HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2003 0218 PC REGResolution No. PC -2003 -439
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 18, 2003
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
799 Moo
rk Avenue
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
S. 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.
1 r�
Planning Commission Agenda
February 18, 2003
Page No. 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2002.
B. Special Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2002.
C. Regular Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2003.
D. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 4, 2003.
7. PUBLIC COb1MENTS :
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2003 -439)
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 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) (Staff: Paul
Porter)
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.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Discussion of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). No Agenda Report (Staff: David Bobardt)
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Special CC /PC Joint Meeting February 26, 2003 - North
Park Specific Plan /EIR Workshop
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2003 \030218 pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
February 18, 2003
Page No. 3
B. March 4, 2003:
• CPD 2002 -02, Kestly Commercial Office
• ZOA, Entitlement Process
11. ADJOURNMEW :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
IL
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2003 \030218 pca.doc
ITEM:
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paqe 1
1 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
2 October 28, 2002, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic
3 Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
4 1. CALL TO ORDER:
5 Vice Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7 Commissioner Parvin let'the Pledge of Allegiance.
8 3. ROLL CALL:
9 Commissioners DiCecco, Haller, Parvin, and Vice Chair
10 Landis were present. "
11 Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hoban, Community
12 Development Director; Walter Brown, City Engineer; Paul
?3 Porter, Principal Planner; Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner;
l Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner; and Gail Rice,
15 Administrative Secretary.
16 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
17 Mr. Hogan announced that staff had received Chair Otto's
18 official resignation which was forwarded to the City Clerk.
19 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
20 Vice Chair Landis took a poll to see how many people were
21 in attendance regarding Item 8.E. Commercial Planned
22 Development Permit #2000 -04. He then announced that the
23 Commission would attempt to address that item by 8:00 p.m..
24 6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
25 A. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2002.
26 Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller seconded
27 a motion that the Planning Commissioner Meeting minutes of
28 October 14, 2002, be approved.
29 Motion carried with a unanimous 4 :0 voice vote.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
000001
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paae 2
1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
2 There were no public speaker cards submitted.
3 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4 (next Resolution No. 2002 -432)
5 A. Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -04, for
6 Fifteen (15) Communication Antennas (Panels) Placed in
7 Three Groups of Five (5) Antennas and a 230 Square
8 Foot Equipment Building at the Ventura County
9 Waterworks District College Water Tank Reservoir
10 Facility, on the Application of Nextel. (Assessors
11 Parcel No. 500 -0- 281 -405)
12 Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, take
13 public testimony, and continue the public hearing
14 open, to the Special Meeting of November 4, 2002.
15 Mr. Hogan presented the staff report, recommending
16 that the Public Hearing be opened and continued to the
17 November 4, 2002, Planning Commission Special Meeting.
18 Vice Chair Landis opened the public hearing at 7 :12
19 p.m.
20 There were no speaker cards and no written statement
21 cards.
22 MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner
23 DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff
24 recommendation to continue the item, with the public
25 hearing open, to the Planning Commission Special
26 Meeting of November 4, 2002.
27 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
28 B. Consider Tentative Parcel Map No. 5371, Subdivision of
29 a 0.98 -acre Parcel of Land Into Three (3) Parcels of
30 12,379.66; 12,092.16; and 12,170.57 Net Square Feet;
31 Respectively (Applicant: RJR Engineering Group;
32 Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Culler)
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc �('i�
Q 00 /�V U 2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Page 3
1 Staff Recommendations:
1) Open the
public hearing,
2 accept public testimony,
and close the
public hearing;
3 2) Adopt Resolution
No. PC -2002-
approving
4 Tentative Parcel Map 5371.
(page 6 of Attachment
13
5 Mr. Fiss presented the
staff report
and provided a
6 summary of the proposed
subdivision.
}
that staff concurs with the
7 The Commission had no questions of staff.
8 Vice Chair Landis opened the public hearing at 7:15
9 p.m.
10
Daniel Groff; owner
of one of
the parcels indicated
11
that he was available
for questions. He also requested
12
that Condition of Approval
No. 7
(page 6 of Attachment
13
A) be deleted because
it did not
apply to the project.
14
Mr. Hogan commented
}
that staff concurs with the
deletion of Condition
of Approval
No. 7.
i6
James O'Tousa; RJR
Engineering;
engineer for the
17
project, indicated
that he
was available for
18
questions.
19
The Commission had no
questions
of Mr. Groff or Mr.
20
O'Tousa.
21 Vice Chair Landis closed the public hearing at 7:17
22 p.m.
23 MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner
24 Haller seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC-
25 2002 -432, approving Tentative Parcel Map 5371 with the
26 deletion of Condition of Approval No. 7 on page 6.
27 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
28
C. Consider Conditional Use
Permit No. 2000 -08,
for
29
Construction of a Wireless
Communications Facility
on
30
an Existing Southern California Edison Power
Pole
31
Located within the Caltrans
Right -of -Way on the
East
'?
Side of Walnut Canyon Road
at Approximately 7260 -1/2
Walnut Canvon Road, on
the application of
The
S. \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
Q0t?OQ.1
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paqe 4
1 Consulting Group, Inc.
for
Cingular Wireless
2 (Adjacent and west of Assessor
Parcel Number 500 -0-
3 240 -16)
12
Conditions of Approval for review. He indicated that
4 Staff Recommendations: 1)
Open
the public hearing,
5 accept public testimony and
close
the public hearing;
6 2) Adopt Resolution No.
PC
2002- approving
7 Conditional Use Permit
No.
2000 -08 subject to
8 conditions.
Distance of nearest residential unit.
17
9 Mr. Porter presented the staff report.
10
Mr.
Porter informed the Commission that staff provided
11
the
Commission with copies of two (2) additional
12
Conditions of Approval for review. He indicated that
13
the
conditions had been accepted by'the applicant.
14
The
Commission questioned staff on the following:
4
15
Commissioner Haller:
16
•
Distance of nearest residential unit.
17
•
Page 3; first paragraph of the staff report,
18
"that maintenance will be required every 40 to 6
19
weeks." Typographical error. Should read 4 to 6
20
weeks.
21
•
Determination of continuance of radiation at 100
22
watts.
23
•
Page 3; third paragraph; correction to the words,
24
"..... not violate and air quality standards.
25
Change to read, ". not violate any air quality
26
standards. ".
27 Commissioner Parvin:
28 • The Resolution references Conditional Use Permit
29 No. 2000 -04 and should say Conditional Use Permit
30 No. 2000 -08. Requested a review of the documents
31 for consistency throughout.
32 • Page 2; Section 4.B., remove the word
33 "enhancement."
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
000004
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paae 5
1
•
Page 6; Condition of Approval No. 14., deletion
2
of the word "landscaping."
3
•
Page 6; Condition of Approval No. 19; the words
4
"paint colors" were questioned.
5
•
Page 7; Condition of Approval No. 22; ".... the
6
Developer shall obtain call necessary ...."
7
Should read, shall obtain all necessary
8
.....
9
•
Page 7; Condition of Approval No. 27; the
10
statement "if any hazardous waste is encountered
11
during construction of this project, all work
12
shall be immediately stopped ... May need to
13
be stricken.
14
•
If repairs are required, where will the
15
maintenance truck be parked tp accomplish
16
repairs?
Vice
Chair Landis:
18
•
Page 4. Length being six (6) feet and the
19
Municipal Code stating three (3) feet. Staff
20
should state the size of the horizontal elements
21
are necessary to achieve the desired function.
22
Vice
Chair Landis opened the public hearing @ 7:25
23
p.m.
24
Barry
Hammond; applicant's representative, stated that
25
Cingular Wireless concurs with staff recommendations
26
and
the additional two (2) Conditions of Approval.
27
Mr.
Hammond answered Commissioner Haller's question
28
regarding
the radiation pattern.
29 Commissioner Parvin questioned why Cingular had chosen
30 the site, rather than one of the water tanks where
31 other wireless communication facilities were located.
32 Mr. Hammond responded that the site met requirements
33 for existing repeater station coverage.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
0 0000 S
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Pacte 6
1 Commissioner Haller questioned whether the radiation
2 pattern had been filed with the application.
3 Mr. Hammond and Mr. Porter responded that the pattern
4 information had been included in the application.
5 Vice Chair Landis closed the public hearing at @ 7:28
6 p.m.
7 Commissioner Parvin questioned staff regarding future
8 access requirements and needs for this proposed site.
9 Commission Haller stated when the application was
10 filed in 2000, it was an antennae installation rather
11 than a microcell. He stated that there had been a
12 change from the original concept* which changed the
13 radiation pattern and exposure levels.
s
14 MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner
15 DiCecco seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-
16 2002 -433 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2000 -08,
17 with changes to the Conditions of Approval, as noted,
18 and include:
19 • Allowing the 6 -foot length extension from the
20 utility pole as opposed to the 36 -inch length
21 permitted by the Municipal Code.
