Loading...
2007 - June 4 ~C>C:>.Cc. :J.- Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 4 June 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Imboden, Bonina, Merino and Whitaker Commissioner Steiner STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Jacqueline Bateman, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda. Lisa Stan lev. 229 North Glassell Has a business at 229 North Glassell and 237 North Glassell since 1999 and just recently has become aware of a Halfway House across the street from her offices. Some of the neighbors and businesses are wondering why they were not notified that a halfway house was opening in the neighborhood. The reason being is that the area has changed a little bit. I believe the halfway house has been there about 8 months now but we just noticed it being there. It is much different there, there was a family there and now it is 24/7 multitudes of people hanging out on the porch smoking all day. We're right across the street. We see this all day long, they see our comings and goings when we get there in the morning and when we leave at night and we're just concerned about what's going on and why we weren't notified. I spoke with several business owners as well. No one received a notification that a halfway house was going in there. I'm here to get some other information on it and bring it to your attention and find out what can be done about it. Chair Imboden states that they are not prepared to comment on it, that it's a new item coming to us. Did you include your phone number on the card? I think this is the perfect venue to come forward and express your concerns and make it known to the City. Ms. Stanley asks if there is anything else that she could do or just wait to hear from the City? Chair Imboden asks Mr. Knight if he has any comment? He states that it is something that City Staff should follow up on. Mr. Knight states that there are a couple of venues. She can leave a message with the City's Hotfile system and she will receive a response from that. That's actually a pretty good way to go way to go. You can go on the Mayor's hotline on the internet site and leave information and it will be responded to. The Planning Commission will not specifically provide you with any response to this, that's more or less at the Staff level. We'll need to investigate and find out what's happening and provide you Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 with an answer to that. Chair Imboden states that if she doesn't hear back, to come back to the Commission. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2621-06 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS A proposal to co-locate and operate a wireless telecommunications antenna facility on a non-stealth existing monopole and associated equipment cabinets on a property owned by Southern California Edison (SCE). LOCATION: 4725 E. Chapman Avenue NOTE: Applicant is requesting additional time to gather the additional information as requested by the Planning Commission. This item was continued from the April 16, 2007 and May 21,2007 meetings. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Item to be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2621-06 to a date uncertain. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Bonina, and Whitaker None None Commissioners Steiner MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR: (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2007 meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, and Merino None Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Steiner Page 2 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 MOTION CARRIED. INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None INRE: NEW HEARINGS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2601-06 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS A proposal to co-locate and operate Metro PCS wireless telecommunications antennas on an existing non-stealth pole and associated equipment cabinets. LOCATION: 595 S. The City Drive NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the provIsIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Negligible expansion of an existing public utility). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No PC 09-07, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2601-06, allowing the co-location of six (6) Metro PCS antennas and associated equipment cabinets, subject to conditions. Mr. Knight provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opens the public hearing. Jane Norine, representing Metro PCS, is here to present this project for approval. I don't really have much to add except to thank Staff very much. Ms. Nguyen has done an exceptional job in this particular project. We've tried to make it pleasing for the City on an existing pole that's already there and we accept the conditions that Staff has recommended. Commissioner Bonina asks when the new antennas are installed, are the wires that come down from the antennas encased in the pole itself or are they visible from the outside of the pole? Ms. Norine states that on this particular project I believe we are able to go inside the pole for the coax cable runs. Commissioner Bonina reads that condition #8 "all wires from the equipment facility to the antenna shall be completely enclosed. There shall be no exposed conduit(s) or raceway(s)." So in other words, there will be a sweep from the bottom of the antenna that goes underground into the equipment area so there is nothing exposed from the top? Ms. Norine states that they have to go through one of the ports