hogan
Community Development Director
Exhibit A: Special and Standard Conditions of Approval
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
resolution.doc 000031
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -03
SPECIAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance, all exterior
antenna, support poles, equipment materials and paint colors
shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director to blend into the surroundings.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance the development
plans shall be revised to show all ground mounted equipment in
an underground vault. The design and color of the vault is
subject to the review and approval of the Community
Development Director.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR
QUESTIONS REGARDING C014PLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
1. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the land and
project as identified on the entitlement application form and
as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations. The
location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown
on the approved plot plans and elevations, except or unless
indicated otherwise, by conditions within this resolution.
2. The development is subject to all applicable regulations,
requirements and enactment of Federal, State, Ventura County,
City and any other governmental entities, and all such
requirements and enactment's shall, by reference, become
conditions of this permit.
3. In the event that the uses for which this Conditional Use
Permit are approved, is determined to be abandoned, the City
of Moorpark may, at its discretion, initiate revocation
procedures for cause per the provisions of Section 17.44.080.
For purposes of this condition, "abandoned" shall mean a
cessation of a business or businesses which would render the
use unavailable to the public for a period of 180 or more
consecutive days. Initiation of revocation procedures may
result in the revocation of the permit or modification of the
permit based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. A
surety, in an amount subject to the review and approval of the
Community Development Director, shall be provided to the City
prior to the approval of a Zoning Clearance for construction,
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
resolution.doc
000032
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 6
to guarantee removal of equipment and structures, if the City
determines the facility to be abandoned and /or a public
nuisance.
4. Unless the project is inaugurated (building foundation in
place or substantial work in progress) not later than one (1)
year after this permit is granted, this permit shall
automatically expire on February 18, 2004. The Community
Development Director may, at his discretion, grant up to one
(1) additional year for project inauguration, if there have
been no changes in the adjacent areas and if the applicant can
document that he has diligently worked towards inauguration of
the project during the initial one (1) year period. The
request for extension of this entitlement shall be made in
writing, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration
date of the permit.
5. Removal or relocation of any and all of the facilities shall
be at the facility owner's expense, and at no cost to the
City. Should the facility be removed or relocated by the
City, the facility owner hereby waves any claims, damage, or
loss (including, but not limited to, consequential damages)
resulting from the city's removal or relocation of the
facility.
6. All facilities and uses, other than those specifically
requested in the application, are prohibited unless the City
of Moorpark has approved an application for a modification.
Any minor changes to this permit shall require the submittal
of an application for a modification to this permit.
7. Conditions of this entitlement shall not be interpreted as
permitting or requiring any violation of law or any unlawful
rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental
agency. In instances where more than one (1) set of rules
apply, the stricter ones shall take precedence.
8. If any of the conditions or limitations of this permit are
held to be invalid, that holding shall not invalidate any of
the remaining conditions or limitations set forth.
9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers
or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval
by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions,
agents, officers, or employees concerning the subdivision,
which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time
period provided therefore in the Government Code. The City
will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action
or proceeding, and, if the City should fail to do so or should
fail to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
resolution. doc 000033
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 7
not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City or its agents, officers and employees
pursuant to this condition.
a. The City may, within its unlimited discretion,
participate in the defense of any such claim, action or
proceeding if both of the following occur:
i. The City bears its own attorney fees and costs;
ii. The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in
good faith.
b. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any
settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the
settlement is approved by the applicant. The applicant's
obligations under this condition shall apply.
10. Prior to approval of construction plans for plan check or
initiation of any construction activity, a Zoning Clearance
shall be obtained from the Department of Community
Development.
11. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the permittee
shall sign a statement indicating awareness and understanding
of all permit conditions, and shall agree to abide by the
conditions required for approval.
12. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction,
the applicant shall deposit with the City of Moorpark a
Condition Compliance review in the amount of the original
filing fee for the project.
13. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the
applicant shall post a surety to the City subject to the
review and approval of the Community Development Director to
guarantee removal of equipment and structures, if the City
determines the facility to be abandoned and a public nuisance.
14. Prior to any occupancy by any tenant or subsequent owner,
whose business would employ or dispose of hazardous materials,
a Major Modification application shall be filed with the
Department of Community Development and approved by the City.
15. No later than ten (10) days after any change of property
ownership or change of lessee(s) or operator(s) of the subject
use, there shall be filed with the Community Development
Director the name(s) and address(es) of the new owner(s),
lessee(s) or operator(s) together with a letter from any such
person(s) acknowledging and agreeing with all conditions of
this permit.