22 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
23 D. Consider Industrial Planned Development Permit No.
24 2001 -01, a Request to Allow Construction of an
25 Approximately 6,833 Square Foot Contractor's Repair
26 Building and a 2,194 Accessory Office Building on a
27 67,833 Square Foot (1.56 Acre) Parcel Located at 13840
28 E. Los Angeles Avenue, on the Application of Sharma
29 Construction, Inc. (Assessor Parcel No. 512 -0 -160 -055,
30 070, 730)
31 Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
32 accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
33 and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending
34 to the City Council Industrial Planned Development
35 Permit No. 2001 -01 with Conditions of Approval.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
(�
V 00006
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paae 7
1
Mr.
Fiss presented the staff report and commented on
2
the
following:
3
•
The project has a history of code enforcement
4
violations some of which currently exist.
5
•
If recommendation by the Commission is to move
6
forward to the City Council, the Council's
7
approval would provide for clean up of the
8
violations by allowing a new development.
9
•
The applicant is proposing tubular steel fencing,
10
staff is proposing a defensible block wall along
11
the rear property line, with a setback of five
12
(5) feet for future from the Arroyo Simi.
13
•
Mr. Fiss informed the Commission that corrections
14
to the Conditions of Approval (4 pages) had been
15
provided to the Commission at the meeting.
t
,,?6
The
Commission questioned staff regarding:
_7
•
Potential for problems of truck traffic on Los
18
Angeles Avenue.
19
•
Clarification of whether the fuel tanks are
20
considered outside storage.
21
•
Requirements for loading zone with proposed
22
project, and whether a loading zone could be
23
accommodated for a future change in use.
24
•
Screening fuel storage; size of tank and NPDES
25
requirements.
26
•
Condition of Approval No. 80; page 20: reference
27
to code requirement changes "during construction"
28
and versus during "plan check."
29
•
Condition of Approval No. 121, page 30: the 100-
30
year flood plain.
31
•
Condition of Approval No. 16, page 7: "granting a
32
one (1) year extension" and non - compliant issues.
33 • Block wall versus wrought iron fencing.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN\COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
OC 000 i
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Page 8
1 Vice Chair Landis opened the public hearing at 7 :45
2 p.m.
3 Tom Mogan; property owner and principle for Sharma
4 Contractors.
5 Mr. Mogan cited concerns: with staff's recommendation
6 for a block wall along the rear property line, stating
7 that wrought iron fencing would provide more security
8 by allowing the rear of the site to be visible. He
9 also expressed concern with staff's recommendation for
10 a five (5) foot setback from the Arroyo.
11 The Commission questioned the speaker regarding:
12 • Wrought iron fence versus %a block wall for
13 security.
14 • Removal of the modular building on the property.
15 Vice Chair Landis and Mr. Hogan discussed with Mr.
16 Mogan the possibility of this item being continued to
17 the Planning Commission Special Meeting of November 4,
18 2002, to allow the applicant additional time to review
19 the conditions.
20 MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner
21 Haller seconded a motion to continue the item, public
22 hearing open, to the Planning Commission Special
23 Meeting of November 4, 2002.
24 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
25 Vice Chair Landis called a recess. The time was 7:50 p.m.
26 The meeting reconvened at 8:04 p.m.
27 E. Consider Commercial Planned Development Permit No.
28 2000 -04 for Construction of a 72,285 Square Foot
29 Commercial Center and Tentative Parcel Map No. 5264
30 for Subdivision of 6.28 Acres into Four Lots Located
31 at the Southwest Corner of Campus Park Drive and
32 Collins Drive on the Application of M &M Development.
33 (Assessor parcel Nos. 514 -0- 160 -015, and 04)
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc (�((��(� (� p
V 00008
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Page 9
1 Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
2 accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
3 2) Consider the proposed Negative Declaration to
4 ensure that it adequately addresses the impacts of the
5 proposed residential project prior to approval; 3)
6 Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending to the
7 City Council conditional approval of Commercial
8 Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -4 and Tentative
9 Parcel Map No. 5264.
10 Disclosure by the Planning Commission took place:
11
• Vice Chair Landis stated that he had met with
12
this applicant and with Mr. Haller for general
13
discussion.
14
• Commissioner DiCecco stated that had met with the
15
applicants on one (1) occasion and with Brian
16
Doherty twice. He further stated that Brian
17
Doherty had been his client two (2) years ago on
I
another residential project, but that he
-9
currently had no projects with him.
20
• Commissioner Parvin stated that she met with the
21
applicants one and one -half (1 -1/2) months ago
22
for a general discussion. Also, she encountered
23
the applicant in front of a convenience store
24
about two (2) years ago but she did not know
25
about this project at that time.
26
• Commissioner Haller stated that he meet with
27
applicant, along with Vice Chair Landis
28
approximately one (1) month ago, to get a full
29
understanding of the project.
30
Mr. Porter presented the staff report. He commented
31
that there was additional correspondence received
32
after the packet was distributed to the Commission,
33
and that copies of these letters were provided to
34
Staff and the Commission at the meeting. He also
35
stated that he received a modification to Condition of
36
Approval No. 53 and seven special conditions from the
37
City Engineer and that those items were distributed to
I
the Commission and staff.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
000 009
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Page 10
1
Mr.
Porter presented slides of the project area and
2
provided
an overview of the proposal:
3
The
Commission questioned staff regarding:
4
•
Collins Drive access and exit(s).
5
•
Condition No. 11; page 10: Hours of operation.
6
•
Project affected by the 100 -year flood plain.
7
•
Any signage facing residential area to the west
8
side.
9
•
Campus Park ingress and egress.
10
•
Circulation within the project.
11
•
d
Increase in Transportation Systems Management
12
Program (TSM) fees.
13
•
Increase in smog. 4
14
•
Condition to contribute to the Los Angeles Area
15
of Contribution (AOC) fees. Various ingress and
16
egress recommendations and opportunities.
17
Vice
Chair Landis opened the public hearing at 8:40
18
p.m.
19
Vice
Chair Landis requested that Mr. Hogan summarize
20
the
statement cards.
21 Mr. Hogan stated that there were a total of ninety
22 (90) statement cards submitted; eighteen (18) cards
23 stated opposition to the project for the following
24 reasons:
25 • view blockage
26 • additional traffic
27 • crime /loitering /child predators
28 • noise /air quality
29 • property values
30 • chemical & contaminants to the ground water
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
Q0G010
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paae 11
1 • hotel
2 • drive - through
3 • destruction of the neighborhood
4 • residential area, no need for more commercial
5 • too close to park
6 • no gas station open twenty -four hours
7 • services available within five (5) miles
8
Sixty -eight cards were in favor of this project for
9
the
following reasons:
10
•
need for proposed services- in this area of
11
Moorpark
12
•
increase the tax base
i- 3
•
well planned
_4
•
support with no hotel
15
•
no additional housing
16
•
one stated a Marriott Hotel would be okay
17
•
general comments in favor of the project
18
•
support with no fast food restaurants
19 Four cards were neutral on the project:
20 • support without motel or with a higher -end hotel
21 • support with gasoline and service center but
22 concerned about the hotel accommodations
23 • concern with lights at night, open on the week -
24 end and property maintenance after 7:00 p.m.
25 • gas station may be utilized, but prefers current
26 open space
27 Vice Chair Landis opened the public hearing @ 8:40
28 p.m.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN\COMMISSION\MINOTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
000011
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paqe 12
1 There were thirty (30) public speaker cards submitted.
2
David Morehead; applicant's representative, introduced
3
the project consultant team and provided background
4
information on the proposal including community
5
involvement in the selection of potential uses. Mr.
6
Morehead discussed potential relationship to the
7
college for service station, fast food and restaurant
8
services. Mr. Morehead discussed potential for a
9
hotel, citing that no hotel currently exists anywhere
10
in the City.
11
Mr. Morehead expressed three (3) primary disagreements
12
with recommended conditions related to traffic and
13
ingress and egress to the project. Staff
14
recommendations with which Mr. "Morehead expressed
15
concern include: 1) no right turns on to Collins from
16
the site; 2) movement of the main drive} to the west;
17
and 3) not being able to exit left onto Campus Park
18
Drive.
19
Mr. Morehead also expressed concern with staff's
20
recommendation for an eight foot (81) wall along the
21
west side of the project due to engineering
22
restrictions of the existing six foot (61) high wall.
23
Brian Doherty, projected gas station owner and
24
operator for the project, provided a brief history of
25
his experience and his involvement with the proposed
26
project and community input.
27
Bill Morehead, marketing manager, thanked the public
28
for their input and, stated that the project would be
29
better due to that input.
30
Richard Pool, Traffic Engineer, stated that Mr.
31
Montgomery, who passed away earlier in the year, had
32
written the original report and that he, Mr. Pool, was
33
continuing with the project. Mr. Pool provided
34
supporting information for in and out access on
35
Collins drive and left turn on to Campus Drive.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
0(,)aolz
0
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paae 13
1 Commission Haller questioned Mr. Pool concerning left
2 turns to Campus Park Drive from the site.
3 Bob Gehricke, Architect, stated he was available to
4 answer questions.
