HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2017 0419 CCSA REG ITEM 08A ITEM 8.A.
CITY OF MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of oZ°/2
6'p
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Freddy A. Carrillo, Associate Planner I
DATE: April 13, 2017 (CC Meeting of 4/19/2017)
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05
and Modification No. 2 to Commercial Planned Development No.
2004-03, a Request to Allow Construction of a Major Wireless
Communication Facility Consisting of 12 Panel Antennas; and
Installation of an Above Ground Equipment Enclosure Within a 48-
Foot High Tower at 14339 White Sage Road (Warehouse Discount
Center), and Making Determination of Exemption Under CEQA in
Connection Therewith, on the Application of Matt Vigil (Vinculums)
for Verizon Wireless
BACKGROUND
An application was submitted on December 2, 2016, by Matt Vigil (representative of
Vinculums for Verizon Wireless). The applicant is requesting approval for construction
of a Major Wireless Communication Facility consisting of 12 panel antennas; and
installation of an above ground equipment enclosure within a 48-foot high wireless
communications tower at 14339 White Sage Road (Warehouse Discount Center). The
property owner has requested the allowance of commercial signs on the north, west,
and south elevations of the tower.
The primary purpose of the proposed tower is to screen the proposed wireless
antennae, which are considered by the Moorpark Municipal Code to be a "major facility",
i.e. a wireless communications or collocation facility that is ground mounted, or is wall
mounted, utility mounted, or roof mounted but does not meet the definition of a minor
facility. This would be considered a "Stealth Facility". The code requires that when
proposed as a "stealth facility" a wireless communications facility must be disguised to
appear as another natural or artificial object that is prevalent in the surrounding
1
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 2
•
environment or which is architecturally integrated into a building or other concealing
structure. In this instance, the applicant is proposing a 48-foot tower, designed in a style
consistent with the adjacent buildings, to conceal the wireless communication facility.
A decision on a Conditional Use Permit is normally made by the Planning Commission;
however, because this project also involves City Council consideration of the
Modification to Commercial Planned Development Permit for the Warehouse Discount
Center site, staff has elevated the decision on all permits associated with the project to
the City Council for consideration, as provided for in Section 17.44.040 of the Municipal
Code.
DISCUSSION
Project Setting
Existing Site Conditions:
The proposed tower will be located on an 8.15 acre site, consisting of two lots, located
north of White Sage Road and east of California State Route 23. The tower is proposed
on the southwest corner of the smaller lot. Two commercial buildings exist on site. The
first building located on a 6.11 acre lot on the north side of the property is approximately
115,000 square-feet in area and is approximately 44 feet tall. This building is currently
occupied by the Warehouse Discount Center appliance store and warehouse. The
second building, a multi-tenant retail commercial building, located on a 2.04 acre lot on
the south side of the property is approximately 17,500 square-feet in area and is
approximately 36 feet tall. This building is occupied by Ortho Mattress and Innovation
Dance Center.
Previous Applications:
On October 5, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-2398, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 2004-04, Commercial Planned Development No. 2004-
03, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04, allowing appliance sales, distribution and
warehousing and a multi-tenant retail building. .
On December 28, 2012, the City Council considered a conceptual proposal, also
submitted on behalf of Verizon Wireless for the same location (see Attachment 6). The
proposal was a stealth facility disguised as a City Welcome Sign. The facility was
proposed to be used as an entry sign to the City and help freeway travelers be aware of
some of the other shopping opportunities adjacent to the freeway that are not on the
Moorpark Marketplace sign tower. Staff worked with the applicant on alternative
solutions; integrating antenna panels into the building design, or constructing a
"monopine" behind the building. The property owner, however, was not in favor of
modifying the building, and a monopine behind the building would not provide enough
signal coverage desired for this area (vicinity of White Sage Road and 118 Freeway).
Staff took the idea of a City Welcome Sign for economic development purposes to the
2
1\DC1\Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTS\C U P12016\CUP 2016-05 Verizon Wireless\Agenda Reports1MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 3
Community and Economic Development Committee on December 19, 2012, for
discussion and recommendation. The committee had concerns regarding the visual
impacts of the sign, and expressed how it could be designed similar to the tower of the
Moorpark Marketplace. After discussion, the committee had no recommendation for the
Council. On January 16, 2013, after reviewing the proposal, the City Council voted 3-2
against proceeding with a City Welcome Sign, with Mayor Parvin and Councilmembers
Millhouse and Mikos in opposition to the sign, and Councilmembers Pollock and Van
Dam dissenting (Attachment 4). The applicant did not proceed with a formal application
for a wireless facility after this discussion.