16. The continued maintenance of the permit area and facilities,
including but not limited to the condition of the landscaping,
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
resolution. doc 000034
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 8
shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City. The
permittee shall be required to remedy any defects in
maintenance, as indicated by the Code Enforcement Officer
within thirty (30) days after notification.
17. The applicant and his successors, heirs, and assigns shall
remove any graffiti within five (5) days from written
notification by the City of Moorpark. All such graffiti
removal shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
18. The applicant shall pay all outstanding case processing
(planning and engineering), and all City legal service fees
prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance. The applicant,
permittee, or successors in interest shall also submit to the
Department of Community Development a fee to cover costs
incurred by the City for Condition Compliance review of the
Conditional Use Permit.
19. The Community Development Director may declare this
entitlement project not in compliance with the Conditions of
Approval or for some other just cause, a "public nuisance ".
The applicant shall be liable to the City for any and all
costs and expenses to the City involved in thereafter abating
the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with the Conditions
of Approval or applicable codes. If the applicant fails to
pay all City costs related to this action, the City may enact
special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon
which the nuisance existed (Municipal Code Section 1.12.080).
20. All ground mounted equipment and other noise generation
sources on -site shall be attenuated to 55 dBA at the property
line. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for initial
occupancy or any subsequent occupancy, the Community
Development Director may request that a noise study be
submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all
on -site noise generation sources would be mitigated to the
required level. The noise study must be prepared by a
licensed acoustical engineer in accordance with accepted
engineering standards.
21. The applicant will provide at its own expense a field survey
or other method consistent with Federal law to provide written
verification that the facility is in compliance with
applicable Federal regulations regarding electromagnetic
frequency emissions. This radio - frequency (RF) report shall
also include signal strength exhibits, including calculations
and measurements under maximum loading conditions. Such field
survey shall be provided to the City upon request, not to
exceed one (1) such request in any 24 -month period.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
resolution.doc 000035
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 9
22. The facility shall be removed at the owner's expense when a
City- approved project requires relocation or undergrounding of
the utility structure on which the facility is mounted. If
the facility owner refuses to remove the facility, the owner
shall reimburse the City for city costs and expenses to remove
the facility. The applicant waives any claims, damage, or
loss (including, but not limited to, consequential damages)
resulting from the City's removal or relocation of the
facility.
PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR QUESTIONS REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
23. Prior to any work being conducted within the State, County, or
City right of way, the Developer shall obtain all necessary
encroachment permits from the appropriate agencies, including
traffic and detour plans. Copies of all permits will be
provided to the City prior to commencing any work.
24. Issuance of this permit does not in any way preclude prior
easement rights and the rights of all underlying and previous
holders must be respected. Developer must notify any easement
holder being affected by the proposed improvements or
development prior to the work being commenced.
25. During smog season (May - October), the City shall order that
construction cease during Stage III alerts to minimize the
number of vehicles and equipment operating, lower ozone levels
and protect equipment operators from excessive smog levels.
The City, at its discretion, may also limit construction
during Stage II alerts. Construction activities shall meet
the requirements of Section 15.26.010 of the Municipal Code.
26. The developer shall ensure that construction equipment is
fitted with modern sound - reduction equipment.
27. Construction equipment not in use for more than ten (10)
minutes shall be turned off.
28. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction
of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the
Ventura County Environmental Health Department, the Fire
Department, the Sheriff's Department, and the City
Construction Observer shall be notified immediately. Work
shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of
these agencies.
29. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in
proper tune as set forth in manufacturer's specifications.
30. The developer shall comply with National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) objectives as outlined in the
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
resolution.doc 0 000 3 6
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 10
"Storm Water Pollution Control Guidelines for Construction
Sites ". This handout is available at the City Engineering
Office.
31. The land outside the street right -of -way of the proposed
improvements shall be left in its natural state. Any work
within private property will require permission from the
property owner. A copy of that permission shall be forwarded
to the City.
32. All debris, including branches and pieces of concrete and
asphalt, within the local area shall be removed and disposed
of properly. This includes all debris adjacent to the exiting
access road.
-End-
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc
11-1 O ^ �+ lJ n w
resolution.doc C.
Tierra Rejada SCE Tower # 1604071 E
Alternative / - Block Wall
8r'S} BOB Y,67 ;, n
PC ATTACHMENT
2.a. 000038
Tierra Rejada SCE Tower # 1604071 E
Alternative 2 Shrubs
PC ATTACHMENT
2.b. 000039
Tierra Rejada SCE Tower- # 1604071 E
Alternative 3 - Voult
. ,. PC ATTACHMENT .
