Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the city of Oxnar Planning Commission for Thursday, May 1, 2025. The meeting will come to order at 6:01 p.m. The public may view the meeting from home on the city's website, Spectrum Channel 10, Frontier Channel 35, or on the city's YouTube website. To participate in the meeting, the public may provide comments to the planning commission via email at planning@oxnard.org no later than 3 pm on the day of the meeting or through the city's website at oxnner.org/city-me or call the planning division office. Additionally, those wishing to speak can dial the phone number listed at the bottom of the screen. Follow the instructions to access the meeting and press star 9 to raise your hand indicating your intention to speak on the agenda item. in progress being discussed. Madam Secretary, can we please have the roll call? Chair Aljo, present. Vice Chair Dr. Stewart, present. Commissioner Lopez, here. Commissioner Nash, present. We have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We will now move on to the pledge of allegiance. Mr. Zerosa, will you kindly lead us in the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Mr. Zeragosa. We'll move on to C. Public comments on items not on the agenda. At this time, a person may address the planning commission on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission, including information consent items and any time not appearing on the agenda. The planning commission cannot take action

on any item presented during public comments that is not on the agenda and such item may only be referred to the commission secretary. Persons wishing to speak on public hearing items should do so at the time of the public hearing. Madam Secretary, are there any public comments for items not on the agenda? There are none. Thank you. We'll move on to the consent agenda. And with none listed, we'll move on to exparte declarations. Please state any exparte declarations, if any, I'll move across the dis. Commissioner Dr. Lopez. None. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Dr. Stewart. None. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Nash. None. Thank you. And none for myself. The next item on the agenda is section F, public hearing F1, project name 2030, general plan and local coastal plan conformity determination for the city of Oxnard midcycle update to the capital improvement program fiscal years 25 to 29. The planning commission will review the midcycle update to the CIP for fiscal years 25 to 29 to confirm the projects are in conformance with the city of Oxar 2030 general plan and relevant coastal land use plan policies pursuant to section 65401 of the government code. The CIP includes a range of roadway improvements, maintenance of public facilities, storm water drainage improvements, and other miscellaneous projects. The whole of the proposed CIP projects are located throughout the city of Oxnard and vary in scope and funding filed by the city of Oxnard public works department. City staff Marin Kesler, city engineer. Per measure M. A staff presentation has been pre-recorded and the link has been posted to YouTube. The staff wish to give some introductory remarks at this time. Yes, Chair Rejo. As a result of a attachment being missing from this item, we are requesting that the item get continued to the uh June 5th uh planning commission meeting um for the date certain. So South is recommending that

the commission vote to um continue that to June 5th. Thank you very much, Mr. Pearson. Um even though the recommendation has been to move um to uh this item to June 5th, we'll go through the regular public hearing um and then uh most likely go through that motion. Um at this time qu uh members may ask questions of staff. There's any if none at this time uh madam secretary is there any public comment? There is none. Thank you. And at this time, I will move to um move to uh move this item to the next agenda item. Is there a second? Or I'm sorry. Uh move this agenda item to the next uh plan planning commission meeting on June 5. Is there a second? I'll second it. Seconded by Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. If there are no comments on this motion, Madam Secretary, can I have the roll call, please? Chair Arjo I. Dr. Stewart I. Commissioner Lopez I. Commissioner Nash. I. Motion passes. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We'll move on to agenda item F2. Project name AT&T Monucalyptus Wireless Facility. Planning and zoning permit number 24-530-04. special use permit wireless property located at 921 Ventura Boulevard. A request to construct a 50-foot tall wireless communication stealth facility designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree with an associated ground equipment enclosure within a 364t lease area of a 96 acre property developed with existing commercial retail building within the general

