Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - November 3 ta.rJOO.G.~~ Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2008 Ion Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange November 3, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:45 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Continued Hearing: Item #2, T -Mobile. This item was continued from the October 20, 2008 meeting. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated he had provided the Commissioners with a memo that addressed how the Commission dealt with questions as a matter of order. Commissioner Whitaker asked if they would be adopting the Robert's Rules of Order? Mr. Sheatz stated the City Council had been reluctant to adopt them as the OMC referenced details of duties and applicability of how meetings should run, and up until the last meeting there had not been reason to discuss the matter. Chair Steiner stated the issue of order was in the manner in which the Commissioners related their questions to the public speakers and how the meeting was run in reference to a Commissioner who wished to continue discussion relating to a project that was not before them. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated Staff had received a letter from the applicant which specifically stated that they were seeking a decision on the project that had been presented and that had been before the Commission. Chair Steiner stated it appeared the applicant had made it clear that they were asking for a yes or no decision on a specific project that had been presented at the previous Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Steiner stated as the project had previously been presented and discussed it was important for the Commissioners to review the project before them and to narrow their area of opposition or support of the proposed proj ect. Mr. Sheatz stated the Commissioners were discouraged to get involved in a dialogue that pertained to areas of what might have been. The project was in a sensitive area of the Historic District and that should be taken into consideration as well. The Commissioners were encouraged to state their decision on whether they approved of the project as presented at the location presented or why they opposed the proposed project presented at the location presented. Page I of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 3,2008 2 on Commissioner Merino asked if it would be appropriate to ask questions pertaining to an area that the applicant pointed out in their letter, in reference to a review of alternatives? Mr. Sheatz stated it would be appropriate if the questions related to the alternative as stated by the applicant. Chair Steiner asked if there would be implications based on the Brown Act in discussing proj ects not yet before them? Mr. Sheatz stated there could be implications. In a case from a City Council session in Northern California there had been dialogue that indicated if a project had been presented in a certain manner it would have had approval, which lead the applicant to understand that they were receiving approval of a project that had not been presented. The issue also involved noticing of the site for the non-project and created further issues for the City Council. It was conceivable that an applicant could perceive such discussion as a pre- commitment to a non-project. It was important they use caution in how far the discussion went. Commissioner Imboden stated in the proposed project that had been presented there was no information provided that addressed the coverage area or the lack of coverage necessitating the project. He was concerned that this information had not been provided which would provide further justification for the proposed project or future needs of networks. Mr. Knight stated that information such as coverage area or lack of current service was not always provided in the Staff report and they had moved away from requiring that information. Mr. Sheatz stated the City was in receipt of letters from a law firm that had addressed the issue and had cited that the City could not ask for detailed coverage information. It was a post 9/11 scenario that in the opinion of the FCC there could be safety concerns in providing such information, if in fact the details of a key transmitter was documented. Commissioner Imboden stated it would provide information in regard to the necessity of a proposed project and it was not necesarily a privacy issue. He viewed it as problematic as far as the current expectations and possible future needs of the project. Mr. Sheatz stated towers could not be located 500' to 1000' of each other and it was difficult to determine which installations would get overrun at peak hours with the changes in cell usage over time. Hot spots could occur which would require additional installations and it would be difficult to determine what type of coverage a project would provide as the demand was always changing and it would be difficult to deny access to coverage based on information previously provided. Commissioner Merino stated it appeared that the applicant would have an implied right, and in order not to deny service, the City would have to allow additional installations. Commissioner Imboden stated he was seeking information that would provide proof of Page 2 of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 3,2008 3 on the need for coverage. Mr. Sheatz stated there had been similar discussions at City Council and it was concluded that with technical information being provided from the industry there would be the need to compensate an engineer to read the information provided as it would be very technical. Commissioner Merino stated that could be the basis to test the information provided. Commissioner Whitaker stated every site was so different and changed so quickly based on usage and it was important that they not analyze projects or information that was not yet before them. Commissioner Merino stated he felt it was not inappropriate to ask for information regarding the coverage area. Mr. Knight stated they were attempting to simplify a very complex project. They could continue the discussion and the need for further information at a future meeting. Mr. Sheatz and Chair Steiner agreed there was