5 Joseph Toth, Skyview Engineering, stated he was
6 available to answer questions.
7 Linda Toth, Century 21 Hilltop, stated that her office
8 is in the area, and expressed her support in favor of
9 this project including a need for a gas station and
10 hotel.
11 David Rush, applicant's leasing agent, stated he was
12 available for questions. °
13 Commissioner DiCecco questioned Mr. Rush concerning
14 impact of access issues to leasing of units. Mr. Rush
i5 responded that ingress and egress are the first things
reviewed by prospective tenants
17 Sabrina Simpson, stated that her house backs up to the
18 proposed service station. She added that the services
19 are an important criteria for the value of the homes,
20 and expressed concern due to the lack of services in
21 the area in the event of a disaster
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
^4
Tim Rosevear, stated that moved to Moorpark because of
its rural nature. He expressed concerns with impacts
to the park, traffic, uses, operating 24 -hours a day,
and environmental issues associated with the gas
station and cooking odors.
Patrick Ellis, stated he moved to Moorpark for the
rural nature of the area. He expressed major concerns
with the proposed hotel, the gas station, proposed
restaurants, and traffic (particularly from the
College).
Paul Gilmartin, expressed his support for convenience
for gas and other services, and that he would rather
spend money in Moorpark than in Simi Valley.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
000013
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paqe 14
1
Robert Brunner, stated that the corner of Collins and
2
Campus Park has been an eyesore. He stated that he
3
sees beauty in the project, which looks like the
4
promenade in Thousand Oaks.
5
Ted Green, expressed concern for the project and
6
increased cost of police protection. He cited traffic
7
accidents and his observations of near accidents in
8
the area and major concerns with traffic.
9
Steve Mazzuca, stated he had dealt with proposed
10
projects at Tierra Rejada Road and Peach Hill Road. He
11
expressed his concern that the community work with the
12
developer for the best project possible.
13
Julie Szylewicz, stated that her h6use backs up to the
14
development. She indicated that although she was
15
initially in support of the concept, she stated
16
concern for the impact of uses on the neighborhood,
17
with traffic down Campus to Collins and the blind
18
corner. She .cited the Mountain Meadows project as a
19
good example.
20
Michael Greywitt, stated . concerns with the potential
21
traffic and safety issues and alcohol sales at the gas
22
station.
23
Karen Allin, stated that she lives above the college,
24
and expressed concerns with traffic and safety,
25
particularly related to the college and class
26
schedules. She also expressed concerns with people
27
coming into the neighborhood from the freeway.
28
Jeff Gery, stated that although in support of
29
development of the property, he expressed concerns
30
with the applicant's representation of the proposals.
31
Tammy Bell, Expressed opposition to a hotel use on the
32
project because it will draw commuter travelers and
33
with 24 -hours a day operation.
34
James Stueck, stated issues of: 1) concern for
35
increased traffic, he stated that Von's center has not
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
0 oaos4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Paae 15
1 generated much out of town traffic; 2) hotel, there is
2 currently no place for group functions and
3 fundraisers, such as Chamber installations and Boys
4 and Girls Club auction.
5 Sheri Risley Bonnert, cited her concern with a
6 hotel /motel, would prefer not to have a gas station,
7 need for shortened hours, keeping noise level down,
8 and drive - through restaurant. She cited several
9 acceptable uses including sit -down restaurant.
10 Steve Nardi, Expressed concern with proposed project,
11 student traffic and representations by the developer.
12 Claudia Marsh, supported Karen Allin's concerns with
13 traffic. She stated preferred uses for the proposed
14 project, and that there was no need for a hotel or gas
15 station. She added that she was not opposed to a
16 development in area but wanted to make it was the
=~7 right one.
18 James MacDonald, Indicated that he travels to LAX
19 daily and expressed support for a development with a
20 gas station to be used by residents to keep the money
21 in Moorpark.
22 Vice Chair Landis advised Mr. MacDonald to fill out a
23 public speaker card.
24 Anna Szabo, stated support for some type project on
25 the site, but expressed concern with traffic impact,
26 noise pollution, fast food, hotel and trash enclosure
27 locations.
28 Kathleen D. Blakeney, stated that she echoed last
29 speaker's discussion and that the project is too
30 aggressive. She expressed concern with transient
31 activity and stated opposition to the project.
32 Dan Shea, stated concern with impact on Princeton
33 Avenue commercial development. Is need for gas at the
34 college reason for this project? He expressed concern
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
0 00015
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Page 16
1 with decisions based on minority of
homeowner input
2 and representations
by the developer.
23
3 Vice Chair Landis
called a recess at
10:20 p.m. The
4 meeting reconvened
at 10:31 p.m.
26
5 Vice Chair Landis
provided a quick
summary of the
6 public speaker's
comments, including
the following
7 concerns:
30
an extended continuance. Staff also informed the
8 • Hotel
Commission of Streamlining Act issues related to the
32
9 • Circulation
10 • Circulation in residential area
11 0 Drive through restaurants ft
12 • Gas Station (selling liquor) and hours of
13 operation
14 • Ingress /egress
15 The Commission discussed returning the matter to staff
16 for further review and information regarding:
17 • Traffic issues, including a traffic study
18 • Other issues raised by the public
19 Vice Chair Landis questioned staff's timetable for
20 getting this project to the City Council.
21
Mr. Hogan commented that had the Commission made a
22
decision during this meeting, the project would have
23
gone before the Council in January 2003. He suggested
24
that if the matter is continued, the second meeting in
25
January would be appropriate based on selection of a
26
new Commission and potential holiday conflicts.
27
Discussion ensued concerning creation of an Ad Hoc
28
Committee consisting of Commissioners Landis and
29
DiCecco, re- notification to the property owners due to
30
an extended continuance. Staff also informed the
31
Commission of Streamlining Act issues related to the
32
Parcel Map, and the necessity to continue the matter
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
0 00001G
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 28, 2002
Page 17
1 to November 4, 2002, to consider the applicant's
2 waiver of the streamlining act.
3 MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller
4 seconded a motion to continue this item to the Special
5 Planning Commission Meeting of November 4, 2002, to resolve
6 the Streamlining Act issues; to assign an Ad Hoc Committee
7 (Vice Chair Landis and Commissioner DiCecco) to meet with
8 staff and the applicant to resolve the resident's concerns
9 and to direct staff to provide notification to the property
10 owners of a continued meeting to January 27, 2003.
11 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
12 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
d
13 Mr. Hogan advised the audience that they could go to the
14 city's website at www.ci.moorpark.ca.us to stay informed on
15 Item 8.E. (CPD 2000 -04; M &M Development) and.,the residents
16 could also send e -mails to obtain information from Paul
7 Porter, the Principal Planner for this project, at
3 pporter @ci.moorpark.ca.us.
19 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
20 Commissioner Parvin reminded everyone that this weekend
21 (November 3rd and 4th) the Moorpark Rotary Club will sponsor
22 the Civil War Re- enactment; entitled the "Blue and Grey."
23 There will be two battles each day. Encampments to open
24 daily at 10:00 a.m. She provided a phone number for those
25 seeking additional information, 805 -523 -3370.
26 11. ADJOURNMENT:
27 MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner DiCecco
28 seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting.
29 Motion passed with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
30 The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021028 pcm.doc
000017
ITEM: 6. B.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Pacre 1
1 The Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
2 November 4, 2002, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic
3 Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
4 1. CALL TO ORDER:
5 Vice Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7 :06 p.m.
6
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7
Community Development Director, Barry Hogan, led the Pledge of
8
Allegiance.
9
3.
ROLL CALL:
10
Commissioners DiCecco, Haller, Parvin, and Vice Chair
11
Landis were present.
12
Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community
13
Development Director; Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner; Scott
Wolfe, Principal Planner; and Gail Rice, Administrative
_6
Secretary.
16
4.
PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
17
Commissioner DiCecco mentioned that the Moorpark football
18
team is now ahead at 8:0 wins.
19
5.
REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
20
Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller seconded
21
a motion to hear Item 8.C. first during the Public Hearing
22
section of the agenda.
23
Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
24
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
25
None.
26
7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
27
None.
28
8.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2002 -434)
CnoolLs
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Paae 2
1 C. Consider Commercial Planned Development Permit No.
2 2000 -04 for Construction of a 72,285 Square Foot
3 Commercial Center and Tentative Parcel Map No. 5264
4 for Subdivision of 6.28 Acres into Four Lots Located
5 at the Southwest Corner of Campus Park Drive and
6 Collins Drive on the Application of M &M Development.
7 (Assessor parcel Nos. 514 -0- 160 -015, and 04).
8 (Continued from October 28, 2002.) (Staff: Paul
9 Porter)
10 Staff Recommendations: Continue the item, public
11 hearing open, to January 27, 2003.
12 Mr. Hogan provided the staff presentation and stated
13 that the applicant had concurred with continuance of
14 the item to the Planning Commission meeting of January
15 27, 2003, and that staff wou.1d work with the
16 applicant, engineer and architect on revisions to the
17 plans.