commercial plan development. The application includes a request for a height of 15 feet above the existing 35 foot height limit within the general commercial zone pursuant to article 16 section 16-108 of the Oxarn city code which allows height increases through approval of a special use permit filed by designated agent John McDonald Yukon Group uh on behalf of AT&T Mobility on behalf of the property owner Kavort Properties of Newport Beach City staff Shantel Power contract planner per measure M a staff presentation has been pre-recorded and the link has been posted to YouTube per previously approved standing role staff can provide a brief summary of the pre-recorded presentation in addition to another to other analysis at this time. Does staff wish to give some introductory remarks? Uh yes I can give some remarks um on the project. So, this is um a special special use permit um for the planning and zoning commission uh 24-530-4. Um, a few things to note. I mean, you you went through the basic project description, but a few things to note about this particular um project is this is a a 50- foot tall monucalyptus um tree that will be be placed um behind an existing commercial structure located at 921 Ventura Boulevard. Um last month you um approved um a temporary facility that will be in place until this permanent facility can be built. Um and then when this permanent facility is built, the the temporary um facility on wheels on wheels will be

removed. Um and then uh you'll have the 50-foot monucalyptus. Um there's several conditions in place um specific to um the types of foliage, the density of the foliage, the maintenance of the the foliage and the bark and and the enclosure. The enclosure itself um is uh made of a an 8 foot chain link um uh fence with privacy slats colored to match the existing commercial building. Um the the uh tower and equipment enclosure will occupy approximately four um parking spaces. Um the temporary um that that will be in place until until this permanent is built uh is uh proposed to take up three parking spaces. So this will take one additional parking space. Um but as the parking study showed um there's a surplus of um more more than enough um parking available um for the uses which are relatively low inensity commercial uses. Um the project is also located uh within 500 ft of a scenic highway um highway 101. Uh but as this is a stealth facility um there there will be no um uh no non-compliance issues with with any of the code uh requirements for um these types of facilities. Um, additionally, this is this is in a highly urbanized area of the scenic highway that doesn't really have any of the scenic resources uh that would require additional um review through

SQA. Uh so that that pretty much concludes uh what the the basic details of this. Um oh uh one other thing um this was mentioned in the um hearing last month for the temporary facility but this facility is being constructed at this location um because there was another facility um right around um the intersection of Highway 101 and uh Vineyard um that that is being removed. And so this facility will um will basically cover um the area that's uh that will be left without coverage with the removal of the other facility. So um that's the bulk of of this project, the project details. If you have any additional questions, feel free to ask. Thank you, Miss Power. Appreciate that. Chair, Mr. Um I just wanted to note that we did receive a few questions before the hearing from one of the commissioners. Um just wanted to provide uh some brief responses to those. Um one of the questions was what is the expected lifespan of the monopole. That question would probably be better answered by the applicant team. So um that one I'm sure the applicant team can speak to. The other one was, have there been occurrences of any parts of the monopine structure, including antennas or hardware falling off? Um, at least at this point in time, there hasn't been any occurrences of that that we're aware of within the city. Um, so these do go through the building permit process, which also speaks to the third question, which is are the monopon monopoles tested to withstand, you know, wind and weather events. Um, so that is part of the building permit process. So that is part of the structural review for these facilities and I'm sure the applicant can also um add more to that as well. But just wanted to highlight those before um handing it over to the

applicant. Thank you very much Mr. Pearson. Um and now we'll move on to the applicant if they are here. Um thank you. Um as you come on down um the you will have 15 minutes um uh to speak and you can begin when ready. Thank you. My name is David Elliot um with the Yukon Group on behalf of AT&T. Uh I'm here to u essentially just answer any questions with regards to uh you know the the lifespan of these these these uh vault trees. Um, I've seen them up for 20 plus years. Um, with, you know, with respect to how, you know, if there are is there any equipment that falls off? I, in my experience, I haven't seen any of that. Um, and I'm I've been in the industry for a long time. Uh, what are the questions we have? Oh, yes, we do have structural u engineers that that stamp and approve these plans. they they do extensive testing and calculations with uh with manufacturer to make sure that the structure is sound. Okay. Uh thank you for that. Um I think uh I may have missed it but uh I think one of the questions was the lifetime or the life of the Oh yeah. So so with the companies that we partner up the fabricators apologize. I'm gonna have you uh pause if you could stop the time. Um and if we could Oh, thank you. I appreciate that, sir. Thank you very much. Um and yes, continue at your So, uh with regards to the lifespan and and um you know, of these of these these structures. Um it varies from company to company. We do use fabricators that that will we partner up. AT&T does with uh fabricators that are reputable and they've have a a great reputation with how long and they last. Um AT&T does regular maintenance on these towers. So

