Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - October 20 ~500.c...J~ Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 1 of 13 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange October 20, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner Commissioner Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:43 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: Item #1, Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of September 15, 2008 and October 6, 2008, no changes or corrections were noted. Commissioner Imboden stated he would abstain from the vote of the October 6, 2008 minutes as he was not present for that meeting. New Hearing: Item #2, T -Mobile. Commissioner Merino stated he would have questions on the item. Chair Steiner clarified that the installation of the new wireless antennas also entailed the removing of the existing tower. Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, stated that was correct. Other Business: Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, stated that it appeared there were no items for the November 3, 2008 meeting and it looked like it would be cancelled. Commissioner Merino asked if there had been a significant decline in the number of applications being applied for? Mr. Knight stated it was not necessarily the number of applications, however, the applications being applied for were for fairly small projects that were being approved through the DRC. There were currently a few larger projects, such as Ridge1ine and CHOC, that were in the formu1ative stages with their EIR's being completed within the year. Commissioner Merino asked if the Sully Miller Development was part of the Ridge1ine project? Mr. Knight stated the projects had been bifurcated and they were both currently in the planning stages. The Administrative Session closed @ 6:50 p.m. Page 1 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 2 of 13 REGULAR SESSION: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2008. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 15, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 2008. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 6, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham Commissioners Cunningham, Merino and Steiner None Commissioner Imboden Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2672-07; MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 520-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4246-07 - T -MOBILE A proposal to remove an existing 100- foot tall Civic Center communication antenna and install two 60-foot tall stealth flagpole wireless antennas and related communication equipment inside a new masonry enclosure on the west side of the Civic Center building that fronts Grand Street LOCATION: 300 E. Chapman Avenue (west side of City Hall) Page 2 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 3 of 13 NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3) because it consists of the construction and location of a limited number of new small facilities or structures and Section 106 findings indicate that the proposed stealth flagpole communication antennas will not have an adverse effect on historic properties. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 35-08 to approve the installation of two 60- foot tall stealth flagpoles and associated equipment cabinets with a masonry enclosure. Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino asked if removal of the existing cell tower was part of the proposed project? Mr. Ryan stated it was part of the conditions as a requirement for removal. Commissioner Merino asked for the Condition No. that he was referring to? Mr. Ryan stated it was under Item No.3 - Conditions. Commissioner Merino stated if another cell provider wished to co-locate, would they be able to on the proposed poles? Mr. Ryan stated there could be co-location; however, there would not be room in the enclosure for additional equipment. Commissioner Merino clarified that another cell provider could co-locate within the flagpole arrangement; however, there was not room in the equipment enclosure that was being provided for additional equipment. Mr. Ryan stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino asked if Staff had considered requesting that the enclosure be made larger to accommodate co-location. Mr. Ryan stated his understanding was that T-Mobile would return to accommodate any expansion if needed for additional equipment. Commissioner Merino asked if the existing 100' tower could provide for the equipment ofT-Mobile? Page 3 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 4 of 13 Mr. Ryan stated he was unable to answer that question, as it was more technical and also the 100' height of the existing tower made it visible throughout Old Towne. Commissioner Merino stated he understood that it was visible and his question was could a service provider use the existing antenna? Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, stated on the 100' existing antenna it was a difficult question to answer as the antenna was not used for the purpose of cell phone transmission. He stated it had been affiliated with the Civic Center Complex when the Police Department had been located in this area. When the Police Department moved the pole was no longer utilized for communication purposes. Commissioner Merino asked if the existing antenna was currently not being used? Mr. Knight stated he ventured to guess that was the case as it was to be completely removed. Commissioner Merino stated he had not wanted to take anything for granted and that was why he had asked the question. Mr. Ryan stated the other part to that was the size and weight of the cable going up to the antenna ray of the proposed project that could not be supported at the 100' height as it had a different structural element. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated one of the issues that Commissioner Merino had brought up was something that he had received clarity on. A company that the City was working with in marketing City sites and City property advised the City to discourage a larger area for the proposed project that would allow co-location. The reason being that the City would be cut out of any revenues the City would be able to obtain through co-location. If the proposed project was approved there would be a requirement for the lease of space for both the antenna and equipment. If T -Mobile were to hold the lease for that property, the agreement for co-location with another provider would be between the leaseholder and the communications company and not the City. He had posed the question regarding other options available to avoid the possibility of having rows of equipment located in the area. It had been explained to him that if that situation arose it would require vaulting of the equipment. There were other options that the City would explore. Commissioner Imboden stated it appeared co-location was not an option on the other location. Typically with projects such as the proposed project there was a review of multiple possible locations with a determination of the best possible location. He asked if there had been other locations considered for the equipment? Mr. Ryan stated he was not aware that other locations had been reviewed. Chair Steiner asked if the act of obtaining a demolition permit required one to demolish? In reviewing Condition No.3, the condition seemed to read requiring a demolition permit; it had not read the applicant shall remove. Page 4 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 5 of 13 Mr. Sheatz stated it would be wise to add that language. Chair Steiner asked on Condition No. 10 which read: providing lighting sufficient to illuminate the flagpoles at night time. There was issue #4, which read in the narrative, that Staff was requiring that the applicant maintain the flags and in-ground lighting and provide a replacement schedule. He asked if the replacement schedule was in reference to the flags or the lights, or to both? Mr. Ryan stated it referred to both and the intent was for the applicant to maintain the flags and the lights that illuminated the flags at night. Commissioner Merino asked if Staff had looked at what current products were available in regard to the types of flagpoles available? Mr. Ryan stated there had been quite a bit of discussion through the DRC. The initial flagpole had been much wider than the proposed project which had a dimension of 14". Overall the design had been discussed in depth as to whether or not the poles should be contemporary and tapered or should they be straight poles. The discussion ended with the suggestion for straight non-tapered poles as tapering would require the base of the poles to be quite a bit larger. They wanted the design to have the skinniest pole possible. The finial and globe atop the pole matched the brackets as to not make them appear oversized. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to step forward to address the Commission. Applicant, Kristen Gallardo, 5912 Bo1sa Ave. Ste. 202, Huntington Beach, stated she was before them to request their review and approval of the wireless proposal Mr. Ryan had presented. T-Mobi1e had the opportunity to review the Conditions of Approval and they were in agreement with all of the conditions. There was a significant gap in wireless coverage in the intersection of Chapman and Grand and the surrounding community and that was the reason for the proposed project, to enhance cell coverage. She was available for questions. Chair Steiner asked that in the event Condition No.3 was changed to read: the applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and shall remove the existing communication antenna, would she have any problems or concerns with that change? Ms. Gallardo stated no, she would not have any problems with that change. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment. Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTP A, stated she was speaking on behalf of Jeff Frankel who was unable to attend the meeting. The OTP A felt the two fat flagpoles were inappropriate for Old Towne. They would have preferred a previous plan that there was to be cell coverage on the library site. That project had been presented, however, had not gone forward. Chair Steiner closed the hearing for Public Comment and brought the item back to the Page 5 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 6 of 13 Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Imboden stated the library issue had been brought up and it had been his understanding that when the library was under construction that there was belief that the library tower would accommodate cell phone use. It appeared that it had not occurred and he asked why that location had not been considered? Mr. Ryan stated his understanding was that the library proposal was for four cellular sites and a paging system in the tower element. In an effort for the library project to have met its time table it was not installed. The area that had been considered for the cell site usage was covered over, which would necessitate someone coming in to do demolition work to have their equipment installed, which would include restoration of the ceiling and walls in the history center. Mr. Knight stated he had not known the exact stipulation regarding the alternate site issue, he stated he would send an email to the City Manager's office to obtain further information. Commissioner Imboden stated they were speaking about a project that was directly across the street from the original proposed site and it would be worth looking into. Mr. Ryan stated the tower at the library had been built to accommodate the cell site use. He felt the timing of that installation and the time frame for the library completion conflicted. Mr. Knight stated the City had retained the services of a consulting firm that specialized in cell site and cell tower usage and they were reviewing the City's assets. He could obtain further information from them in regard to the library location and other potential sites. Mr. Sheatz stated his understanding was that the library site was not marketable anymore. He had been involved when T-Mobile had looked at that site initially, what had made the site attractive was that the equipment could have been installed during the stages of construction not requiring any demolition. He had understood that some of the materials used in the design and construction at the library were not conducive to the transmission of wireless communications, and in order to have made the project work at that site it would have called for a re-design and it was not something the City was willing to do as it would have delayed the schedule and postponed the opening of the facility. There were many issues involved in that decision. He