18 MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner
19 Haller seconded a motion to approve staff
20 recommendation and continue this item to the Planning
21 Commission meeting of January 27, 2003.
22 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
23
A. Consider Conditional Use
Permit No. 2002 -04, for
24
Fifteen (15) Communication Antennas (Panels) Placed in
25
Three Groups of Five (5) Antennas and a 230 Square
26
Foot Equipment Building
at the Ventura County
27
Waterworks District College
Water Tank Reservoir
28
Facility, on the Application of Nextel. (Assessors
29
Parcel No. 500 -0- 281 -405).
(Continued from October 28,
30
2002.) (Staff: Scott Wolfe)
31
Staff Recommendation: 1)
Open the public hearing,
32
accept public testimony and
close the public hearing;
33
2) Adopt Resolution No.
PC 2002- approving
34
Conditional Use Permit No.
2002 -04 subject to special
35
and standard conditions.
36 Mr. Wolfe provided the staff presentation.
37 The Commission had no questions of staff.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021104 sp pcm.doc
0"4019
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Pa
1 Vice Chair Landis opened the public hearing at 7:10
2 p.m.
3 Ed Gala, Nextel Communications, the applicant's
4 representative, stated that he agreed with staff's
5 recommendations for approval and that the applicant
6 had agreed to comply with all of the conditions. Mr.
7 Gala provided samples of materials to be used for the
8 palm tree and the tree bark and furnished the
9 Commission with the manufacturer's brochure.
10 The Commission questioned Mr. Gala on the exhibits
11 that he had provided including a question on whether
12 the "branches" extend beyond antenna length.
13 Vice Chair Landis closed the public hearing at 7:15
14 p.m.
15 The Commission questioned staff regarding;
16 • Landscaping screening, and tree replacement.
3
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021104 sp pcm.doc
0 n0020
• Page 2; Section 3.B. suggested that the word
18
"enhancement" be removed and reword to say "the
19
proposed facility will enhance communication
20
services to the City due to its ability to
21
provide additional communication capabilities."
22
• Page 3; Section 4.A.2. revise to add more
23
landscaping if needed.
24
Mr. Hogan indicated that staff could re -word Section
25
4.A.2. to read, "the Director may require additional
26
trees after the installation of the antenna if
27
additional screening is deemed necessary."
28
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner
29
DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff
30
recommendations, adopting Resolution No. PC- 2002 -434
31
approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -04 subject
32
to special and standard conditions and incorporate
33
changes that the branches will extend beyond the
34
length of the antennas; rewording of Section 3.B. of
35
the Resolution,; and add a condition that the
Community Development Director may require additional
3
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021104 sp pcm.doc
0 n0020
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
G
1 trees for additional screening once the support pole
2 is in place.
3 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
4 B. Consider Industrial Planned Development Permit No.
5 2001 -01, a Request to Allow Construction of an
6 Approximately 6,833 Square Foot Contractor's Repair
7 Building and a 2,194 Accessory Office Building on a
8 67,833 Square Foot (1.56 Acre) Parcel Located at 13840
9 E. Los Angeles Avenue, on the Application of Sharma
10 Construction, Inc. (Assessor Parcel No. 512 -0- 160 -055,
11 070, 730). (Continued from October 28, 2002.) (Staff:
12 Joseph Fiss).
13 Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
14 accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
a
15 and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending
16 to the City Council Industrial Planned Development
17 Permit No. 2001 -01 with Conditions of Approval.
18 Mr. Fiss provided the staff presentation.
19 The Commission questioned staff regarding:
20 • That a block wall was still being recommended and
21 suggested that the condition be revised to
22 require a wrought iron fence and pilasters every
23 thirty (30) feet, rather than a solid block wall.
24 • Page 14 Condition No. 62 - how did parkway and
25 median landscaping apply to the proposal.
26 • Page 20 Condition No. 81 - reference to bridges.
27 Suggestion to strike the word bridges.
28 • Page 21 Condition No. 86 - was requirement for a
29 slough wall if there is a slope exceeding four
30 feet in height adjacent to a sidewalk applicable
31 to project.
32 Vice Chair Landis opened the public hearing at 7:28
33 p.m.
34 • Mike Sanchez; Lauterbach & Associates, architect
35 for the project, discussed plans to achieve code
36 compliance and requested clarification of
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021104 sp pcm.doc () C(A) 2 1
A
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Page 5
1 disposition of Building A.. He discussed the
2 applicant's desire for wrought iron fencing along
3 the south property line for security reasons and
4 the fact that landscaping areas along the south
5 property line were dedicated to drainage
6 filtration. He requested that Condition No. 5 on
7 Page 3 be eliminated, but that all other
8 conditions were acceptable. He then addressed
9 Commission questions concerning fuel tank
10 screening.
11 The Commission questioned the applicant concerning the
12 staff recommended wall versus wrought iron fencing,
13 landscaping and relocation of Building A.
14
Christina May, stated that she wao a property owner
15
across the street from the site. She expressed
16
concerns with the project and stated that if it was
17
proposed as an expansion she was opposed to the
18
project. She stated preference for a block wall along
Los Angeles Avenue, and that she was concerned with
noise from the fuel storage facility.
21
22
Dennis "Tom" Mogan; Sharma Construction, Inc.,
23
addressed questions concerning operation of the
24
facility.
25
26
Shubhash Sharma; Sharma Construction, Inc., indicated
27
that he was available for questions.
28
29
Vice Chair Landis closed the public hearing @ 7:45
30
p.m.
31
The Commission discussed the wall /fencing along
32
the southerly property line, landscaping,
33
relocation of the code violation building, fuel
34
tank and trash enclosure screening
35
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner
36
Parvin seconded a motion to approve staff
37
recommendations, adopt Resolution No. PC- 2002 -435,
38
recommending to the City Council Industrial Planned
Development Permit No. 2001 -01 with changes to the
Resolution and Conditions of Approval:
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021103 sp pcm.doc
000022
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Pacie F
1 • Section 3.A.1. - tubular steel and decorative
2 block fencing shall be consistent around the
3 property;
4 • Section 3.A.5 - delete;
5 • Section 3.A.10 - resolve code violations within
6 ninety (90) days with possible extension of
7 ninety (90) days, if approved by the Community
8 Development Director;
9 * Addition of 3.A.11; landscaping along Los Angeles
10 to be increased and include pepper treeswith
11 Bougainvillea planted along rear property line.
12 • Condition Nos. 81 and 115 - deletion of the word
13 bridges.
14 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
g
15 D. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -OS for Approval of a
16 Cellular Communication Facility Consisting of 12
17 Cellular Communication Antennas Mounted 'on a Monopole
18 Tower Structure Camouflaged to Appear to be a Pine
19 Tree, and a 160 Square Foot Equipment Building at
20 13931 East 'Los Angeles Avenue. (Assessors Parcel
21 Number: 512 -0 -160 -300) (Staff: Scott Wolfe)
22 Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
23 accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
24 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC 2002- approving
25 Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -05 subject to special
26 and standard conditions.
27 Mr. Wolfe provided the staff presentation.
28 The Commission questioned:
29 • Compatibility with residential area.
30 • Views from SP -2.
31 • Revision to finding 3.B. regarding "enhancement."
32 • Impact on further development on property.
33 • Pine tree proposed and its similarity to one seen
34 earlier in Item 8.A.
35 • Original denial, centered on compatibility
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021104 sp pcm.doc
oeo023
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Paqe 7
1
(visual and impacts on residences).
2
• Elevation of antennae in relation to the
3
residences.
4
• Page 4 of the Resolution; Section 4.A.4.a;
5
reference to chain link fence.
6
Vice Chair Landis opened the public hearing @ 8:13
7
p.m.
8
Scott Peotter; Representing Cingular, provided
9
information regarding the previous application
10
(Airtouch; 1998) and explained the current proposal.
11
12
The Commission questioned the applicant regarding:
13
I,
• No plan to fence off the equipment.
14
• All equipment in the shelter.
15
• Shared driveway.
Christina May, adjacent property owner, stated that
she protested the previous proposal for the site, and
18
questioned access rights to the driveway and problems
19
with the driveway pavement and drainage.
20
21
The Commission questioned Ms. May on:
22
• maintenance of the easement
23
• access to the site
24
• public utility easements
25
• trespassing problems
26 Terri White, stated that she lived above the site, and
27 was opposed to installation of the antennas. She
28 expressed concerns with child safety, property values
29 and impact on views.
30
31 The applicant's representative responded to concerns
32 of:
33 • Driveway problems
34 • Access
-45 • Radio frequency issues
• Property devaluation
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021109 sp pcm.doc 4
0 P CO2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Paqe F
1 • Value of the property
2 • Maintenance
3 The Commission questioned the applicant regarding the
4 size of the vehicles that would service this site.
5 Mr. Peotter stated that most would be mini vans,
6 explorers, and SUV's, however original installation
7 (poles) would require larger vehicles. He stated that
8 Cingular would be happy to repair any damage done
9 during installation.