the need for further discussion and they would address when and where that discussion would take place. The Administrative Session closed @ 7:00 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONTINUED HEARINGS: (1) 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) 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. Page 3 of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 3,2008 4 on 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. Commissioner Whitaker stated he had been absent at the previous Planning Commission Meeting, however, he had reviewed the entire meeting via a DVD and had read all the material provided and was prepared to participate in the discussion of the item. Assistant Community Development Director Ed Knight presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report; he stated that Staff was in receipt of a letter from the applicant that stated they were looking for a decision on the original project that had been presented. The Commissioners were also in receipt of the letter. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comment. Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTP A stated he had missed the previous presentation of the item at the October 20, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting and he had been briefed about what had occurred at that meeting. He agreed that a 30" pole would be obtrusive and should not be an option. He felt relocating the poles away from the street in the parking lot area could be an option. Moving the poles would have much less of an impact on the streetscape and it would remove them from view. Moving them back would create more separation from the poles located across the street, in adding the flagpoles there would be six poles in the small area; 14" non-tapered poles would have a negative impact on the streetscape and it was obvious to the OTP A that they were a stealth design and the fact that two American flags would be flown gave that away as well. The OTP A would like to see the poles relocated as far away from the street as possible. Dennis Coldwell, address on file, stated he had heard a lot of information regarding the properness of the towers vs. the aesthetic or lack of aesthetic value of the towers. One thing he had not heard from the Commission or from the City was the potential health problems from additional microwave technology saturating Old Towne. They might hear from industry leaders that it was not a problem and they could site FCC communications information that the impact was 2% or less. He wished that the Commission, with their intelligence, would stop, slow down, and take a look at the present studies that were underway in other cities, states and some European countries that were well ahead of the U.S. in looking at the potential health problems of cell phone technology. There were three towers on the Elks building and they were asking for two more in the proposed project and AT&T would be bringing Wi-Fi boxes to Old Towne. Mr. Coldwell stated there should be some slow down in regard to microwave technology and the long term health consideration of the residents of Old Towne should be looked at. He had not heard this subject in any of the discussions and felt it should be equally weighed as the aesthetics of the project. The decisions that were made now could be the basis of lawsuits down the road. Page 4 of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 3,2008 5 on Chair Steiner closed the public comment portion of the hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Kristen Gallardo, address on file, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to return to present further information on the proposed project. She stated at the last meeting it was suggested that T-Mobile look into more detail the possibility of replacing the 100' communications antenna with a wireless facility. Their engineer determined that it would be an option, which had been detailed in the letter to Staff; it would require significant design changes. The pole would be 30" in diameter and 70' tall, making the pole much taller and wider. The alternate design would be in stark contrast to what was proposed in the two streamlined flagpoles, which would be 14" in diameter and 60' tall. An historic consultant had also been contacted regarding the SHIPO requirements. T-Mobile and its representatives had been working with Staff and SHIPO for over a year and a half in securing the necessary approvals and in revising the design it would necessitate returning to SHIPO. Their consultants believed they would encounter problems with the alternate design and meeting the SHIPO requirements and approvals due to the size of the pole in a sensitive downtown area. The City was a partner in the project and they were thankful to have received their support. They had worked with Staff in choosing a location and approval of that location, having the design be approved and working with Staff, SHIPO and the DRC to obtain approvals. There had been a great deal of consideration in the design and the location. The applicant felt the design as presented with the two flagpoles was very appropriate for a downtown Civic Center. Commissioner Merino asked in regards to the letter, the engineer stated the alternate location would require a 30" diameter pole, and in not looking at another project, he wanted to be clear on whether it was a tapered or non-tapered pole? Ms. Gallardo stated it would be a non-tapered pole. Commissioner Merino clarified that the pole would be 30" from tip to top and not tapered? Ms. Gallardo stated that was correct. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion. Commissioner Imboden stated he was not in favor of the item that was in front of them. He was looking at dates of the last meeting and when the letter had been received and it appeared that in 4 business days a response had been received. He questioned the seriousness of the response to the issues that had been raised by the Planning Commission. Options had been discussed, some of which had been presented, two of which had never been options to begin with, as neither option could have accepted communication equipment; the third that he was confused with. As the applicant had stated it was an option. However, in the applicant's letter it had been stated that they preferred to have a decision made on the project presented and not on an option to the project. He disagreed with a statement in the letter that the proposed project integrated into the Civic Center, based on the stealth design. He had not come to the same conclusion that the stealth design would go unnoticed. Commissioner Imboden Page 5 of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 3,2008 6 on commented that the letter stated the facility would match the existing flagpoles in front of City Hall; he had not agreed with that statement and felt they would not match the existing poles. It was not so much an issue of Historic District vs. the installation being at another location, it was an issue that it was the Civic Center - City Hall, and he had not believed the towers to be an improvement to the aesthetics of the area. When he pushed his button to vote he wanted to be certain he was doing the best thing that he could, and the proposed project had not been proven in the letter or the testimony that had been presented. He personally had not wanted to approve the project and then 3-4 years down the road come to the conclusion that an alternate plan should have been followed and he felt that there were other options that should have been explored. The letter had made it clear that the applicant had worked with the City for I ~ years on the project, and he agreed it was a long time. He found it interesting that during that time the decision making body had not been briefed on the project and had not been involved in the planning process. He would not be supporting the project. Commissioner Merino stated that he echoed many of the comments that had been made by Commissioner Imboden. One of the things he felt he needed to consider in his decision-making was not just the project before them, but also other projects and situations that they had reviewed as a body. Although each project was reviewed on its own merits, a project that had a request to the applicant to return with alternatives and the alternative was to install a 30" non-tapered design, when clearly they had seen many designs that had been tapered with similar heights. He understood the revenue issue and the benefit the City would derive. As much as he wanted to support the taxpayers and the City in the current economic times, when the economic times got better there would be two poles outside of the Civic Center that would not look like flagpoles and they would not look natural or purposeful. He stated he felt the long term implications needed to outweigh the short term gain. It was the City's Civic Center and he wanted to be proud of it 10-20 years down the line. Commissioner Cunningham stated he appreciated that the applicant had returned with additional information. At the last meeting he had been inclined to vote in favor of the item and his mind had not been changed. He felt the project was an improvement as they would be removing an ugly and old 100' pole and replacing it with 2 poles that looked like flagpoles to the casual observer. An ordinary person would not be able to tell the difference between those flagpoles and the other flagpoles located in the area, unless they were specifically looking for a difference. Flagpoles located at a Civic Center would not strike the casual observer as being out of place; they were an item that one would expect to observe at that location. He felt the project was being over thought and over examined. The applicant had done a good job in the presentation of the proposed project and he stated the Civic Center would look better after the poles had been installed and he was in favor of the proposed project. Commissioner Whitaker stated he echoed Commissioner Cunningham's comments. In dealing with the Historic District there were not many areas that were non-contributing and places that would accept projects that added to a good quality of life. One of the problems in Old Towne was a lack of cell phone coverage. If you live in Old Towne it was apparent that there was a dearth of cell phone coverage. He stated Civic Center flagpoles were appropriate, the proposed project looked like flagpoles and the State Page 6 of 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2008 7 on Office of Historic Preservation had stated that the project would not affect the visual scape of the Historic District. Having 2 flagpoles at the western entrance of City Hall was appropriate and it was a perfectly good use. He would be inclined to support the proj ect. Chair Steiner stated his purpose in agreeing in a continuance from the previous meeting was to gain an understanding of the extent alternative sites had been considered. He was satisfied that the requirement had been satisfied. He felt the reason the applicant was seeking a yes or no vote on the proposed project was fundamentally market driven and the applicant had the right to make the request, understanding the applicant could bear the consequences of such a request. He felt, on balance, the project was a good one and it was an improvement. Removal of the existing antenna with the modified language which Mr. Knight had presented, that the removal take place prior to any construction of any cell phone tower, was an important part of the project. He stated the project was well balanced and appropriate and the applicant would have his support. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve, PC 35-08, Conditional Use Permit 2672-07; Minor Site Plan Review No. 520-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4246- 07, T-Mobile, to install two stealth wireless flagpoles and associated equipment cabinets in a masonry enclosure on the west side of the Civic Center, located at 300 E. Chapman Avenue, noting the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. The project was approved with an amendment to Condition No. 3 requiring demolition of the 100' obsolete communication tower. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Cunningham Commissioners Cunningham, Steiner and Whitaker Commissioners Imboden and Merino None None MOTION CARRIED (4) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, November 17,2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 7:20 P.M. Page 7 of 7 Pages