On December 16, 2014, Verizon Wireless approached the City with a new stealth
facility. Community Development staff met with the applicant to discuss the new
proposal, along with alternative locations and concepts discussed previously, such as
integrating antennas into the building design or constructing a "monopine" behind the
building. The applicant did not find the alternative locations to be feasible for them and
decided to proceed with the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the major
wireless communication facility and Modification to the Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) in the form of a stand-alone tower.
On December 22, 2014, an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-09 and
Modification No. 1 to Commercial Planned Development No. 2004-03 was submitted for
a Major Wireless Communication Facility consisting of 12 panel antennas; and
installation of an above ground equipment enclosure within a 48 foot high tower at
14339 White Sage Road. Staff met off-site with Vinculums (representative for'Verizon
Wireless) and Verizon to review and find more alternative locations. Three locations
were identified but needed further evaluation by the applicant. The applicant took over a
year to explore the potential locations. Staff attempted to contact applicant several times
to determine whether or not the applicant was still proceeding with the project, but
applicant was not reachable. Staff rejected the application without prejudice on August
23, 2016 for lack of activity on an incomplete application.
General Plan and Zoning Consistency:
Disguising a cellular facility within a tower must also comply with all other provisions of
Sections 17.42.070.6 and 17.42.070.0 of the Municipal Code. The project site is
designated General Commercial (C-2) in the City's General Plan and meets the
definition of a "Major Facility" in the Wireless Communications Facilities chapter of the
Zoning Ordinance and requires a Conditional Use Permit in the Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) zone.
3
S:1Community Development DEV PMTSIC U P120161CUP 2016-05 Verizon Wireless\Agenda Reports\MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 4
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use
Site General Commercial Commercial Planned Commercial
Development Buildings
North Open Space I Open Space 10Ac Arroyo Simi
1 DU/10-40Ac
South General Commercial Commercial Planned Vacant
Development
East Open Space 40Ac Arroyo Simi
Open Space I
1 DU/10-40Ac
_..---........West......_.._.... ..............__..............._._......._.._....._. _._._......................-----...._.._........----._._...__-----._._..-------------.._. _.._......---._.._._ Y--
State Route State Route Freewa
118-Freeway 118-Freeway
Proposed Project
Architecture/Equipment:
The applicant is proposing to lease an area 16 feet 4 inches wide by 16 feet and 4
inches long to accommodate the 48 foot high tower. The proposed tower will be divided
into three different vertical sections. The top section has a height of approximately 13
feet 3 inches. This section includes the roof and encloses the 12 panel antennas. The
roof is proposed to be made of Spanish tile with a cornice element underneath and one
smooth column on each corner. Two louvered vinyl circular elements, which are part of
the venting system for the facility, are proposed on the east and west wide of the tower
wall. The applicant is also proposing a cornice element between the top and center
section of the tower. The center section will be approximately 24 feet 4 inches high
made of smooth concrete finish plaster. The bottom portion will be 10 feet 4 inches tall
and include cultured stone veneer. The mechanical equipment is proposed to be
located inside this section. The equipment will operate on a 24 hour, 7 day a week
remote sensing basis. This allows Verizon Wireless to make minor adjustments
remotely through its headquarters located in Irvine instead of having a technician drive
to the site.
Equipment associated with the operation of a major facility must be located within an
underground vault, or an above-ground building or enclosure in a manner complying
with the development standards of the zoning district. Equipment located above ground
must be visually compatible with the surrounding buildings and structures and either
shrouded by sufficient landscaping to screen the equipment from view, or designed to
match the architecture of adjacent buildings.
4
\\DC1\Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTS\C U P\2016\CUP 2016-05 Verizon Wireless\Agenda Reports\MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 5
Analysis
Architectural design of the tower and its location are the primary concerns in the
analysis of this application. The applicant has proposed the 48 foot tall tower
approximately 140 feet east of State Route 23 and 65 feet north from White Sage Road.
The design complements the existing commercial buildings and its surroundings, and its
location will enhance the wireless communications coverage in the vicinity.