10 Vice Chair Landis closed the public hearing at 8:38
11 p.m.
12 Mr. Hogan suggested that the Commission take a straw
13 vote on their inclination for approval or disapproval
14 to focus the discussion
15 Commissioners Parvin and Haller indicated that they
16 could not approve this project, even with
17 modifications. Commissioner DiCecco and Vice Chair
18 Landis indicated they might be able to approve this
19 project with modifications. Discussion ensued
20 regarding options for a Commission decision, and
21 potential modifications to mitigate Commission
22 concerns.
23 Mr. Hogan noted that if the Commission did not approve
24 the project, the applicant could file an appeal to the
25 City Council.
26 Mr. Hogan suggested that the Commission may wish to
27 consider a motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit
28 with the following findings:
29 • Under the Conditional Use Permit Findings:
30 - The proposed use is not compatible with
31 existing uses in the general area where the
32 development is planned to be located because of
33 aesthetic incompatibility;
34 -The proposed use is not compatible with the
35 scale and visual character design of the
36 surrounding properties in that it is located in
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021104 sp pcm.doc
Q 0 0025
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Paae 9
1 too prominent of a location and visible from
2 too many areas within the City.
3 • Under the Wireless Facility:
4
-The proposed facility would create
significant
5
blockage to public views and
impair
those views
6
because of the tall nature of
the structure;
7
- The proposed facility
would
not be
8
aesthetically compatible nor
would
it integrate
9
to the surrounding land uses and
the natural
10
environment consistent with
the
surrounding
11
area.
12 • Add the following finding:
13 - Approval of this use may ehcourage additional
14 facilities at this site.
15 MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and-, Commissioner
16 Parvin seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-
2002 -436, denying the application and adopting the
stated findings.
19 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
20 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
21 Mr. Hogan wished the Commission happy holidays and stated
22 that this would be the last meeting with this Commission.
23 He indicated that staff had cancelled the November 11 and
24 December 9 meetings.
25 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
26 A. Planning Commission Meetings of November 11, 2002 and
27 November 25, 2002:
28 • Cancellation
29 B. Planning Commission Meetings of December 9, 2002 and
30 December 23, 2002:
31 • Cancellation
C. Planning Commission Meeting of January 13, 2003:
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021104 sp pcm.doc
000026
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 2002
Page ]"
1 • ZOA Entitlements (Public Hearing)
2 • IPD 2000 -01 through 2000 -08; Cypress Land (Public
3 Hearing)
4 D. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of January 27,
5 2003:
6 • CPD 2000 -04; M &M Development applicant (Possible
7 Continued Public Hearing)
8 Mr. Hogan provided the Commission with a brief review of
9 future agenda items.
10 Mr. Hogan also provided the public with City e -mail contact
11 information.
12 Commissioner Parvin reminded everyone that Santa's coming
13 to Moorpark.
14 • Santa Breakfast on December 7th at 8:',30 a.m.
15 • The public may sign up to have a special visit
16 from Santa to their home beginning December 18
17 through December 22. More information at 517 -6300
18 or visit the City's website.
19 11. ADJOURNMENT:
20 MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner Haller
21 seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting.
22 Motion carried with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
23 The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \021109 sp pcm.doc
Q0. CQ2'"%
ITEM: 6.C.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Page 1
1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
2 January 27, 2003, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark
3 Civic Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California;
4 93021.
5 1. CALL TO ORDER:
6 Community Development Director, Barry K. Hogan, called
7 the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
8 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
9 Community Development Director, Barry Hogan, led the
10 Pledge of Allegiance.
11 3. OATH OF OFFICE:
12 City Clerk, Deborah Traffenstedt, administered the oath
13 of office to Planning Commissioners Mark DiCecco, Kipp
Landis, David Lauletta, Robert Peskay and Scott Pozza.
_-D Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan,
16 Community
17 Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager;
18 Walter Brown, City Engineer; Paul Porter, Principal
19 Planner; Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst; and
20 Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary.
21
22 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
23 A. Consider Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
24 Commissioner DiCecco nominated Commissioner Landis for
25 Chair. There being no other nominations, Commissioner
26 Peskay moved that nominations be closed, Commissioner
27 Pozza seconded the nomination, motion passed with a
28 unanimous voice vote.
29 Commissioner Landis was selected as Chair by a
30 unanimous voice vote.
31 Chair Landis nominated 'ommissioner Landis 'or Vice
32 Chair. There being no otnex uorui nat-i.ons - :ommissioner
Peskay moved that nominations be closed, Commissioner
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
01.0028
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Page 2
1 Pozza seconded the nomination, motion passed with a
2 unanimous voice vote.
3 Commissioner DiCecco was selected as Vice Chair by a
4 unanimous voice vote.
5 Chair Landis called a brief recess at 7 :15 p.m. The
6 meeting was reconvened at 7:20 p.m.
7 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
8 A poll of attendees for Item 8.B. was conducted and by
9 consensus, the Commission agreed to hear Item 8.B. as
10 the first item, with the understanding that the
11 Commission would attempt to address Item 8.A. by 8:15
12 p.m.
13 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: "
14 None.
I'
15 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
16 None.
17 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
18 (next Resolution No. 2002 -437)
19 B. Consider Industrial Planned Development (IPD) Nos.
20 2000 -01 - 10, for a Ten (10) Building, 464,963
21 Square Foot Corporate Industrial Center, and
22 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 5226 for Subdivision
23 of 33.04 acres Into Nine (9) Lots, located West of
24 the 23 Freeway and East of Miller Parkway,
25 Approximately 230 Feet South of New Los Angeles
26 Avenue on the Application of Cypress Land Company
27 (Assessor Parcel No. 512 -0- 260 -045)
28 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing,
29 accept public testimony and close the public
30 hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2003-
31 recommending to the City Council conditional
32 approval of Industrial Planned Development Permit
33 Nos. 2000 -01 through 10 and Tentative Tract Map
34 No. 5226.
35 Mr. Porter provided the staff presentation:
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
Qe'CO29
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Page 3
1 The Commission questioned staff a number of the
2 proposed conditions, with staff providing
3 clarification:
4 Chair Landis opened the public hearing at 7:36
5 p.m.
6 Mark Armbruster, applicant's representative,
7 provided a brief history of Cypress Land Company.
8 Emphasizing the high quality of their projects,
9 and that the owner maintains ownership of the
10 properties, leasing to quality tenants.
11 Jack Bolivrie, architect for the applicant,
12 provided a brief overview of the architectural
13 concepts.
n
14 Due to the number of speakers present for item
15 8.A, Chair Landis asked for a motion to continue
16 this item to later in the evening with the public
1.7 hearing open, until after the completion of the
public hearing on item 8.A.
19 MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner Pozza
20 seconded a motion to continue the matter, public
21 hearing open to later in the evening, until after the
22 completion of item 8A.
23 Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
24 A. Consider Commercial Planned Development Permit No.
25 2000 -04 for Construction of a 72,285 Square Foot
26 Commercial Center and Tentative Parcel Map No.
27 5264 for Subdivision of 6.28 Acres into Four Lots
28 Located at the Southwest Corner of Campus Park
29 Drive and Collins Drive on the Application of M &M
30 Development. (Assessor Parcel Nos. 514 -0- 160 -045)
31 (Continued from November 4, 2002.) (Staff: Paul
32 Porter)
33 Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept public testimony
34 and close the public hearing; 2) Recommend to the
35 City Council adoption of the proposed Mitigated
36 Negative Declaration as sufficient environmental
--7 documentation; 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2003-
recommending to the City Council conditional
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
G-C,00
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
G
1 approval of Commercial Planned Development Permit
2 No. 2000 -04 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 5264.
3 • Mr. Porter provided the staff presentation
4 Mr. Porter distributed two copies of letters staff
5 received after the packet was delivered to the
6 Commission. The Commission questioned staff
7 regarding:
8 • Traffic: ingress, egress, studies conducted.
9 • Landscaping and CalTrans right -of -way.
10 • Hours of operation and alcohol sales.
11 • Noise
a
12 • Fencing along the CalTrans right -of -way.
13
Chair Landis opened the public. ,
14
Mr. Hogan stated that there were a total of
eighty
15
(80) statement cards submitted; seven (7)
cards
16
stating opposition to the project for the
17
following reasons:
18
• Potential traffic; congestion
19
• Gas station; 24 -hour operation
20
• Fast food restaurant
21
• Safety and privacy issues
22
• Mini -mart selling alcohol
23
• Fast food restaurant
24
Seventy (70) cards were in favor of this
project
25
for the following reasons:
26
• Eating facilities, shopping and gas
station
27
in that area of town
28
• Tax base
29
• Prefer sit down restaurants
30
• very nice development
4
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
0 0003y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Paqe 5
• Architecture
• Long overdue for area
• Hotel eliminated
• Raise property values
• Create employment opportunities for youth
Three (3) cards were neutral on the project:
• Liked architecture; no loitering
• Liked architecture
• Traffic concern
David Morehead, applicant,
stated that since the last meeting he had met with
the residents, received suggestions regarding the
project. Mr. Morehead requested that the
Commission consider:
• Egress from Collins Drive and circulation on
Campus Park Drive.