2.c• 000040
i
I
New pole 1t 1730422
will not provide
needed coverage New pole ! .-1604072
will not provide
needed coverage
PC ATTACHMENT
2.d. 000041
a♦
A PROPOSED SITES
Al EXISTING SITES
C7 Good Caovrsgo, (as dam )
Ca»� ' ,A-*aM M vaags. (-s dam)
® Poor oovorags( -asaen)
O Wr, Poor Cbvng#(< -as aen)
ATTACHMENT
LSED SITES
G SITES
mg• (-rs dem )
Mg• (-a o a *Mg•(asoem)
co vaago (t -os 4 eM )
FC ATTACHMENT,
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal Planner.`
DATE: March 10, 2003 (PC Meeting of 3/18/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -03, for
Construction of a Wireless Communications Facility on an
Existing Southern California Edison High Power
Transmission Tower Located South of Tierra Rejada Road on
Open Space Area, Southwest of Brookhurst Court, on the
Application of Infranext, Inc. for AT &T Wireless
(Assessor Parcel Number 506 -0- 010 -615)
BACKGROUND
On February 18, 2002, this project was considered by the Planning
Commission and continued the public hearing to March 18, 2003. The
continuance was to allow the applicant time to research options of
screening ground mounted equipment and to determine the feasibility
of relocating the pole mounted cellular equipment to the next
utility pole, further from the residences. On March 5, 2003, staff
received an email from the applicant requesting a continuance of
the public hearing from March 18, 2003 to April 1, 2003.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Continue the public hearing to April 1, 2003
ATTACHMENT:
Email from Keyur Mistry dated March 5, 2003
S: \Community Development' PC ATTACHMENT 3
report.doc 000044
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry R. Hogan, Community Development Direct
Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal Planner, ,
DATE: February 10, 2003 (PC Meeting of 2/18/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -03, for
Construction of a Wireless Communications Facility on an
Existing Southern California Edison High Power
Transmission Tower Located South of Tierra Rejada Road on
Open Space (OS) Area, Southwest of Brookhurst Court, on
the Application of Infranext, Inc. for AT &T Wireless
(Assessor Parcel Number 506 -0- 010 -615)
On November 21, 2002, a revised application for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2002 -03 was submitted for a proposed wireless
communication facility to be located on an existing Southern
California Edison (SCE) High Power Transmission Tower (No.
1604071E) on Southern California Edison property south of Tierra
Rejada Road and southwest of Brookhurst Court.
DISCUSSION
Project Setting
Existing Site Conditions:
The subject site is on an existing Southern California Edison high
power transmission tower within Southern California Edison
property, south of Tierra Road and southwest of Brookhurst Court.
Single - family residential properties are located to the east and
west of the SCE property.
PC ATTACHMENT 4 000045
Honorable Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 2
General Plan and Zoning
Direction
Zoning
General Plan
Land Use
Site
OS
OS -2
Edison Power poles
North
OS
OS -2
Edison Power Poles
South
OS
OS -2
Edison Power Poles
East
RPD
M
Residential
West
RPD
M
Residential
General Plan and Zoning Consistency:
Section 17.42 of the Municipal Code requires that wireless cellular
facilities obtain a Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit. The applicant's proposal for a utility mounted facility is
defined as a "Minor Facility" per current Code requirements and is
allowed in the OS (Open Space) Zoning Classification. This type of
facility is required to be compatible with surrounding land uses,
must be an attachment to an existing above - ground structure and
must comply with all other provisions of Section 17.42.70.B,
17.42.070.C, and 17.42.070D of the Municipal Code.
Proposed Project
Facility:
This proposed wireless communication facility consists of the
installation of six (6) panel antennas and one (1) microwave dish
mounted upon an existing SCE High Power Transmission Tower via an
approved SCE antenna mounting bracket. The panel antennas are
configured within three (3) sectors of two (2) antennas per sector.
Three (3) of the panel antennas are proposed to be installed
immediately upon construction (i.e. one (1) antenna per sector) and
three (3) of the panel antennas are proposed for future
installation. The panel antennas will transmit (Tx) or send
signals to the wireless telephones within the coverage area. The
proposed panel antennas measure 48- inches in height, 7.2- inches in
width and 2.3- inches in depth and will have an antenna tip height
of 52 -feet 4- inches (52'4 "). Pursuant to City Code requirements, no
Minor Facility shall exceed the maximum building height for the
applicable zoning district unless such facility receives approval
of the Planning Commission and the applicant demonstrates that
exceeding the height limitation is necessary for operation of the
facility. In this case, the proposed height exceeds the thirty -five
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030218 staff
reportl.doc 000046
Honorable Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 3
foot (35') height limitation. This issue is further discussed in
the analysis section of this report.