The tallest commercial building on-site is 44 feet high to the top of the two roof tile tower
elements. The second commercial building has a height of 36 feet and has six roof tile
tower elements. The applicant is proposing a standalone tower with an overall height of
48 feet, of which the top 4 feet consists of a decorative tile roof and a small finial. All
antennas will be hidden within the 4-sided tower (no exterior antenna panels). The
material proposed for the exterior of tower is smooth concrete finish plaster painted light
brown to match the light brown of the existing buildings. The antenna enclosure is
constructed of fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) with a plaster finish to be painted to
match the structure. The design of the tower is compatible with the overall design of
both buildings, and as such, the project would improve the commercial planned
development. Conditions of approval are proposed to ensure the colors, materials and
textures of the building match to the existing buildings.
Staff has discussed alternative locations with the applicant. On March 9, 2016, three
new locations were identified in the on-site meeting. Verizon has evaluated these
locations and has provided their feasibility as follows:
• 864 Los Angeles Avenue (Moorpark Marketplace shopping center) — install
antennas inside an existing 66 foot high sign structure.
Feasibility: Landlord was not interested in entering an agreement with Verizon
Wireless.
• 709 Science Drive (Industrial Building) — install a monopine at the bottom of a
steep slope (approximately 30-feet below street level).
Feasibility: Existing building is 30 feet high. Monopine would need to be over 70
feet high to allow clear antenna line of site.
• 14339 White Sage Road (Warehouse Discount Center) — adding a tower onto the
existing building.
Feasibility: tower would be set back too far from freeway and structurally be too
heavy for building.
5
\1DC1\Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTS\C U P\2016\CUP 2016-05 Verizon WirelessWgenda Reports\MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 6
The City's wireless regulations restrict the height of a major facility to the maximum
building height for the applicable zoning district in which the facility is proposed to be
located. In the case of a Commercial Planned Development, building and structure
height is determined by the CPD Permit. The proposed modification, if approved, will
allow the tower at the proposed height, which is the height the applicant has indicated is
reasonably necessary for operation of the facility.
The applicant has indicated Verizon's engineers have determined in order to enhance
the service in this area, any new wireless telecommunication facility candidates must
provide antenna line-of-sight with a height equal or higher than 44 feet above ground
and on a location contained within a search area bound by Princeton Avenue on the
north; Patriot Drive on the south; Science Drive on the east; and White Sage Road on
the west.
As previously mentioned, the property owner has requested signs be permitted on the
proposed tower. The Sign Ordinance does not permit "tower" signs. However,
monument signs and pylon signs are permitted in commercial and industrial zoned
properties when meeting the criteria of the Sign Ordinance.
The MMC defines "monument" as a sign that is completely self-supportive, has its sign
face or base on the ground, and has no air space, columns or supports visible between
the ground and the bottom of the sign.
The table below shows the existing criteria for monument signs:
Maximum Sign Area,
Sign Type Sign Location Height, and Width Other Regulations
A. Not within a center
(three or less
businesses on a single
lot).
1. Monument signs One-half(1/2)of the Area:Thirty-six(36) Number: One (1) per
required front or street square feet per side. street frontage.
side setback or four(4) Signs may be double- Illumination: Internally in
feet, whichever is faced. commercial zones.
greater. Height: Six(6)feet. Internal or external in
industrial zones.
Landscaping:
Surrounded by a
minimum four-foot by
four-foot(4 x 4)
landscaped planter area.
Copy: Eighteen (18) inch
maximum letter height in
commercial zones.
Twenty-four(24) inch
(maximum letter height)
in industrial zones.
6
\\DC1\Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTS\C U P\20161CUP 2016-05 Verizon Wireless\Agenda Reports\MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 7
Monument signs are allowed a maximum of 36 square-feet of area signage per side and
cannot exceed 6 feet in height. The 48 foot high tower could not be considered a
monument sign.
One monument sign currently exists on the White Sage Road frontage of the property.
Staff explored the idea of considering the tower a pylon sign. However, the Sign
Ordinance defines a "pylon sign" as a freestanding sign, other than a monument sign, in
which the sign face is separated from ground level by means of one (1) or more
supports such as poles, pole covers or columns. Although the tower could meet the
general definition for a pylon sign, it does not meet the criteria for permitting it as a
pylon sign.