• Hours of operations for the gas station, as
well as, any fast food restaurant.
• Type of wall along the southerly perimeter .
• Landscaping the CalTrans right -of -way.
• Requirement for repaving of Collins Drive and
Campus Park Drive.
Brian Doherty, applicant's representative and
potential gas station operator, provided a summary
of his experience and his efforts to work with the
residents in the area.
Richard Pool, traffic engineer, provided a brief
summary supporting the applicant's requested site
circulation.
The Commission questioned applicant,
representatives and staff, regarding:
• Elimination of the hotel
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
his
0,00032
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Paqe 6
1
• Ingress and egress on Campus Park Drive and
2
circulation.
25
3
• CalTrans raised median island on
Collins
4
Drive
of Simi and student at
5
Bob Gehricke, project architect, indicated
he was
6
available for questions.
29
7
Rosalie Gehres, resident at Villa del
Arroyo,
8
stated concern with traffic issues, but
support
9
for the project.
Patrick
10
of Moorpark indicated
32
11
Linda Toth, Realtor, stated supported
for the
12
project.
stated opposition
13
Scotty Sweet, resident of mobile home park,
14
expressed concern with traffic issues,
and was
15
opposed the project.
16
'r
Tim Rosevear, resident of Moorpark,
stated
17
opposition to the project.
18 Dr. Paul Gilmartin, resident of Moorpark, stated
19 support for the project.
20 Michael Greywitt, resident of Moorpark, questioned
21 whether the traffic report that was done by the
22 City, supported some aspect of the project, but
23 was opposed to other aspects of the project.
24
Patrick
Carden, resident
of Moorpark, stated
25
support
for the project.
26
Shawn Sturgeon, resident
of Simi and student at
27
Moorpark
College, stated support for the project.
28
Robert Bice, student who attends Moorpark College
29
and Cal
State Northridge,
stated support for the
30
project.
31
Patrick
Ellis, resident
of Moorpark indicated
32
concern
with the 24 -hour
convenience store and
33
traffic,
stated opposition
to the project.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
0000 33
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Paste 7
1 David Rush, landlord's leasing agent for the
2 project, stated he was present to answer any
3 questions.
4 Robert Bunner, resident of Moorpark, stated
5 support for the project.
6 Paul Bedigian, resident of Moorpark, stated
7 support for the project.
8 Flo Carvalho, staff member at the Chamber of
9 Commerce, stated support for the project.
10 Karen Allin, resident of Moorpark, expressed
11 concern with traffic, stated opposition to the
12 project.
a
13 At this point in the meeting Mr. Hogan asked if the
14 Commission would like to consider addressing Item 9.A.,
15 setting Planning Commission meeting date andttime, so
16 that the public hearing on Item 8.B. Industrial Planned
Development Nos. 2000 -01 through 10 (Cypress Land
_8 Development) might be continued to the February 4,
19 2003, Planning Commission meeting, since it looked
20 unlikely that there was going to be sufficient time to
21 conclude the hearing on that item..
22 MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner
23 Peskay seconded a motion to suspend discussion on Item
24 8.A. and return to the presentation and discussion of
25 Item 8.B. Industrial Planned Development Nos. -02
26 through 10 (Cypress Land Development).
27 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
28 MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner Pozza
29 seconded a motion to continue Item 8.B. Industrial
30 Planned Development Nos. -02 through 10 (Cypress Land
31 Development).to February 4, 2003, and return to
32 discussion on Item 8A.
33 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
34 Chair Landis, having no other public testimony, closed
the public hearing.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
oc.0034
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Paqe 8
1 The Commission discussed the following:
2 • Service station and fast food twenty -four (24)
3 hour operation in residential area.
4 • Circulation offsite as well as onsite; serving the
5 people north and west of the plaza.
6 • Alcohol sales governed by a Conditional Use Permit
7 which may be modified later.
8 Mr. Hogan reviewed the Commissions recommendations.
9 • Concern with twenty -four hour operation of the
10 station but satisfied with the condition as
11 proposed.
a
12 • Circulation issue. Driveway access as applicant
13 proposed with changes as noted. Condition reworded
14 to address at a later date if traffic" problems
15 exist with ingress and egress.
16 MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner
17 Lauletta seconded a motion to approve staff
18 recommendation, adopting Resolution No. PC- 2003 -437
19 recommending City Council approval, for Commercial
20 Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -04 and Tentative
21 Parcel Map No. 5264, with the Conditions of Approval as
22 amended.
23 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
24 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
25 A. Consider Regular Meetinq Schedule, Time and Place.
26
Staff Recommendation: Adopt
a regular
meeting
27
schedule of the first (1St) and
third (3rd)
Tuesday
28
of each month at 6:30 p.m. at
the Moorpark
City
29
Hall Council Chambers, 799
Moorpark
Avenue,
30
Moorpark, CA 93021, to commence with the
second
31
meeting of February (February
18, 2003).
(Staff:
32
Barry Hogan)
33
34
Mr. Hogan provided the staff presentation.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
Q00035
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Paqe 9
1
2 Commissioner Lauletta stated he preferred the start
3 time to remain at 7:00 p.m., as several Commissioners
4 drive in from far distances and could not be here at
5 6:30 p.m.
6
7 MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner
8 Lauletta seconded a motion to move the Planning
9 Commission meetings to the first and third Tuesdays of
10 each month with the meeting time remain at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
13
14 B. Consider Electronic Agenda Packets for Planning
15 Commissioners.
e
16 No Agenda Report (Staff: Barry Hogan)
17 Mr. Hogan provided a brief overview of staff's desire
18 to explore opportunities to furnish the Commission
electronic copies of all future agenda packets.
20 C. Consider Brown Act Requirements /Questions
21 No Agenda Report (Staff: Barry Hogan)
22 Mr. Hogan explained that a power point presentation was
23 forwarded to the Commission for review and that staff
24 was available for questions.
25 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
26 A. February 4, 2003, Cancellation.
27 B. February 18, 2003:
28 • CPD 2002 -02, Kestly Commercial Office
29 • CUP 2002 -03, Infranext Wireless Communications
30 • ZOA, Entitlement Process
31 Mr. Hogan gave the Commission an overview of future
"' agenda items.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc
0 0 DC,
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 27, 2003
Page 10
1 He stated that the February 4, 2003, would be held for
2 the continued public hearing on Cypress Land
3 Development (IPD 2000 -01 through 10).
4 Commissioner Peskay asked about the Planners Institute
5 conference.
6 11. ADJOURNMENT:
7 MOTTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Commissioner
8 Lauletta seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at
9 10:43 p.m.
10 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
e
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030127 pcm.doc V -0 00-31-
V -3~t
ITEM: 6.D.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 4, 2003
Page 1
1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
2 February 4, 2003, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark
3 Civic Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California;
4 93021.
5
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
6
Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
7
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
8
Vice Chair DiCecco led the Pledge of Allegiance.
9
3.
ROLL CALL:
10
Commissioners Lauletta, Peskay, Pozza, Vice Chair
11
DiCecco and Chair Landis were present.
Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan,
13
Community
14
Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager;
15
Walter Brown, City Engineer; Paul Porter, Principal
16
Planner; Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst;
17
and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary.
18
4.
PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL
19
PRESENTATIONS:
20
None.
21
5.
REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
22
None.
23
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
24
None.
25
7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Draft \030204 pcm.doc
Qr'.'Q03''
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 4, 2003
Paqe 2
1 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2 (next Resolution No. 2002 -438)
3 A. Consider Industrial Planned Development (IPD)
4 Nos. 2000 -01 - 10, for a Ten (10) Building,
5 464,963 Square Foot Corporate Industrial Center,
6 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 5226 for
7 Subdivision of 33.04 acres Into Nine (9) Lots,
8 Located West of the 23 Freeway and East of Miller
9 Parkway, Approximately 230 Feet South of New Los
10 Angeles Avenue on the Application of Cypress Land
11 Company (Assessor Parcel No. 512 -0 -260 -045)
12 (Continued from January 27, 2003) (Staff: Paul
13 Porter)
14 Staff Recommendations: 1) Open' the public
15 hearing, accept public testimony and close the
16 public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2003-
17 recommending to the City Council conditional
18 approval of Industrial Planned Development Permit
19 Nos. 2000- 01.through 10 and Tentative Tract Map
20 No. 5226.
21 Mr. Porter presented the staff report.
22 Mr. Hogan provided the Commission with several
23 recommended technical revisions to the conditions
24 of approval.
25 The Commission questioned staff regarding
26 architectural details and landscape screening for
27 building at the corner of Miller Parkway and
28 Patriot Drive.
29 Mr. Hogan responded that staff was satisfied with
30 architectural detail, and noted that parking had
31 been relocated away from the corner to the east
32 side of the entry building.
