Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2001 1119 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 Pa 1) CALL TO ORDER: Chair Parvin called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Haller led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3) ROLL CALL: Janice Parvin, Chair William F. Otto, Vice Chair Mark DiCecco, Commissioner Paul Haller, Commissioner Kipp Landis, Commissioner 1 Commissioners DiCecco, Haller, Landis and Chair Parvin were present. Vice Chair Otto arrived at 7:30 p.m. Staff attending the meeting included Deborah .raffenstedt, Acting Community Development Director; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; John Libiez, Planning Manager; Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Secretary II. 4) 13UBLIC COMMENTS: None. 5) PUBLIC HEARINGS: a) Consideration of Draft Ordinance Regulating Wireless Communications Facilities within the City of Moorpark by Adding Chapter 17.42 and Amending Chapters 17.08 and 17.20, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2001 -03). Staff Recommendations: 1. Open the public hearing, accept public comments, and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt PC Resolution No. 2001 - recommending approval of the draft Ordinance. Ms. Traffenstedt gave the staff report (reference staff report dated November 14, 2001). ' Ms. Traffenstedt introduced Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney, indicating that he would be available for questions. She then provided a summary of Municipal Code Chapters to be modified or added. She stated that the draft 5: \Community Development \Everyone \PLANNING CD T$$IGN NINNtES \2001 Final \011119 p= doc f� Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 E Ordinance was generally based on the City of Alhambra Ordinance with modifications to accommodate Moorpark's specific requirements. She concluded her report with information items for possible Commission discussion, including: • Distinction of minor vs. major facilities relating to potential impact and setback requirements and design guidelines, with possible clarification of language on page 17. • Right of way issues. • Conditional Use Permit within all zones. • Correction to page 15 to change lattice tower setback from 100 feet to 200 feet and discussion of possible zones where permitted. Ms. Traffenstedt referenced documents that had been submitted by the public for Commission review and consideration. Commissioner Haller questioned sections of the proposed Ordinance related to: • Effect of language on projects, in process, that had been deemed complete (Page 6). • :Impact of non - conforming use status on existing facilities (Page 7). • Application of setback requirements and guidelines (Page 11). Staff responded with clarifications. Commissioner Haller questioned the status of studies received from operators relating to health issues. Mr. Wohlenberg responded with information that the Ordinance was based on aesthetic issues and that health issues were not considered because of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Commissioner DiCecco asked how long the Alhambra Ordinance had been in effect and how successful it had been. S: \COweunil.y Development \Everyone \PLANNING CWISSION HIWTES \2001 Final \011119 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 Page 3 Staff responded that the Ordinance was in force eighteen (18) months, stating that so far that Ordinance appeared successful, but cited the different character between the cities. Discussion between Commissioner DiCecco and staff ensued regarding peer review of applicant technical reports. At th:_s point in the meeting Vice Chair Otto arrived. Chair Parvin questioned if existing facilities comply with the new standards. Staff responded that most facilities would likely comply; however, an in -depth review had not been done. Chair Parvin questioned the use of possible visual exhibits and c'_ted her experience with facilities at her work place. Commissioner Otto questioned how the new Ordinance was more restr:_ctive than existing requirements. Mr. Wohlenberg responded, citing FCC regulation requirements and clarified that the Ordinance is more advisory, relating to aesthetics and provided safety valves to comply with the FCC regulations that permit wireless facilities. Commissioner Otto questioned the effect of the Ordinance on amateur radio operators. Mr. Libiez and Mr. Wohlenberg responded on the differences of controls for amateur radio operators. Commissioner Otto questioned pre- approved locations on public: property already existing and the use of pine tree style facilities. Staff responded by identifying locations and discussing the intent of the Ordinance in camouflaging facilities. Commissioner Landis requested clarification of the scope of the Ordinance and definitions of various types of facilities, including aesthetic differences. Mr. Wohlenberg provided clarification, stating that the definitions were the Federal definitions and cited Federal regulations covering facilities. Commissioner Landis questioned health concerns raised and possible indemnification language in the CUP process. 