The table below shows the existing criteria for pylon signs:
2. Pylon signs for One-half(1/2)of the Area: Three hundred Number: One (1) per
commercial retail required front or street (300) square feet. street frontage.
shopping centers of side setback area but no Height:Twenty-four(24) Sign Copy: Center name
50,000 square feet or closer than four(4)feet feet. and the name of up to
larger located on Los from the property line, Width:Twelve(12) feet. five(5)tenants. The
Angeles Avenue whichever is greater. center name shall not
Pylon signs along the include any tenant
same side of Los name. For centers with
Angeles Avenue shall be theaters, changeable
no closer than five copy signage within the
hundred (500)feet of overall allowable sign
one another. square footage is
permitted.
Illumination: Internal, but
no exposed neon lighting
or exposed bulb lighting.
Landscaping:A
minimum twelve-foot by
twelve-foot(12 x 12)
wide landscaped planter
area surrounding the
sign base.
Currently, the Zoning Code allows such signs to be a maximum of twenty-four (24) feet
high, and three-hundred (300) square feet in area. The only existing sign in the City
that exceed this height is the Moorpark Marketplace sign which, at 66 feet tall, was
subject to specific plan regulations and a settlement agreement. In addition, pylon signs
are allowed in shopping centers of 50,000 square feet or larger and located on Los
Angeles Avenue. An amendment to the sign ordinance would be required to permit
signage on the proposed 48 foot high tower, and, on a street other than Los Angeles
Avenue. As such, signs would not be permitted on this proposed tower and a condition
of approval has been added to address this.
7
\\DC1\Department Share\Community Development DEV PMTS\C U P120161CUP 2016-05 Verizon WirelesslAgenda Reports\MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 8
Findings
Prior to approving, conditionally approving, or denying a discretionary permit, the City
Council must adopt written findings, by resolution, based upon substantial evidence in
view of the whole record to justify the decision. In order for a discretionary permit to be
approved, the City Council must find make the affirmative findings required by the
Municipal Code. If any of the findings cannot be made, the request must be denied.
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
A. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan, zoning
ordinance, and any other applicable regulations, in that the proposed use, height,
setbacks and improvements are consistent with City Code requirements. The
tower is proposed at 48 feet high and includes 4 feet of Spanish roof tile and a
metal finial.
B. The proposed use is compatible with both existing and permitted land uses in the
surrounding area, in that the wireless communication facility will provide
additional cellular service to the commercial and industrial areas. The proposed
tower has been determined to be in an appropriate location for a wireless
communication facility by the city.
C. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of
surrounding properties, in that it is designed so as not to detract from the
physical and visual quality of the area. The material and color of the tower as
conditioned complement the existing commercial buildings.
D. The proposed use would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair the utility of
neighboring property or uses, in that the proposed use has been designed to
eliminate any negative visual impacts. The proposed tower will not eliminate
parking spaces, obstruct driveways, or disrupt vehicular or pedestrian circulation.
E. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, in that conditions of approval have been added to
protect the public.
Wireless Facilities Findings:
A. The proposed facility will not create any significant blockage to public views, in
that the tower will be placed on the corner of an existing commercial site, away
from driveways and traffic line-of-sight.
8
11DC1\Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTS\C U P12016\CUP 2016-05 Verizon Wireless\Agenda Reports\MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 9
B. The proposed facility will be an enhancement to the City due to its ability to
provide additional communication capabilities in the eastern part of the City and
along California State Route 23.
C. The proposed facility will be aesthetically integrated into its surrounding land
uses and natural environment, in that it will be constructed of materials, painted
in a manner, and constructed in a style that will complement the existing
commercial buildings.
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, in that 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 cellular facility has been documented
consistent with California. law, in that the proposed cell site will provide a
substantial increase in the coverage 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 such request in any 24-month period.
Planned Development Findings
A. The site design, including structure location, size, height, setbacks, massing,
scale, architectural style and colors, and landscaping, is consistent with the
provisions of the general plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance,
9
S:\Community Development DEV PMTS\C U P\2016\CUP 2016-05 Verizon Wireless\Agenda Reports\MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 10
and any other applicable regulations in that the proposed facility has been
designed to complement the surrounding built and natural environment;
B. The site design would not create negative impacts on or impair the utility of
properties, structures or uses in the surrounding area in that the facility has been
designed in a manner consistent with the character of the community;
C. The proposed uses are compatible with existing and permitted uses in the
surrounding area in that a wireless communication facility is not unexpected in
the Commercial Planned Development zone.