if there's anything a miss if if a you know leaf falls off and it starts to look, you know, not like a tree, my understanding is that they have a contract to replace and upkeep these these towers. But but yeah at in terms of you know which company we don't know that yet until we move to the next stage which is the building um you know portion of this process. Acknowledged. Thank you. Um if I think I hit all the questions I'll look to Mr. Pearson really quickly. Did he answer the two questions I believe? Yes chair. Okay. Thank you Mr. Pearson. Um thank you sir. Um but uh don't go away yet. Um at this time uh members may ask questions of either the applicant and staff commission commissioner Nash. Thank you chair. So we have two monopole um approval issues here with us tonight and it seems like we're moving beyond the uh traditional 35 foot limit. What is your feeling on on how the industry is moving towards higher monopoles because I mean it's direct directly related to coverage and you know coverage is very important. So, I would submit the question but to both to both you and staff. Are are should we be looking at increasing that 35- ft uh height that we've been um subject to? Because I I I I do think we these higher uh monopole uh towers will come before the commission as we get more requests. I can only speak to I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Uh, I was just going to say from from um a staff point of view, um, of

course I'm I'm a consultant, so I'm not as familiar with, you know, the code as, uh, Mr. Pearson is. Um, however, I can tell you that, um, a 50 foot height and above is actually very standard for a wireless facility, and that really is to to reach as much coverage as possible with one pole. um rather than having lots of poles placed all over the place. Um and it's really the height um that's needed in order to to get that coverage. Um I I think in terms of your particular regulations and your code um the 35 foot height was really written um for structures for buildings and not so much with wireless facilities in mind. Um, so that's something at some point, you know, if you want to amend your code that you can look towards um having some additional allowance for wireless facilities and and other types of um similar utilities. Thank you for that. That's certainly something for um staff to consider. So that that that's that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Nash. Um Madam Secretary, we can turn off the clock now just in case. Um appreciate that. Um any others from the commission at this time? Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. Uh yes, just to follow uh with Commissioner Nash. I think the last several of these um monopoles that we've approved uh I brought up the issue of the 35 ft and here we still sit with that as a limiter. Um how do we push it to the next step to say well from what we've heard now uh from staff is that this is the way of the future. uh how do we get our code updated so that it is compliant with where we're supposed to be going? So, vice chair, Dr.

Stewart, in regards to that, it would require a code amendment based on our current ordinance. Um the height limits in our code are currently set by the zoning standard. So for projects within the C2 zoning designation, all development is subject to the 35 ft height limit. Um that section of the code does have that allowance. So both for these wireless facilities as well as other buildings can be increased in height through the special use permit process. Um these facilities will ultimately still come before the commission whether the height limit was changed or not. Um so the process would be to do that code amendment. So that's definitely something we can look at as part of the next um code amendment process. Um but for the time being the commission would ultimately still have the ability to allow the additional height in any um case in which they felt it was appropriate for that location. Thank you vice chair Dr. Stewart Commissioner Dr. Lopez. Yes. Thank you. Uh one of my uh fellow commissioners submitted a question about the lifespan of of uh the structure itself. But um I was just curious what is the the plan that the industry has or that you all would have to to uh decommission and deconstruct at the end of life and not left there as a uh as a permanent structure. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question? Is there a plan like after the lifespan of the of the actual structure of the antenna itself? Like so at the end of life like is there how how do you typically decommission and deconstruct them and not leave them and abandon them there? Yeah, it's it's in the code for for us to to remove the structure um and to after decommissioning. Okay. It's already in there in in the language to remove it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. And um a little bit of a followup to um Commissioner Nash and Vice Dr. Stewart's inquiries. How much easier, if any, would it be um in regards to uh applying for the permit if you didn't have to also do the special use permit to increase the height? Um this is not really in particular to this although it is related but I just want to know for something for the future if it could make it easier in terms of time or costs in the future. It would make it easier. Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much sir. Greatly appreciate that. Um I'll have some comments for the commission during a later section but that won't have to relate to this item. So thank you very much. If there's no other questions at this time, um we'll move on to the um public comment. Madam Secretary, is there any public comment for this item? No, there is none. Thank you very much. And are there any closing remarks from staff, Miss Power? None at this time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. The public hearing is now closed and we'll move on to deliberation commission. And if there's no further deliberation, a motion is in order. Commissioner Nash. Chair. I I move the recommended action. Thank you. It's been moved by Commissioner Nash to find a project exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section 15303 class 3 new construction and adopt resolution 2025X approving planning and zoning permit number 24-530-04 special use permit wireless subject to certain findings and conditions. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Dr. Lopez. Any other further comments on the motion before us? Seeing and hearing none, Madam