understood that there had been construction of a shell to house the equipment; however, the construction included steel elements and other materials that would not allow wireless transmissions. That was for a specific provider and they had not been approached by any other providers. He had been told the library was no longer a marketable site. Commissioner Merino stated on the existing 100' pole they were going through the process of installation of new poles, most of the community was most likely used to the monstrosity that existed and he felt it could be mitigated at the existing location rather than installing two news poles right in front of the building. He asked if that scenario had Page 6 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 7 of 13 been given any consideration? Mr. Ryan stated he was not certain that had been given consideration; however, the stealth installation that had been considered for the Civic Center was the flagpoles. He had not been involved in that discussion. The visual study that had been completed indicated that in installing a cell site on a 100' pole would have more of a visual impact with the size of the antenna and ray, which would require two sets of rays and there would be more equipment there and the visibility would be greater to the Historic District. Part of the impact and visual study referenced the desire to have the poles stealth enough as not to impact the Historic District. The answer from the State Office was that there would be no impact with the design in the proposed project. He had not known if there would have been the same impact finding with the installation of wireless communication equipment on the existing 100' pole. Chair Steiner stated he was not certain Commissioner Merino was asking about an installation on the existing 100' antenna, but rather that the site of the 100' antenna be used. Mr. Ryan asked ifhe was asking it to be utilized at the same height? Commissioner Merino stated they had seen 60' installations that had dual systems installed at the top, and that could have potentially been done using the existing site. He felt the community had learned to live with the current antenna and that there could be some mitigation in dropping the height to 40' rather than putting two quasi flagpoles in front of City Hall. Mr. Ryan stated the technical need ofthe two antenna rays that would be installed on the flagpoles at 60' would be a different type of installation at the site. Commissioner Merino stated they had reviewed proposals of cell sites that were at a height of 60' with two antennas stacked with separation from below. Mr. Ryan stated the initial proposal was for a stealth installation, for a site where the installation of two flagpoles would look appropriate. Commissioner Merino stated he was not talking about a flagpole; he was talking about the installation of a pole on the existing site where there was already a humongous pole. Chair Steiner asked ifhe was referring to a stealth or non-stealth installation? Commissioner Merino stated they could look at a stealth installation, possibly something very slim that they had seen at other locations such as a flush mount application where there would be no outer ring, which was the fake flagpole in the proposed installation. Mr. Ryan stated he was not aware if that had been discussed. Commissioner Merino stated he felt it should have been discussed as it could have been a better solution. He asked Mr. Sheatz if the opportunity was provided to T -Mobile could Page 7 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 8 of 13 it open them up to other providers wanting to place their systems on City property, to have the same opportunity that T-Mobi1e was being afforded - to provide them equal access? Mr. Sheatz stated not necessarily, if it was to the City's benefit that was a possibility. A portion of public property was being leased. Could another carrier assert a right and enter into an agreement with the City? That answer was no. If the City received a submittal for a request by another provider, the City would have the opportunity to negotiate with that provider for a possible site. Chair Steiner stated that the applicant had agreed to remove the 100' antenna tower and asked the applicant if that was correct? Ms. Gallardo stated that was correct. Chair Steiner stated Staff was not aware of the extent T-Mobi1e had explored for alternate locations of the cell site. He asked if the 100' antenna tower location had been considered? Ms. Gallardo stated initially they had looked at everything existing and not interfering with anything, and that was how they had arrived at the flagpole idea. As far as removing the antenna, in working with Staff, they had concluded that it would be something that they could remove as it was an eye-sore to the community. They could explore the idea of an installation at the existing antenna site; however, there would be a new set of technical issues that would need to be addressed and aesthetically it would have more of an impact on the community. The intent of the flagpoles were to have the least amount of impact on the community as the average person coming to City Hall would not be aware that the flagpoles housed a wireless facility. Staff had expressed the desire to reduce the dimensions of the pole and they had proposed the most streamline design that was available and it looked very good. It was one of the best designs they had. Ms. Gallardo stated she had worked in the wireless industry and had seen other designs that were not as good. The intent ofT-Mobile was to be a good neighbor and to have a product that was not recognizable as a wireless site. Chair Steiner asked to what extent was the applicant or the applicant's representative willing to consider an alternate location to the existing 100' antenna site? Ms. Gallardo stated their preference would be to move forward with the flagpole proposal. It was something they could look into. Chair Steiner stated he was willing to accept the fact that there may be some technical limitation to install the new site where the current tower existed and if it turned out that someone at T-Mobi1e had considered that site and there was a reason as to why it was not an option that would be more than persuasive as to why they had settled on the proposed project. He felt it was not unreasonable to ask that the existing antenna site be