PROCESSING TIME LIMITS
Time limits have been established for the processing of development projects under the
Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5), the
Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California
Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13,
and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). Under the applicable
provisions of these regulations, the following timelines have been established for action
on this project:
Date Application Determined Complete: March 17, 2017
Planning Commission Action Deadline: Not Applicable
City Council Action Deadline: June 16, 2017
Upon agreement by the City and Applicant, one 90-day extension can be granted to the
date action must be taken on the application.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution,
the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a
project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects
may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other
projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not
necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant
effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires
the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts.
Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project will
not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to
Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. For
many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will prove to be
sufficient environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a project has
10
S:\Community Development DEV PMTS\C U P\2016\CUP 2016-05 Verizon Wireless\Agenda ReportsWOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Honorable City Council
April 19, 2017
Page 11
the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation cannot be readily
identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared.
The Community Development Director has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under the Class 11 exemption under
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 (Accessory Structures) because Conditional Use
Permit No. 2014-09 and Modification No. 1 to CPD No. 2004-03 allows the construction
for a Major Wireless Communication Facility; and installation of an above ground
equipment enclosure within a 48-foot high tower use is consistent with the applicable
general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations. In addition, there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
The project is consistent with the Class 11 (Accessory Structures - consists of construction,
or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial,
industrial, or institutional facilities)exemption as follows.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and close the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2017- approving the application for Conditional Use.
Permit No. 2016-05 and Modification No. 2 to Commercial Planned Development
No. 2004-03 and Making Determination of Exemption Under CEQA in
Connection Therewith.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Project Exhibits (Under Separate Cover)
T-1 Title Sheet
LS-1 Site Survey
A-1 Overall Site Plan
A-2 Enlarged Site Plan, Equipment &Antenna Layout
A-3 East and West Elevations, Tower Elevation (West)
A-4 North and South Elevations
4. December 28, 2012 City Council Agenda Report and Minutes
5. Resolution No. 2017-
11
S:\Community Development\DEV PMTS\C U P\2016\CUP 2016-05 Verizon VJireless'Agenda Reports\MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL.docx
Location Map
T \ Legend
k.
N. \\ \)- „_.
Parcels
�',�y City Boundary
IdoorparkArea Of Interest
r
4 i'y',
..\-------- , x
•
x f 0 , ------1_____,_2 Im 43s- \ ,,,,,,,, y
-).\ - _
''''i ., -_---- j*- ,
4
r
11,:t
-.------
� \ i,
s C--- \ \ \
('9e
Ps 200
I \
5Do ft
CUP No. ' ,'' t :.,
2016-15 and ,
1 376 ft Mod. 2 to CPD 12/05/2016 ,.
No. 2004-03 .
This neap represents a visual display of related geographic information. Data provided hereon is not a guarantee of actual field conditions To be sure of complete accuracy
N N please contact Moorpark staff for the most up-to-date information
Aerial Map - 14339 White Sage Road
. -. try .. 4 / � f j pig ¢ b 4 d "i( 4 at �yy� �}Y
: '
+* p + it �.4, ~ _ ' ti,�ti�
IM► r t t r t°,L'' t ' S Leg
end
t ;:...7_2_,_.____
� -___ :4k,..4,4,7,...sp,v110.,ti
Parcels
City Boundary
.., ,, +�y� °''I iJ 1 # - ~ " IvloorparkArea Of Interest
_
o10.44.r.,_rr
, ., _
4.
, r 'k
rr r !
_X- is .. ' ..,, n' 1 5§ , � .s r� � 'p `',, ::: . >-- }
r i I t tib'} 1" 4 w�IIR.
,t80 ',‘, ' ',,i * ,., ' ..4.....;t:v: ::4 _,,,,1:,, -,,,,,4... -. ''''-'1:41:--4:'4:: -:----i
y ��
+
ifg l +->'' -* -. -"'"..-. ter"`_ - a' Y� . 'yU. r .re y *�•#
rn . . Proposed Tower *a :11, '',
.r �' '; Location � ;�.
Zi,,,,,,,,,,-:,:, :
f
—1 rr
tr r.
\ ... t r
.
sa t�
fr,A ! .> -,.. !' .m, r' s^ ...#tea"; ".y Aa .s _ .,� �� „1# `,>, v .y'
I .t r''
CUP 2016-05 psi.