5: \Community Dove I opment \Everyone \PLANNING COIN1ISSION MINUTE5\2001 Final \011119 pcm AO[ Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Wohlenberg provided a discussion of various types of radiation (ionizing and non - ionizing), citing studies and S: \Community Development \Everyone \PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \2001 Final \011119 pcm.doc various Federal regulations and the limits on local agency's ability to control provider services. Commissioner Landis questioned the City's ability to control aesthetics through setbacks, with staff providing information regarding application of existing code requirements and the guidelines proposed in the Ordinance. Commissioner Haller requested Mr. Wohlenberg's response to the letter from Paul Albritton. Mr. Wohlenberg responded citing State law requirements (PUC 7901) and various activities relating to intent of the law, and discussed right -of -way issues raised in the letter. Commissioner Otto commented to the City Attorney's presentation of accurate information and further clarified radiation issues regarding short and long wavelengths and physical evidence of radiation patterns. He further questioned the City's responsibility in ensuring adherence to FCC regulations. Mr. Wohlenberg responded that the requirement for submittal Of technical reports and peer review responded to that concern. Chair Parvin opened the public hearing. Palma Friery, 13372 Wintergreen Lane, Moorpark, CA Ms. Friery expressed her support for the Ordinance and referenced the proposed facility at the Peach Hill Reservoir near her home. She expressed concern for aesthetics and property values related to perceived health risks,. Bob De�myan, 13303 Sunnyslope Place, Moorpark, CA Mr. Demyan described his property in relation to the proposed Peach Hill reservoir. He requested that the Commission consider additional guidelines, including maintenance, frequency of site visits and security of the facility. Mr. Demyan questioned the intent of the Ordinance, enforcement of removal of abandoned facilities and the status of applications in process. t S: \Community Development \Everyone \PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \2001 Final \011119 pcm.doc / Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 Page 5 Tony C ;eivet, 13302 Sunnyslope Place, Moorpark, CA Mr. Geivet passed out an exhibit showing the Peach Hill water tank behind his home and expressed his concern with the aesthetics of the proposed wireless facility at the site. Hugh J. Finlay, 13125 Thomasville Court, Moorpark, CA Mr. Finlay passed out information relating to his presentation. He applauded the efforts to achieve a balanced solution. He expressed his concerns relating to radiation issues and referred to reports previously submitted to the City Council. Robert Frankel, c/o The Consulting Group, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, #870, Irvine, CA 92612 Mr. Frankel, representing Cingular Wireless (with an application currently on file), offered that the defin:Ltions should include microcells and differentiate requirements for microcell technology and larger facilities, and that Section 17.42.070 should be aligned with Southern California Edison regulations. Jeffrey A. Seymour, 5757 W. Century Blvd., #604, Los Angeles, CA 90045 Mr. Seymour, representing Sprint, commended staff on their efforts and essentially supported the draft Ordinance. He requested clarification of "other materials" referenced in the language relating to screening. He recommended that pre - approved locations be approved by administrative process rather than the CUP process, as an incentive to use pre - approved locations. Robert Searcy, 5757 W. Century Blvd., Suite 604, Los Angeles, CA 90045 Mr. Searcy, representing Sprint, handed out sample photo simulations, indicating that the Ordinance was well crafted, but did not cover end -user facilities. He discussed possible future facilities. He expressed concern regarding the requirements for minor facilities on utility poles,. citing PUC 7901. He requested that the Commission consider temporary facilities during emergencies. $: \C...ity D¢v.J.pment \Everyone \FW+NNING CO I$$IDN MIKTES \2001 Fina1\011119 pcm.doc l Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 M Tony faanducci, 13324 Wintergreen, Moorpark, CA Mr. Banducci thanked the Commission and staff for their efforts regarding the Ordinance and expressed concern regarding setback issues. He stated that he had submitted numerous statement cards for his neighborhood and represented approximately sixty (60) people. 5: \C0mmUGlty Development \Everyone \PL ING COMMISSION MINUTES \2001 Final \011119 pcm.aoc Chair Parvin questioned as to the number of statement cards submitted. Ms. Stringer responded that twenty -one (21) cards had been submitted. Mr. Libiez added that the cards would be itemized for the record. (One statement card was received during the recess, bringing the total to twenty -two (22). Chair Parvin called a recess. The time was 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Ms. ?arvin requested that Ms. Stringer summarize the statement cards. Ms. Stringer stated that the majority of the cards were marked in favor of the Ordinance and that those marked in opposition had comments relating to a specific wireless facility project, with the result that no cards were received specifically in opposition to the Ordinance. Chair Parvin closed the public hearing. , Commissioner Landis suggested that staff provide a summary of the issues rather than a question and answer session. Mr. Wohlenberg commented to the following items, which were brought forward by the public speakers: • Mr. Wohlenberg cautioned the Commission against using perceived lost property values as a criteria for decisions related to wireless communications projects since the correlation is questionable. • Mr. Wohlenberg suggested that access to sites, frequency of visits and security can be