Secretary, can we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Nash, I. Commissioner Dr. Lopez, I vice chair Dr. Stewart. I, Chair Aljo, I. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your time. Yeah, appreciate it. Thanks. Um, we'll move on to agenda item F3. Project name AT&T Monucalyptus wireless facility planning and zoning permit number 24-530-02 special use permit wireless property located at 511 Bueno Vista Avenue. A request to construct a 100 foot tall wireless communication stealth facility designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree with an associated ground equipment enclosure within an 86 864 square foot enclosure of a49 acre property developed with a hardcape art manufacturer and associated office. The property is located within the heavy manufacturing zoning district filed by designated agent Jeremy Seagull Yukon Group on behalf of APC Towers applicant on behalf of the property owner Ruben Ortega city staff Michael Lackman per measure M a staff presentation has been pre-recorded and the link has been posted to YouTube per previously approved standing role staff can provide a brief summary of the pre-recorded presentation in addition to other analysis at this time does staff wish to give some intro introductory remarks. Uh, good evening commission. I do have some introductory remarks just based on some questions that are raised by a commissioner. So, just to clarify, on page 123 of the planning commission meeting agenda, subsection F titled height, the target area was incorrectly identified as the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Venture Road that has since been corrected to reflect the accurate target area of the intersection of Buenav Vista Avenue and Fifth Street. Additionally, a comment was received regarding condition number 49, which

states, quote, "The emergency generator shall be tested only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. from Monday through Saturday. The emergency generator shall not be tested on Sunday." End quote. The concern regarding this condition is that the area directly around the project site is heavy industrial, so the time restriction may not be appropriate or necessary for the specific project. Um, however, staff recommends that this condition stays at is a standard condition for all wireless facilities. And while the areas directly adjacent to the project site of 511 Buista Avenue are heavy industrial, there is existing farmworker housing approximately 300 feet east of the project site located at 1700 East Fifth Street, which warrants justification for this condition. That's all I have for this moment. Thank you. Thank you. Um to briefly follow up that second item, you said that the staff still recommended that was kept in the first one. Um can you repeat the intersection again? Yes, of course. So, on page 123 of the planning commission mean agenda, which is part of the staff report subsection F titled height, the target area was incorrectly identified as the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Ventura Road. This is the target area for the wireless coverage. That has been corrected to reflect the accurate target area of the intersection of Buista Avenue and Fifth Street, which is where the project is located. Thank you. And that was just in the staff report and not in the resolution. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you very much. greatly appreciate that. Um at this time the applicant if they are here um can present if any thank you sir and you have 15 minutes and you can begin at your leisure. Very good. Vance Pomeroy uh representing APC Towers uh on behalf of Jeremy Seagull is not able to be here this evening. Uh we've had an opportunity to take a look at the findings in the staff report and the resolution as well as the um conformance um chart there and as well as the the