1" = 376 ft amd Mod 2 to 01/10/2017 4
CPD 2004-03 '`
This map represents a visual display of related geographic information Data provided hereon is not a guarantee of actual field conditions. To be sure of complete accuracy.
w please contact Moorpark staff for the most up-to-date information.
PROJECT EXHIBITS
A. T-1 TITLE SHEET
B. LS-1 SITE SURVEY
C. A-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN
D. A-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN, EQUIPMENT &
ANTENNA LAYOUT
E. A-3 EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS, TOWER
ELEVATION (WEST)
F. A-4 NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
COPIES OF THE EXHIBITS ARE AVAILABLE
UPON REQUEST OF THE PROJECT PLANNER
14
CC ATTACHMENT 3
CJ:COUfci'ivice eting
-�oi3
,��
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director
DATE: December 28, 2012 (CC Meeting of 1116/2013)
SUBJECT: Consider Potential City Welcome Sign on State Route-23 Freeway at
Los Angeles Avenue
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Consultants for Verizon have approached City staff recently about the need to construct
a new cell tower adjacent to the State Route (SR)-118 freeway on the Warehouse
Discount Center property near Los Angeles Avenue. Community Development staff has
worked with them on a number of concepts to comply with the City's wireless
communications facilities ordinance, including integrating antenna panels into the
building design or constructing a "monopine" behind the building. Their transmission
needs, however, called for a tower as close to the freeway as possible, so while these
alternatives were viable, they were not optimal for coverage.
Separately, one idea being contemplated by staff was to create, as part of the City's
economic development efforts, a City welcome sign in this location that would help
freeway travelers be aware of some of the other shopping opportunities adjacent to the
freeway that are not on the Moorpark Marketplace sign tower (e.g. Staples, Dick's and
Petco). Verizon consultants agreed to consider a City sign tower that would hold their
antenna panels and equipment inside the tower element, and have submitted an initial
concept (attached). Such a sign would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
as "off-premise" signs are currently not permitted anywhere in the City.
Property managers of the Moorpark Marketplace and Village at Moorpark have not been
contacted to gauge their or their tenants' current interest in such a sign, although
interest was expressed in the past. Property owners for the Village at Moorpark had
worked with staff on a sign tower at the corner of Miller Parkway and Los Angeles
Avenue, but have not been actively pursuing permits for such a sign recently. This sign
tower would help the visibility of their location from the freeway, but not to the extent of
a sign immediately adjacent to the freeway.
•
15
CC ATTACHMENT 4
Honorable City Council
January 16, 2013
Page 2
Although premature to evaluate the specific design of the sign as it would currently not
be permitted, staff took the idea of a City sign for economic development purposes to
the Community and Economic Development Committee (Councilmembers Mikos and
Pollock) on December 19, 2012 for discussion. The committee also considered the
conceptual sign design submitted by Verizon. While understanding the economic
development benefits of such a sign, the committee expressed concerns over the visual
impact of a sign tower, and noted that the sign could be designed more like the sign
tower for the Moorpark Marketplace, rather than what was proposed. After discussion,
the committee had no recommendation for the Council as a whole.
As noted above, a sign at this location advertising the centers on the other side of the
freeway would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes that an
ordinance can be drafted that would permit such a sign without leading to a proliferation
of off-premise signs elsewhere in the City, due to the unique size and location of the
centers. If the City Council wishes staff to prepare such an amendment for
consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council may
direct staff to return with a resolution to initiate consideration of a Zoning Ordinance
amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff as deemed appropriate
Attachment:
1. Conceptual Cell Tower/City Welcome Sign
&Community DevelopmerOADMIMAgenda Reports, Misc\City Welcome Sign\City Welcome Sign.docx
16
Oat
t
imuzar
Asar
moo, min,
1111 Pr
•
bra`/i2rt`11111ik arri�r��
CENTER
ORTHO MATTRESS
. TENANT SIGN
TENANT SIGN • •
. •
• TENANT SIGN
•
Moor'ark Market. lace
TARGET KOHL'S
The Village at Moorpark
DICK'S Petco STAPLES
•
17
. .
Minutes of the City Council/Successor Agency
Moorpark, California
Page 7 January 16. 2013
service exclusively to the city and not to any person, business, or
entity located in the city."
Section 5.08.010 B 8. modified to read: "Businesses engaged in
providing professional design work, including but not limited to
architecture or landscape architecture services, provided such work
does not involve on-site work within the city.