covered under the CUP process by conditioning, with suggested conditions being provided in the Ordinance. In addition, he suggested that the wireless provider's desire to reduce costs and frequency of maintenance trips would mitigate this issue. l 5: \C0mmUGlty Development \Everyone \PL ING COMMISSION MINUTES \2001 Final \011119 pcm.aoc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 Paqe 7 • Mr. Wohlenberg suggested that noise limitations would be covered by the existing Noise Ordinance and conditioning under the CUP process. • Mr. Wohlenberg suggested that microcells should be discussed further with the speaker regarding potential exemptions based on Federal law. • Mr. Wohlenberg suggested the reception dishes were not broadcasting anything themselves and that the industry (lid not want Homeowner's Associations or cities to stand in the way of receiving equipment being purchased. • Mr. Wohlenberg suggested consideration of the horizontal distance between communication towers and residences. • Mr. Wohlenberg commented to defining "other materials' to be used as screening, in lieu of masonry walls. • Mr. Wohlenberg suggested review of the Administrative Permit process for pre- approved locations. • Mr. Wohlenberg suggested review of the treatment of minor facilities mounted on existing utility poles. • Mr. Wohlenberg suggested that zoning to centerline of a street was not relevant to the issue of separation. Commissioner Haller commented that temporary use of facilities for emergency situations is reasonable, but needs further discussion on implementation. Vice Chair Otto commented to guaranteeing removal of equipment, should the provider go out of business, to be accomplished through bonding (required at the time of the CUP) and contract provisions with property owners. He also commented to the status of current applications and questioned how the applications would be affected should the 0:= dinance be put in place. Commissioners Landis and Vice Chair Otto expressed comfort with passing the Resolution and moving forward with the Ordinance to City Council. Vice Chair Otto requested a future workshop to discuss areas where the Commission, staff and the public would prefer° to see this type of installation occur, and to designate the siting criteria and public sites where this would occur. S: \Community DeVelopment \Everyone \PLANNING CR ISSION MINUTES \2001 Final \011119 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 Paqe 8 Commissioner Haller expressed a concern relating to criteria for administrative approval of pre- approved locations. Vice Chair Otto expressed his concern with the process recommended by the provider's consultant concerning micros: ells. Mr. Libiez stated that staff would work closely with the applicants on this issue. Commissioner Haller questioned setback requirements and the allowability in all zones. Chair Parvin expressed comfort with all zones. Discussion ensued regarding which zones were appropriate, concluding that the process would provide the ability to deal with specific issues. Commissioner Haller questioned locating facilities in the /- green belt areas. 1 Mr. Wohlenberg responded that the Ordinance adequately covered issues related to open space. Chair Parvin commented to the community input, commended staff on their efforts and recommended that the Commission should move forward with this Ordinance. Commissioner DiCecco commended staff on a very well written Ordinance and recommended moving forward. Commissioner Landis commented that before the motion is made, it should address all the comments by the public. MOTION Commissioner Landis Resolution No. 2001 -418; for changes to the Ordinance and with a written record of o public: comments and concerns. the motion. made a motion to adopt incorporation of recommended to provide the City Council :her Planning Commission and Commissioner DiCecco seconded Ms. Traffenstedt suggested clarification of the intent of the motion that the Ordinance presented to the City Council would incorporate the recommended revisions with use of legislative format. Motion passed by a unanimous 5:0 voice vote. S; \Comm nity Development \Everyone \PLANNING COl91ISSION MINUTES \2001 Final \011119 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 19, 2001 Page 9 6) DISCUSSION ITEMS: EL) Consider Invitation to University, of Southern California Conference, "Planning the Post - Sprawl Era: A Gathering of Leading Thinkers." Staff Recommendation: Following discussion of this matter, by consensus, designate one Commissioner to attend the conference and direct staff to submit the Registration Form on behalf of the Planning Commission. Ms. Stringer gave the staff report. Discussion ensued with both Commissioner DiCecco and Vice Chair Otto expressing an interest in attending the conference. Vice Chair Otto deferred to Commissioner DiCecco. It was suggested that Vice Chair Otto attend should Commissioner DiCecco not be able to attend. By consensus, the Commission designated Commissioner DiCecco to attend the conference and to report back to the Commission. Vice Chair Otto was designated as the alternate. 7) ADJOURNMENT: MOTION, Commissioner Landis moved to adjourn the meeting and Vice Chair Otto seconded the motion. Motion passed by a unanimous 5:0 voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. 2NV�- a ice Parvin, Chair ATTEST.': Deborah S. Traffen-twtedt f Acting Community Development Director S: \Community Development \Everyone \PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \2001 Final \011119 pcm.doc