33 Chair Landis opened the public hearing.
34 Mark Armbruster, applicant's representative,
35 indicated he was there to answer questions.
000039
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 4, 2003
Page 3
1 Karen Milhous, resident, questioned the need for
2 the project.
3 At the request of the Chair, Mr. Armbruster
4 responded that the applicant had not attempted to
5 lease the buildings yet, but based upon their
6 past experience they anticipated quality tenants.
7 The Commission questioned the applicant on the
8 street name shown on the Tentative Tract Map
9 (Phyllis instead of Patriot) and the grade
10 difference at the pedestrian link to the Moorpark
11 Marketplace.
12 Mike Soulter, Indell Architects, responded that
13 ,there was a maximum five (5 %) percent slope for
14 the pedestrian access.
15 The Commission questioned the applicant
16 concerning a source for soil import. If
' Jeff Palmer, RBF Engineers, Camarillo, responded
A that a site had not yet been identified, but that
19 the soil would most likely be coming from a site
20 in Moorpark.
21 The Commission further questioned the applicant
22 regarding the trail location and maintenance.
23 The Commission questioned staff regarding a
24 reference to "aforementioned" on page 206 and the
25 100 -year flood plain referenced on page 206.
26 Chair Landis closed the public hearing.
27 The Planning Commission discussed the project
28 indicating support for the proposal.
29 Mr. Hogan reviewed the following changes to the
30 Conditions as discussed by the Commission:
31 • Pg. 206, eliminate the word
32 "aforementioned."
00,0040
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 4, 2003
Page 4
1 • Pg. 211, Condition No. 25: eliminate
2 "either" and substitute "any ".
3 • Page 223: add the word "upgrade ".
4 • Pg. 231, Condition No. 31, typographical
5 error where it states "...NPDES compliance
6 effort is "satisfactory," should say
7 "unsatisfactory."
8 MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Commissioner
9 Peskay seconded a motion to approve staff
10 recommendations and adopt Resolution No. PC -2003-
11 438, recommending to the City Council conditional
12 approval of Industrial Planned Development Permit
13 Nos. 2000 -01 through 10 and TTM No. 5226 with
14 conditions as amended. IL
15 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
16 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
17 None.
18 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
19 A. February 18, 2003:
20 • CPD 2002 -02, Kestly Commercial Office
21 • CUP 2002 -03, Infranext Wireless Communications
22 • ZOA, Entitlement Process
23 • CEQA Process Review
24 B. February 26, 2003
25 • Special Joint City Council /Planning
26 Commission Workshop on North Park.
27 Mr. Hogan provided the Commission with a brief
28 overview of future agenda items, including a summary
29 of North Park Specific Plan processing.
0 o p 0 4 "1
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 4, 2003
Paqe 5
1 11. ADJOURNMENT:
2 MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Vice Chair
3 DiCecco seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.
4 Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
5 The meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
e
11
00T042
ITEM: 8.A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry R. Hogan; Community Development Direct
Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal Planne
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)
t
BACKGROUND
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.
coo- ,AU
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 (5214 "). 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
000044
Honorable Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 3
foot (351) 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 (401), 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 (35') 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 (251) 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
QCCU45
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 (11) above.
Compatibility with the Surroundina 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 Parking:
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
000046
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
(351). 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 (35'). 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
000047
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.
W' eless Facilities Findings:
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
oco048
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.
IT
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 RECOHMNDATIONS
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
Honorable Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Draft Resolution No. PC -2003- with Conditions of Approval
3. Site Plan /Elevation Exhibits
1
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \pc 030218 staff
reportl.doc
000050
. r
i
L
AT &T
AT &T WIRELESS
SITE NUMBER: 950 - 015 -016D
SCE TOWER #1604071 E / TIERRA REJADA
Attachment 1
D
C
8
A
DRAWING IND EX _- - — -- REV. -f
DIRECTIONS dNe1r Mi nar emu EoEJUta 6r IHbD IMN[ ruLt OIwC t71Mg7 u)
PROJECT INFORMATION — _-
SSt1O154160 -TO1 TITLE SHEET - - A
95" "ID-W stn SURVEY A
900 0164160402 OVERALL fli! PI.AN/rMTAL fli[ ALAN A
�foat�tOO -):0� ENLARGED f17E PLAN A
liPOtf-0tOD -2W {Ott1H ELEVATION A
fli" "160 -M EXTERIOR EL211ATIONS A
YIO�,s -0t{0.ZO{ Not1iN EClvAiN)t1 A
OV6Nr "M I"NN ►Alr PLAZA w. ON MAN ALMA W ROW LDt b" SIIOfJrN� AK MN
CPIID
aw A t-33 0611 ree[aNr. a Tfla 11[ 1-S INORM -Nor) To WIts t-M. fm MM
bflo A -17 do0. J1b TIK M tp1A elan( Elea AND AM U". ex ACCM O ^M Wj.
p f([ooOUm a.
_ -
SCOT[ p wr r LfN.Ar(e COINfI6Ca11O.S flCyln rIN r0.N1 (•) 0u100w
EauwaNr Awns tfo (7) f.f1.L. 1.,, Teo b) rUT K WNn[0 on
WHO St4 AL11nON11. 11.7 oo"CI Cwwr of nwt (J) wtla •IO
"a pl nna[ wnlw -r A ewa KCIVN •Iri rN (.o (1)
wfttwwtt
A..lrtrr wr wte n[n (�irar i�.7aii PAS it
•KU11(s. to K uOG[r[o Al w ANO.oyp 77' -f' . ,rKo wx
AMA rIS TO •AO Aw wtaw NAJ M (IO1Mno ON Nc LEASE D
lllc appKSi: C~ LAO
a)(77 N(MS Kary fp(p
-__ - -_ i, y
I VICINITY MAP /
w -i If }' \
NOL".4" AL [7071
•r10fOR• OrIfR. f00IKfN CALIF QArA [OnON
\+
CONIACI KNION SCOT HAIRY
A.17[- (11161 317 -•007
�\
\
A►ne w .101 "McsS SAKE!
17m PAW PLAZA Of or
CEf16T07. U 10107
LOM Wt IIf. ST. 071' O
_
APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS _ _ _
ALL POW S.wL COAL• AM rK rp17ON0IC COOLS AND SIwOAWS F w• SAECYIC
C.S[ ON C fL KOnEA SECIONS " -1 CODE N(csf.0 rA&E IIf,INOpj
p [pSINK1oA W OIAp KPAKNtNrSMAK HOST KSrwC11u( SANL GOI'C6A
\
q\ �<'
F,
1 /
% \
-- _
.....• -• _.. ��� �j �
� 1`I
SITE
urnaG nPE N•O u
ELtMLIIOI: 0"' A. >t
JwsocTON_ un p wow•Ir
w 1ANIe[f: - 0- ele -fIS
CLGWW 7OIANC 41- NLrrl E6CL VW
Ct[NiNi Vf[ , / A
PROP°° ON rcu coN,PftCA? s rACAN
iN) NONN FKOA CODE Sr•OWS A.b LOCAL •LtApNrs
SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS
IIIr ,NSwN Ncow.cK cox: SrANO.eps AND LauA AN[NaNAn
IKI %I PORN .uwlC CODE 7TANDLNDi AAO LOCK ANENONENrs
_-
Im .IAIoNk CLECI•IC.L CODE (MNA YO)
Also 'SKCr1U110NS FLIP IK Of%" AND ENCIgN Of IMUCI11fK
PEEL Io[ WUAAG1. IAI(]I COtoN
10 )16 •A0 K, )0- LAI(SI ED,'—
IM LAO( —(NS LAGO1AICOKS K, rr( R(Mr4KE •GLYACf I A I
LOCK( GM1 MO COVII• CODES •AO OfONMC[S
It
'C
Ll
IAyE NOUN rrlpeAS COOL
a" rate= yNds
A/E LOTH NAO me CONM(PIC 1177- »I -w.7
7K OC—S CON lKcwoLrl w -.11 -fez•
fr Klfrf S vWEAIA KCMQ 7117_ fK -.611
CON SCO" KCNKI SN- )11 -7••t
1"10.0110 SCOtf NWT foNKNA CKIOIA. Nf- ]el -WO)
xN(e EdfON
ACE TOWER 01 EM I I WERRA RAMDA
wn NO.21EW"IsD
AT &T
LSAGUVOI li
INFRANEXT
loo. -LACE DOW. SAI[ 1 ISO
VN u Sp7
,
—CA—.
� I.r
'OJiC I.'01} /11tgo"•'••""•""
O . CA 11071
Cow" or .(I
1- 9-1110 PK
7CV
t1ilE SHE`,
L
13 ... Ho- olf -O,f0 -101
A+N
NI -AIIN
6 S s } Z
Attachment 1
D
C
8
A
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 a duly noticed public hearing on February 18,
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
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:
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
OCC052
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 2
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.
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
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T wireless \030218 pc
resolution.doc
0 C00S3
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 3
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 \030218 pc
resolution.doc
o(`C0
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 18th day of February 2003.