considered. It appeared that T-Mobi1e had gone through quite a bit of review to get to where they were with the project; however, absent consideration or no explanation as to why the site had not been considered or why it was not a good idea was not enough to Page 8 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 9 of 13 allow him to make a determination. There were three things; the site had not been considered, it had been considered but was not technically feasible or it had been considered but was not fiscally ideal. The later two reasons would be reason enough for him to be supportive of the proposed project; however, the reason that the site had not been considered was not reason enough to move ahead. He felt if Ms. Gallardo was not certain that the site had been considered he would want to know what T-Mobi1e's position was on that issue. Ms. Gallardo stated it was something they could consider, she was not certain the site could have the same product. Chair Steiner stated if the finding came back with something that was not pleasant and the flagpole proposal was much better he would most likely be in favor of the flagpoles. If the applicant was willing to remove the 100' eye-sore, than possibly because community members were used to the pole at that site, it would be worth considering that option. Ms. Gallardo stated they would certainly gather that information. The background on what T-Mobi1e would do in finding a site was to fully consider all the options. Their initial option would be for a mono-pole, and essentially that is what the existing site would become. The site would require a height of more than 60' with the use of one pole and with the stacked antennas the site would require a larger diameter pole. The installation would be a mono-pole. In designing the site, that would not be an option as there was a City standard for stealth installation, especially in an Historic District. Chair Steiner stated if those became the reasons why an alternate site or installation had not been pursued he would be convinced. He felt the City was being asked to assume based on habit and custom that it had not been considered. T-Mobi1e was a good neighbor in general and they had other applications from them that were appropriate. Ms. Gallardo stated it was something that could definitely be looked into and she could return with that information. She asked for clarification on what exactly the City was asking them to do? Chair Steiner stated his position was that consideration be given to locating a pole at the existing 100' antenna tower, along with the reason or reasons as to why a pole would work or not work. Ms. Gallardo stated there was a mature tree that was located directly next to the pole and for engineering purposes it would necessitate propagating directly through the tree and that would be one of the reasons that site was not technically feasible. Commissioner Merino commented there was mature tree located next to one of the poles in the proposed project. If that was a criteria, he would be interested to find out why the current site had been chosen over other sites. One group of citizens had come forward to state that they felt the current proposed site was not the very best solution from an appearance standpoint for the Civic Center. Even if the 100' pole was dropped down to 70', he felt that at least he had exercised due diligence, in seeking an alternate location Page 9 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 10 of 13 and if another site was not found to be appropriate, then it would be more acceptable to the community knowing that other sites had been considered. Aesthetically, it was a matter of judgment, whether the flagpoles would be recognized as a wireless facility. A normal flagpole the same size had a tapered base and the current proposal would not look like a normal flagpole. Ms. Gallardo stated they would definitely look into the alternate site and seek the advice of their engineers and they would provide written justification on their findings. Chair Steiner stated the applicant could work through Staff to clarify the details. Commissioner Imboden stated they had seen a number of projects with flush mount units and asked if that could be considered in the proposal? Ms. Gallardo stated that could be considered. Commissioner Imboden stated he could tag onto the comments made as he had nothing before him that convinced him that the proposed project and site was the best possible solution. He was disappointed to hear about the library situation and they needed to move forward from that. He felt the proposed project had not appeared to be actual flagpoles and the average person would think that they were very odd looking flagpoles. He felt they had not explored all the options and that was what he would require to enable him to move forward with the project. The area and issue was very sensitive and it may sound absurd that they would want to consider moving away from a stealth installation, however, that was a possibility considering the site. Ms. Gallardo stated they would explore other options. They had looked at a stealth installation as the code had required that type of facility and their goal was to meet the requirements. Chair Steiner stated he was not wanting to send any mixed messages, however, what they were concluding was that the lack of evidence that another option was considered had become the issue. Commissioner Cunningham stated the more he listened the less clear it was to him in what direction the Commission was heading. How far were the proposed flagpoles to where the existing 100' antenna sat? He reviewed the drawings and it had not appeared that the distance was very great. Ms. Gallardo stated the distance was approximately 30' away. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the objection was to flagpoles or to the need for just one pole that wasn't as ugly as the existing pole, or had they not wanted flags on the poles, he was not clear what was being requested? Chair Steiner stated he had not wanted to appear as though they had objections to the proposed project. Page 10 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 11 of 13 Commissioner Cunningham stated he had looked at the project in a different manner. The existing 100' pole was ugly and very tall and the community may have become accustomed to it. His point was that the proposed project appeared as flagpoles, and that was what he expected to see at a Civic Center and the flagpoles fit in with the Civic Center landscape, rather than the option to maintain the existing 100' pole. He was not clear about what the other Commissioners were seeking. Had they wanted a tall pole at the existing site or had they wanted the applicant to come back with something completely new? Mr. Sheatz stated when the City had been initially approached with the project there had been discussion based on a logic standpoint. Given what was at the front of the Civic Center and what was in front of the Fire Station, the result was to have an installation that was stealth and that was a request that had been made by Staff. The reason that the applicant was before them with the proposed project was based on those early discussions. The requirement was for stealth based on the area the installation would be in and the most appropriate installation appeared to be flagpoles. The "how they had arrived at" and the City's interest from an aesthetics standpoint was to get rid ofthe 100' tower and install a facility that would fit in. Chair Steiner stated he was not opposed to the proposal; he was concerned in supporting the proposal with the absence of consideration for an installation at the existing site. Ms. Gallardo stated when the sites were designed the City code would guide them in their design choice. They also were required to work with the State Historic Office of Preservation. Chair Steiner asked how much time would the applicant require to evaluate the issue presented? Ms. Gallardo stated she could return within a couple of days with the information from their engineers. Chair Steiner stated the next meeting of the Planning Commission was on November 3, 2008. The request was for the applicant to consider the location of a pole or two at the existing site. Commissioner Merino stated on a pole of that size looking like a flagpole, 5" was 50% more than a normal flagpole and it made the poles look odd. Chair Steiner stated the issue was the site, and possibly when the applicant returned then there might be discussion regarding the size of the flagpoles. His only question was if there had been consideration of the existing site and why or why it would not be an appropriate site for the proposed project. Ms. Gallardo asked aesthetically was the Commission open to any type of installation at that site and would they consider the use of a larger pole? Chair Steiner stated anything that was not prohibited by law. Page 11 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 12 of 13 Commissioner Imboden asked why they would need to consider a larger pole? Ms. Gallardo stated the current proposal had the equipment split into two separate poles that were at the absolute smallest diameter possible. With one pole the equipment would be stacked with the coaxial run being a larger diameter and in turn the need for a larger diameter pole. Commissioner Merino stated there was, on the proposed project, a larger diameter due to the fact that the equipment was sheathed in a larger diameter flagpole. Chair Steiner stated he had not wanted to engage in a debate about how large the pole was going to be. Commissioner Merino began to speak again. Chair Steiner stated, addressing Commissioner Merino, that he was not appropriate right now. He was asking a question right now of the applicant to bring forward the details of a proj ect that was not yet before them. Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Sheatz if he had the ability to make, with the Chair's indulgence, any comment that he wished to make as a member of the Commission? Mr. Sheatz stated his comments were recognized through the Chair. Commissioner Merino asked the Chair ifhe could make an additional comment? Chair Steiner stated he would only ask that Commissioner Merino not make comments about a project that was not before them. Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Sheatz if once recognized by the Chair ifhe was able to make a comment? Chair Steiner stated he had recognized Commissioner Merino. Commissioner Merino stated he understood that the pole was sheathed in another pole outside of the equipment to simulate a flagpole and was that correct? Ms. Gallardo stated the entire width of the poles would be 14" on the proposed project. Commissioner Merino asked if there was a pole within a pole that was used to hide the actual antenna? Applicant, Tim Miller, address on file, stated there was not a pole within a pole. The top was left open with a cover over the antenna area. Commissioner Merino stated in reviewing the plans it appeared that there was an outer pole that was used to make the design appear as a flagpole, and within the pole there was a pole that held the antenna itself. Page 12 of 13 Pages Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 13 of 13 From within the pole there was a cable run that A cover was added that allowed the signal to Mr. Miller stated that was not correct. ran to the top with the top left open. penetrate. Commissioner Merino stated if there was a pole that held only the antenna the diameter would be reduced as the equipment would be housed on the outside of the pole? Mr. Miller stated that would essentially be a flush mount and they would still require a cable run to the top of the pole. Commissioner Merino stated they had seen other proposals with internal runs and could that be considered? Mr. Miller stated that was correct. Chair Steiner asked Commissioner Merino if he was clarifying a project that was not yet before them? Commissioner Merino stated that was correct; he was not discussing an item that was not before them. Chair Steiner asked the applicant ifhe was answering questions on a single pole design. Mr. Miller stated he was answering questions about a single pole and that would not necessarily mean that the pole used would have a smaller diameter. Commissioner Merino made a motion to continue, Conditional Use Permit 2672-07; Minor Site Plan Review No. 520-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4246-07, T- Mobile, to a date certain of November 3, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker (4) ADJOURNMENT MOTION CARRIED Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, November 3, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, and Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:59 P.M. Page 13 of 13 Pages