The microwave dish is proposed for installation immediately upon
construction and will serve as a transmit antenna for the telephone
landline transmissions. The microwave dish measures 4- square feet
(2' x 2') and has a thickness of one inch (1 "). The height to the
center point of the microwave antenna is proposed at approximately
forty -feet (40'), which is ten -feet (10') below the center point of
the antenna array, which proposed at fifty -feet (50') above the
base of the utility pole. The proposed antenna will be camouflaged
by the use of paint called "Stormy Night" to blend in with the
steel gray color of the SCE High Power Transmission Line. In this
case, as with the antennae, the proposed height exceeds the thirty -
five foot (351) height limitation. This issue is further discussed
in the analysis section of this report.
Equipment Enclosure:
AT &T Wireless also proposes to install four (4) prefabricated radio
equipment cabinets atop a wood platform contained within a chain
link fence. The equipment cabinets will be located twenty -five
feet (25') west of the SCE tower, and will contain wireless radio
equipment and various electronic support equipment, including an
alarm system to detect intrusion, fire and power failure on a 24-
hour, 365 -day a year basis. The equipment will operate on a 24-
hour, 7 -day a week remote sensing basis that will be monitored at
AT &T Wireless's Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO). Two (2)
of the proposed radio equipment cabinets will be installed
immediately upon construction and two (2) will be installed at a
future date. The proposed radio equipment cabinets would be painted
"Alligator Green" to blend in with their surroundings.
Utility Requirements:
Both electricity and telephone are required to operate a wireless
facility. The proposed facility will operate on standard 200 Amp
120/240 volt, single -phase commercial power service. Each remote
wireless facility must have a means of sending and receiving
information and wireless calls to the Mobile Telephone Switching
Office (MTSO). This is done by utilizing an existing telephone
landline. The MTSO is the central processor and "switch" to route
calls to other mobile users or into Public Switched Telephone
Network (PSTN). AT &T Wireless proposes to utilize a specially
conditioned digital telephone line (known as T -1) to route two -way
voice traffic and data between the cellular site and the MTSO.
The utilities would be placed underground with the electricity in a
four -inch (4 ") PVC conduit and telephone in a four -inch (4 ")
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030218 staff
reportl.doc
000047
Honorable Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 4
conduit. The trench will be eighteen- inches (18 ") wide, thirty -
six- inches (36 ") deep and have a run of approximately 500 lineal
feet and 1,400 lineal feet from the Telco and power points of
connection, respectively. Power will be placed at the bottom of
the trench with the telephone placed one -foot (1') above.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area:
There is no scenic vista at the proposed location, nor is the
proposed location within a scenic view. No materials used in
construction of the site would create substantial glare that would
effect either daytime or nighttime views in the area.
Additionally, the color of the equipment is proposed to blend with
the color of the existing utility pole and the proposed use is
located in an area that is not likely to impact any of the adjacent
residential uses due to its small size.
The proposed cellular facility on the existing utility pole is
considered a passive use, which would not produce noise, not
violate any air quality standards, affect biological resources, or
cause an adverse effect on cultural resources. It will require no
transport of hazardous materials to or from the site. Although,
the proposed use is designed to serve the existing residential
area, it would not induce substantial population growth, would not
displace existing housing or have a negative impact on public
services. Therefore, the utility mounted cellular antenna facility
operation will not disturb the surrounding area or be harmful or
detrimental to neighboring properties or uses.
Traffic and Parkina:
The proposed unmanned communication facility generates a minimal
amount of traffic (only that necessary to periodically check the
facility); therefore, no parking is required. The applicant's
submittal information indicates a Cell Site Technician will visit
the facility in a standard four (4) wheel drive vehicle an average
of one (1) to two (2) times per month. During routine maintenance,
the average on -site time is less than two (2) hours. The site can
be accessed from Tierra Rejada Road. No parking facilities are
required by the Zoning Code for this type of facility.
ANALYSIS
Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following
area for Planning Commission consideration in their decision on
this matter:
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030218 staff
reportl.doc
000048
Honorable Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 5
Minor Facility Height Requirement:
Pursuant to Section 17.42.070 of Ordinance No. 278, no Minor
Facility shall exceed the maximum building height for the
applicable zoning district unless such facility receives approval
of the Planning Commission and the applicant demonstrates that
exceeding the height limitation is necessary for operation of the
facility. In this particular case the distance from grade level of
the pole to the top of the antenna is 52 -feet 4- inches (52' 4 "),
although the allowable height in the OS Zone is thirty -five feet
(35'). The applicant has not demonstrated the need for the
additional height and therefore, staff recommends that the maximum
height not exceed the thirty- five -foot (351) height limitation. A
Condition of Approval has been included, limiting the antennae and
corresponding microwave dish height to thirty- five -feet (351). The
applicant has indicated that a reduction in height to thirty -five-
feet (35') from ground level is acceptable in that the height
reduction will still produce the desired results and provide an
acceptable level of increased reception in the targeted reception
area.