conditions of approval in the resolution and find no issues. Uh the time limit issue is is not that was brought up. The question I should say is not a problem. That's not a problem at all. So if you have any further questions I'm here to assist you. Thank you very much, Mr. Pomeroy. Um, I'll look now to the commission if they have any questions, commission. Seeing no questions, I'll move on to public comment. Madam Secretary, is there any public comment other than what was previously submitted, which was actually the applicant themselves? No, there is none. Okay. Thank you very much. The uh the public comment period is now clo or the public hearing is now closed and we'll move on to deliberation commission. If there are no remarks from the commission uh motion is now in order. I'll make a motion to move the recommended action. It has been moved by vice chair Dr. Stewart to break out of this to find the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15303 class 3 new construction and adopt resolution 2025X approving planning and zoning permit number 24-5302 special use permit wireless subject to certain findings and conditions. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Dr. Lopez. If there are no further remarks on the motion before us, Madam Secretary, can we have the roll call, please? Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart, I. Commissioner Dr. Lopez, I. Commissioner Nash, I. Chair Arjo, I. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Uh, congratulations. Um, we'll now move on to study session

reports. And with none on the agenda, business will move on to section I, planning commission business. Is there any business or updates report from the commission? Commissioners, seeing none at this time, um, as I have a brief comment for myself. As you see tonight, uh, we only have officially on our roster five members of the planning commission until at least June. And probably in my opinion July would be the earliest to have seven members on this body. If you know already um not if you know you do know already um I'm sorry if you know already please communicate to me your planned absences until such time that we have full membership on the commission. Given planned absences I'm recommending to staff to cancel the May 15 meeting and may do so again for the June 19th meeting due to my plan absent on that day. I have made it known, as you all know, blind copy to both Mayor MacArthur and Councilman Star to select an appointee who will be approved by the city council at their earliest convenience for primarily quorum purposes. I'm hoping they do so as expeditiously as possible for potential approval at their May 20 or June 3 council meeting in time for the potential likely June 5 planning commission meeting. If anyone in the public is interested, please contact the city clerk's office for an application and questions on the process. in addition to both Mayor MacArthur and Councilman Star for possible selection. Thank you all. Um we'll move on to community development staff update. Mr. Pearson, thank you Chair Rahone and commissioners. Um so as you noted um due to a lack of a quorum for the upcoming May 15th meeting, we will be cancelling that meeting. Um so we'll have the June 5th meeting. We do have two items uh scheduled for that meeting. A uh

subdivision or tenative map of a existing industrial park as well as a um conversion of an existing building into a residential apartment complex. Um and then we'll have the um item the CIP which was continued from tonight's meeting. Um, so I have at this time at least three items and then we're also working on bringing forward a a project update um just to highlight some of the development projects. So that may also be um on for that meeting or we may move that one just depending on uh timing. Uh thank you for that Mr. Pan. Uh a comment from me. Um I might propose that staff postpone that update until we get at least one new member. So, um I'm not making a final decision on that, but that's just an option. Um thank you very much. And then the last thing was the till club specific plan um went to its second reading on Tuesday and it was approved at that meeting. Um so that project is continuing to move forward. The next step for that project um is to then go through the LAFCO process. Um so that will be getting started and the LAFC code process will be the formal approval of the annexation process or the annexation of the property into the city. Um once that process is completed then they will proceed forward with the actual entitlements tenative maps. Um and the tenative map will come back before the planning commission for recommendation to city council. Um and then some of the development projects depending on uh like the actual individual projects may come back before the commission or may be at the director level just depending on the the scope and scale of the projects but that will be moving forward. Thank you Mr. Pearson. Um if there's no objection I'm going to go back to the previous section. There was a comment that I

promised on the second agenda item that I was going to make in relation to our second and third public hearings. Um I think given the questions previously by um Vice Chair Dr. Stewart and then again by Commissioner Nash in regards to the height um and my question to follow up was was there going to be a some type of reduction in cost or time. Um I think it would be um good for the city council to at least hear or see that. And so, um, I'll propose something, um, or any other the commissioners, um, to have the planning commission either do something informal or informal to let the city council know and then we'll be up in their court. So, I think that's good, especially with all of these towers coming in. Um, we've had a lot. So, I I think that's reasonable, logical, and in the best interest of everyone um, involved. So, thank you very much for that. Um, since there is no further business, um, uh, we'll go back to adjournment man. The meeting will be adjourned if there's no objection. The meeting is adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Thank you all and good night.