There were no speakers.
Mr. Ennis read the title of Ordinance No. 417.
MOTION: Councilmember Pollock moved and Councilmember Van Dam
seconded a motion to waive further reading, declare Ordinance No. 417, as
amended, read for the first time, and schedule second reading and adoption for
February 6, 2013. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Mikos moved and Councilmember Pollock seconded
a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2013-3153, adopting a revised fee schedule for
services rendered pursuant to the Moorpark Municipal Code relating to Business
Registration Fees and rescinding Resolution No. 2011-1994. The motion carried
by unanimous roll call vote.
D. Consider Potential City Welcome Sign on State Route-23 at Los Angeles
Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Mr. Bobardt gave the staff report.
Councilmember Mikos reported she and Councilmember Pollock serving
on the Community and Economic Development committee could not come
up with a unified recommendation for this signage.
A discussion followed among the Councilmembers and staff focused on:
1) Recognition of economic development potential of the sign; 2) Concern
regarding the conceptual design; 3) Not wanting to set a precedence for
signage along State Route 23 corridor; 4) Consider siting the cell tower
within an architectural structure rather than signage; 5) City retains control
of cell tower sites if coverage can be obtained elsewhere; and 6) Desire to
explore more options.
There were no speakers.
MOTION: Councilmember Millhouse moved and Mayor Parvin seconded a
motion not to proceed with the City Welcome Sign on State Route-23 at Los
Angeles Avenue. The motion carried by voice vote 3-2, Councilmembers Pollock
and Van Dam dissenting.
18
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2 TO
COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2004-03
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAJOR WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OF 12 PANEL
ANTENNAS; AND INSTALLATION OF AN ABOVE
GROUND EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITHIN A 48-FOOT
HIGH TOWER AT 14339 WHITE SAGE ROAD
(WAREHOUSE DISCOUNT CENTER), AND MAKING
DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH, ON THE APPLICATION OF
MATT VIGIL (VINCULUMS) ON BEHALF OF VERIZON
WIRELESS
WHEREAS, On December 2, 2016, an application was filed for Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) No. 2016-05 and Modification No. 2 to Commercial Planned Development
(CPD) No. 2004-03 by Matt Vigil (Vinculums) for Verizon Wireless to install 12 panel
antennas and aboveground mechanical equipment storage screened by a 48 foot high
tower located at 14339 White Sage Road (Warehouse Discount Center); and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on April 19, 2017, the City
Council considered the agenda report and any supplements thereto and any written
public comments; opened the public hearing, took and considered public testimony both
for and against the proposal, closed the public hearing, and reached a decision on this
matter; and
WHEREAS, The Community Development Director has determined the project is
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15311(Class 11
- Accessory Structures) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) in that
the project is consistent with the applicable general and specific plan designation and all
applicable general and specific plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning
designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a
project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the
project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species,
approval of a project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise,
air quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. No further environmental documentation is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
19
CC ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution No. 2017-
Page 2
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City Council
concurs with the Community Development Director's determination that this project is
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11
— Accessory Structures) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) in
that the project is consistent with the applicable general and specific plan designation
and all applicable general and specific plan policies as well as with applicable zoning
designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a
project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the
project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise,
air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities
and public services. No further environmental documentation is required.
SECTION 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: Based upon the
information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and oral and written
public testimony, the City Council makes the following findings in accordance with City
of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.040:
A. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan, zoning
ordinance, and any other applicable regulations, in that the proposed use, height,
setbacks and improvements are consistent with City Code requirements. The
tower is proposed at 48 feet high and includes 4 feet of Spanish roof tile and a
metal finial.
B. The proposed use is compatible with both existing and permitted land uses in the
surrounding area, in that the wireless communication facility will provide
additional cellular service to the commercial and industrial areas. The proposed
tower has been determined to be in an appropriate location for a wireless
communication facility by the city.
C. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of
surrounding properties, in that it is designed so as not to detract from the
physical and visual quality of the area. The material and color of the tower as
conditioned complement the existing commercial buildings.
D. The proposed use would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair the utility of
neighboring property or uses, in that the proposed use has been designed to
eliminate any negative visual impacts. The proposed tower will not eliminate
parking spaces, obstruct driveways, or disrupt vehicular or pedestrian circulation.
E. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, in that conditions of approval have been added to
protect the public.
20
Resolution No. 2017-
Page 3
Wireless Facilities Findings:
A. The proposed facility will not create any significant blockage to public views, in
that the tower will be placed on the corner of an existing commercial site, away
from driveways and traffic line-of-sight.
B. The proposed facility will be an enhancement to the City due to its ability to
provide additional communication capabilities in the eastern part of the City and
along California State Route 23.
C. The proposed facility will be aesthetically integrated into its surrounding land
uses and natural environment, in that it will be constructed of materials, painted
in a manner, and constructed in a style that will complement the existing
commercial buildings.
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, in that 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 cellular facility has been documented
consistent with California law, in that the proposed cell site will provide a
substantial increase in the coverage 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 such request in any 24-month period.
21
Resolution No. 2017-
Page 4
Planned Development Findings
A. The site design, including structure location, size, height, setbacks, massing,
scale, architectural style and colors, and landscaping, is consistent with the
provisions of the general plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance,
and any other applicable regulations in that the proposed facility has been
designed to complement the surrounding built and natural environment;
B. The site design would not create negative impacts on or impair the utility of
properties, structures or uses in the surrounding area in that the facility has been
designed in a manner consistent with the character of the community;
C. The proposed uses are compatible with existing and permitted uses in the
surrounding area in that a wireless communication facility is not unexpected in
the Commercial Planned Development zone.
SECTION 4. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: The City Council hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05 and Modification No. 2 to Commercial
Planned Development (CPD) No. 2004-03, subject to the special and standard
Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit A (Special and Standard Conditions of
Approval), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April, 2017.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Maureen Benson, City Clerk
Exhibit A - Special and Standard Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) No. 2016-05 and Modification No. 2 to Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) No. 2004-03
22
Resolution No. 2017-
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
STANDARD AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) No. 2014-09 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2
TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2004-03
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The applicant shall comply with Standard Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use
Permits as adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2009-2799 (Exhibit B), except as
modified by the following Special Conditions of Approval. In the event of conflict
between a Standard and Special Condition of Approval, the Special Condition shall
apply.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. This Conditional Use Permit is granted or approved with the City's designated
approving body retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to
modify the permit—including the conditions of approval—based on changed
circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, major
modification of the business; a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the
business; the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use; or the fact
that the use is negatively impacting surrounding uses by virtue of impacts not
identified at the time of application for the conditional use permit or impacts that
are much greater than anticipated or disclosed at the time of application for the
conditional use permit. The reservation of right to review any permit granted or
approved under this chapter by the City's designated approving body is in
addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, City
Council and designated approving body to review and revoke or modify any
permit granted or approved under this chapter for any violations of the conditions
imposed on such permit.
2. The development must be in substantial conformance with the plans presented in
conjunction with the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-09 and
Modification No. 1 to Commercial Planned Development No. 2004-03, except
any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other
conditions stipulated herein.
3. Approval of a Zoning Clearance is required prior to the issuance of any new
Building Permits. All contractors must have valid City of Moorpark Business
Registrations.
4. Signs are not allowed on the tower.
5. This facility is approved as an unstaffed operation. Following construction of the
facility, traffic generated by this use shall be limited to periodic and emergency
maintenance of the facility. Required parking and loading spaces on the site
shall be maintained in compliance with Zoning Ordinance.
23
Resolution No. 2017-
Page 6
6. The applicant will provide, at its 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.
7. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for any new building permits, the
applicant shall submit all construction plans for review and approval by the
Community Development Director.
8. A matching vinyl circular vent shall be placed on each side of the tower.
9. The wireless facilities under this permit shall be maintained so that the materials
and colors remain compatible with the rest of the building. Failure to maintain
these facilities to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director shall
result in the scheduling of a revocation hearing.
10. In the event that this antenna array is abandoned, the applicant shall remove the
facility within ninety (90) days at the request of the Community Development
Director. Should the facility owner fail to remove the facility upon abandonment,
the property owner shall be responsible for its removal.
11. In the event that the uses under this Conditional Use Permit are 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.
12. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for building permit, all landscape
deficiencies must be corrected, and a landscape maintenance plan shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director and
Parks and Recreation Director.
13. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for building permit, hedge plants
shall be planted on the north side of the property, adjacent to the parking lot to
the satisfactory of the Community Development Director.
-End-
24