Findings
Conditional Use Permit Findinas:
A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent and provisions
of the City's General Plan, and Title 17 of the Municipal Code
in that the proposed use, height, setbacks, and improvements
are consistent with City Code requirements, when conditioned.
B. The proposed use is compatible with the character of the
surrounding development because the site is currently used by
Southern California Edison for high power electrical
transmission lines and the use of utility poles has been
designated as an appropriate location for the cohabitation of
cellular sites.
C. The proposed use will not be obnoxious or harmful or impair
the utility of the neighboring properties or uses, as the
proposed use is designed to blend in with the colors of the
terrain and the existing high power transmission line.
D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, as the
project has been conditioned to protect the public's health
and safety.
E. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual
character and design of the surrounding properties, in that it
is designed so as not to detract from the physical and visual
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030218 staff
reportl.doc
000049
Honorable Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 6
quality of the community. The color of the antennae is
proposed to be painted to blend in with the existing SCE
structure. In addition, the proposed equipment cabinets and
fencing will be painted to blend into the surroundings.
Wireless Facilities Findinas:
A. The proposed facility will not create any significant blockage
to public views, as the cellular facility will be placed on an
existing electrical transmission tower.
B. The proposed facility will enhance communication services to
the City due to its ability to provide increased communication
capabilities.
C. The proposed facility will be aesthetically integrated into
its surrounding land uses and natural environment, since it
will be painted to blend into the existing electrical
transmission tower.
D. The proposed facility will comply with FCC regulations
regarding interference with the reception or transmission of
other wireless service signals within the City and surrounding
community.
E. The proposed facility will operate in compliance with all
other applicable Federal regulations for such facilities,
including safety regulations, as AT &T operates its wireless
network in compliance with its FCC license and FCC rules and
regulations concerning frequency emissions and /or radio
frequency interference. The transmission densities emanating
from the facility will not exceed current American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) recommended maximum exposure levels
for wireless transmission frequencies which do not have the
potential to significantly impact the community. In all cases,
Effective Radiated Power (ERP), and its associated
electromagnetic (EM) radiation power densities are a small
fraction of the maximum permissible exposure set by ANSI, or
the more restrictive exposure standard put forth by the
National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement
(NCRP) .
F. The public need for the use of the facility has been
documented by the applicant and verified by city staff to be
consistent with California law in that the proposed cell site
will provide a substantial increase in the coverage area (an
increase from weak coverage to good coverage in the target
area) .
G. The applicant will provide at its own expense a field survey
or other method consistent with Federal law to provide written
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030218 staff
reportl.doc
0`9nn
0050
Honorable Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page '7
verification that the Facility is in compliance with
applicable Federal regulations regarding electromagnetic
frequency emissions. This radio - frequency (RF) report shall
also include signal strength exhibits, including calculations
and measurements under maximum loading conditions. Such field
survey shall be provided to the City upon request, not to
exceed one such request in any 24 -month period.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City`s environmental review procedures
adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director
determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects
may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in
CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that
environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined
that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the
environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption
requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of
potential environmental impacts.
Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may
determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon
the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental
documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the
potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation
can not be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
is prepared.
Pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted
to determine if the proposed project could significantly affect the
environment. It has been found that the project is Categorically
Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the
public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. PC 2003- approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2002 -03, subject to conditions.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030218 staff
reportl.doc 000051
Honorable Planning
February 18, 2003
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS:
Commission
1. Location Map
2. Draft Resolution No. PC -2003-
3. Site Plan /Elevation Exhibits
with Conditions of Approval
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030218 staff
reportl.doc
000052
ITEM: 9. A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Laura Stringer, Senior Manageme alyst
DATE: March 26, 2003 (PC Meeting of 4/01/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Scheduling of a Summer Meeting Recess to
Coincide with City Council Recess.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On March 19, 2003, the City Council considered a summer recess
schedule, and directed staff to post a notice of cancellation of
the July 16 and August 16, 2003 regular City Council meetings.
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission determine the 2003
summer recess schedule, and recommends cancellation of the July 15
and August 15, 2003 regular Planning Commission meetings to
coincide with the approved City Council recess.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to post a notice of meeting cancellation for the July
15 and August 15, 2003, regular meetings.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \P C POLICIES \agenda rpt 030401 summer recess .doc
0 `00:. 3