Kipp A. Landis, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K Hogan
Community Development Director
Exhibit A: Special and Standard Conditions of Approval
Q
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT&T Wireless \030218 pc
resolution.doc
000055
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002 -03
SPECIAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1. All exterior antenna, support poles and equipment building
materials and paint colors to blend with the surroundings
shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior
to approval of a Zoning Clearance. In order for the equipment
cabinets and the surrounding fence to be compatible with the
surrounding area, the equipment cabinets shall be painted
alligator green and the fence shall have a similar color with
a durable plastic finish.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLEASE CONTACT TZW DEPARTMENT OF CObR -MNITY DEVELOPIMENT FOR
QUESTIONS REGARDING C01PLIANCE WITH TFE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
1. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for ,the land and
project as identified on the entitlement application form and r.r
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,
to guarantee removal of equipment and structures, if the City
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infrarext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \030218 pc
resolution.doc
CUCU�►
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 6
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 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 permittee agrees as a condition of issuance and use of
this permit to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought
against the City because of issuance (or renewal) of this
permit or in the alternative to relinquish this permit.
Permittee will reimburse the City for any court costs and /or
attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to
pay as a result of any such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate in the defense of any such action, but
such participation shall not relieve permittee of his
obligation under this condition.
S: \Community Development\DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \030218 pc
resolution.doc
0 e?00 '1
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 7
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,
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
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wirele5s \030218 pc
resolution.doc
0("1Q0S8
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 8
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.
ti
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.
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
CONPLIANCE 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
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2002 \03 Infranext, Inc for AT &T Wireless \030218 pc
resolution.doc
Resolution No. PC 2003 -
Page 9
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 manufacturers specifications.
30. The developer shall comply with National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) objectives as outlined in the
"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 \030218 pc
resolution.doc
eecot 0
PC queuniovggy
i7
. nor- a,e -c,o-ou c...t
sst -to
�s ..« ».,.
���
arrrprlraaalMiap
.IlatwN l0 YwnO�
5
�
+may "•
1 v
,tps � •� ��
Oti )IM 'NVO YM�M IOat
"'�
b
� YrY
uw
1'B.LV
r .ww voww eut, a ,w)awev
an 3UrJUD •oY V3
NOV YY WYiWiILppN YiM01 i0f
9 t Onr�7Ki
0 ®
r
0 coca come 0loco WOOD Doc ao
omomamoom0000000mom DODO o goo o
•-
1010moomm0a00oo0mamomo0oom0o0
��..,.,w...,..
F�
�:.•..°
°:....:..::»�'
I —'
""
..,_. :',,.,;,�::�
».
010000100040100001010000o
'
• °.,,• ».»:...ww..., .•
00000011001 amoomoomomeooa
--
`liii0gD7�'"'r1pjx"'O1"01f0i01"'
'^'•"""'••••••'�"
wn.r..r �,. wr a.�.�, ►
a ama0ama00m Mae ommaammae
__
" r
Doom oaomm000m000
00300010000101001D0m000a0
i
0moa0000m0000mooamo0oegoo
O=M 090am0eoomaa000000
0
000mommooa0000
.4
I
•
w..rn..'r :'i •.. w
L
D00 mOma
0
F-F
|
--�r- - �----' "
"1 000 f
fac
E INFNANUT
;:
loot VXL%Gc OWA. W11
C. 9062
|
---._--'� --~-'-
'____-'L^'----- 640--
____.-'---~ _
' '-_' __--'-
. -_--'- -�'--
'---
-' ---'-- | __--------'~-''- _------------
'..^' '_-�_-~_- '~-----
--''-_ ` �_-___--'_-'-. _--''----_
^' i - -- - ~
-_-'_�-_------__------'- ~.�_'' -
| ---- -'--'--'
__-~�-.
---_--� . -'-_�'_-----_-_.�____�
| '-- '
'a '3717 tcm ING
C— mclowm. C. Ijoal
Atta
AT&T
3b
2
LSAoCAVO»
ME71
^
|
---._--'� --~-'-
'____-'L^'----- 640--
____.-'---~ _
' '-_' __--'-
. -_--'- -�'--
'---
-' ---'-- | __--------'~-''- _------------
'..^' '_-�_-~_- '~-----
--''-_ ` �_-___--'_-'-. _--''----_
^' i - -- - ~
-_-'_�-_------__------'- ~.�_'' -
| ---- -'--'--'
__-~�-.
---_--� . -'-_�'_-----_-_.�____�
| '-- '
'a '3717 tcm ING
C— mclowm. C. Ijoal
Atta
AT&T
3b
2
LSAoCAVO»
ME71
^
r'
1!
,p r
1 J
�r n
'L
i
! r
1 i !
t ,
�Q 7- -�• t
'1
i ti i r
sea/
NO
Figs / "` ►— r "
Jill
r
�• y j/S r ! I
r
����� � �; ri r I / •s
'a
--7
N
M
4J
Rl
4J
4J
vCV
lIJ
rnsw
Ego]
■ K-M
Com!"m so
FLAN VIEW
rnsw
Ego]
■ K-M
Atta .ment 3d
Com!"m so
ANJ
Q
Alf
Wq
....... . . ...
221�T" ELEVATION
0
am Town moonmEmm ROAWA
Sm NO. 9104164140
AT&T
a
CAVO 16
H-
I
INFRANEXT
r—C.-
lama., 10 12777 rK .-Aw No.
Ilow"W. C. via?.
Im. KLMX 0.4. WIT .50
C"rV W VENNOW
___w
M A
VA� Vosl. CA IM I
_T
6
4
—also
Atta .ment 3d
F-F
I.�
o
�r
PLAN VIEW
esn6 7fo w« Kr
gfef.lfoa7�eflewa
001116 M 10l
117]O.fle
0t1[Ii01
i!3
%�
JIYJ1i11fr YR1.1Y
Mai11.] fff
NYI1tMM�r
\\
CO wC1r{ d Lry feCriMf w
Ifl fwM /R4fK14\
IrTh Yfllll /WM[
III ♦.If1w0.1f 1![rOf
�
Ir quar41 f1Kf a7Ml
WJa7w.rGN W..ri 10L1
--�j0
1
�•--
MM
\�
_.
_Od1Y61fOnOI Ki
100 f 1061011 O/10g1
�r
PLAN VIEW
esn6 7fo w« Kr
gfef.lfoa7�eflewa
001116 M 10l
117]O.fle
0t1[Ii01
Mo
M0
�--
i!3
�r
�11f111 Y.7 �
wM 10OMr[11 fOf1f 1«eR \
OIO
♦ IJIY d �11[r.Mlrw
•711fe1♦6d nlfK.OV 7v
III ♦.If1w0.1f 1![rOf
�
III rI.Y.a0111MNat.
/YY1 M W1[n f)7k aata
C10rw.LM Lfln M 10�
��� ♦grwt .If[1f1.�
00060 f1011rA OQ
wws va wrte+r wo -•
grfl{11f00071(f1lldq
� ��¢
ip
tit,
PLAN VIEW
Mo
M0
�--
w�
�11f111 Y.7 �
wM 10OMr[11 fOf1f 1«eR \
OIO
� \.
-
c
�
�lirw ers.fls♦rrlrl
wws va wrte+r wo -•
ip
tit,
�Ixlora
IS
, asw..a rofz
f1Y10Y....M1 T01rra 1f.
oawl u.n fea o4alff
y�
M � Gxe
� ?MY..ax - -
••• `.
Y
>� - - '
ay.rs co r♦an
. a1Ma loss mlreo I
II(wl.�v..lKe
c�a�[.�.a of corm
ra+.l lfll.RwR.lw.wef "
«m. wxo seen
�'uVC°_I
drv. tiis.�a
,
uan.m o.
Iar 4Mq NwruoowJ
ls[!°'°i _..
,
•'••j. ::^
WCST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
I 3CKt: I /C'•I'-0
2 6CN2: I/O' -I'-0
o ♦. s
r f'
fC[TOwE11 I1AlADA
� AV016
UM NO.9 041&014
AT &T
[IIR400 GtvM611
INFRANDIT
1��u „:
�+rar 0 Inn nw Il.w. ro
+•r Ida
r
7001 ftva 0f..[. w r ISO
..♦r».
cq�lrrMa: vi,IW01
W01�<a001MD<f.06.
07 -7!! 1... elf- 017- 010D -IOf
M- r.lw, a 10071
r r0.
OY.
6 5
—
a
S
p
Attachment 3e
D
roue ...w t w
M 11 by
NUM0.60W.9
mosho TZ41." $a
10�1194.wm
sm
OKM
DONOW11TI'l, ATION
INFRANE)(t
Im, U•" OW4. S.1c So
&Ar -M. C. $"I .
r CA—
m
SMTOWMOISM"ZMEWRAAWA
-W�Aw to .217, nc� &%am .0
WOOMOM. C. 9302,
COW"" OF vc — -
AT&T
LSAGCAV016
up .rw
6
5
4 2 U.MT
Atta ment 3f
A