to get the coax cable and I believe our drawings are showing the coax cables coming out from the equipment on the south elevation drawings, so they would be visible from the south elevation, which would be freeway side. Commissioner Bonina states that the note says proposed overhead cable bridge of Royal Street and Sprint. Is that just simply a raceway that runs from the top? Ms. Norine states that it comes from the equipment cabinets straight into the pole. Commissioner Bonina asks so it's within the enclosure? Ms. Norine answers correct. Page 3 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 Commissioner Bonina asks is there any coloring difference between the pole and the antennas from what already exists or is it all the same? Mr. Norine states that the antennas will be painted to match the existing pole. Chair Imboden states that he has a question regarding the connection from the equipment to the pole. It looks like it's actually above the fence. Is there any reason why it can't be down behind the screen? Ms. Norine states that she believes the way the equipment cabinets are created for the coax cable, there would be no way to have the coax come out at that level and then go into the port inside the pole. Chair Imboden states they have seen a number of applications where that connection is actually done underground. I'm not suggesting that you have to go underground, but I'm just questioning can't we get it down below the screening? Ms. Norine states that she would have to check on that because usually the cabinets are created specifically for those coax to come out at that level. Mr. Knight states that these poles have ports in them that the wires actually go into. What you try to strive for is to get the wires to go into the lowest port you can possibly get and you can add a provision to try to get the poles into the lowest port possible, which would be below the fence line. Ms. Norine states that they are trying to get the least bends possible from the coax cable. Chair Imboden states that he certainly understands that but if there are ways that we can do it that are more aesthetically pleasing I'd like to see that done. We have several parts to this we have to try to manage. Commissioner Whitaker states he has a question for staff. If we did a condition that states to the lowest port possible or increase the height of the screening on three sides to mask the raceway, would that be acceptable? Possibly increase the height of the screening on the south, west and north if you can't get it any lower to shield it from three sides. Mr. Knight responds that would be fine. Commissioner Bonina asks if the raceway we're talking about is on the south side, the freeway side? Ms. Norine states that she believes the south elevation would be the freeway side. Commissioner Merino has a question regarding sheet C-103 that's included in the package from DMJM/AECOM. I think the purpose of that sheet is to show us the building being removed and the build out of the parking area, but it does not show this new arrangement for the pole and the equipment. Mr. Knight asks what arrangement? Commissioner Merino states that if he is reading A-I correctly, that is the site plan showing the existing building and our Royal Street facility? Correct. Mr. Knight asks you're looking at A-I? Commissioner Merino says that A-I shows, within the parking area, the Royal Street arrangement, the existing pole, the existing equipment that is in there. Correct? Mr. Knight responds yes. Commissioner Merino asks then if I look at C- 103, DMJM Harris/AECOM's layout for the future, they don't indicate in that same location the equipment, the pole, or anything and I'm wondering if that's because this facility is going away at some point and DMJM thinks it would no longer be part of the project? Mr. Knight responds no, the County plans on keeping this antenna even after the new building is built so there's no focus at this time on removing the antennas as a result Page 4 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 of that. Commissioner Merino states that the reason he asked is because he believes that the DMJM drawing is probably from a separate consultant. Mr. Knight states all this really shows is how the temporary parking lot is going to work and the general area where the antenna and facilities are going to reside is shown as an area within this drawing. Mr. Knight states that the focus of this drawing is simply to show how the temporary parking lot will be arranged when the building is demolished. Chair Imboden asks for clarification that's not part of the approval this evening? Mr. Knight answers no. Commissioner Bonina asks, looking on A-I, is there an electrical transformer proposed power source? Is that part and parcel of the project that we're looking at? Is there a reason that it has been identified as a proposed transformer? Mr. Knight states that he is going to ask the applicant. It is his understanding that the power source is already there. Ms. Novice states correct, but that is our proposed power source. This is an existing transformer. Commissioner Bonina states that they are going to take power from there. Mr. Knight states that they have to trench to get power. Commissioner Bonina asks if that is underground and Ms. Norine states correct. Commissioner Bonina states underground volt transformer and Ms. Norine states that she believes it is above ground. Mr. Knight states they will trench underground per their proposal. Commissioner Bonina asks about the cable that goes up that pole. What does that look like? Ms. Norine states that the coax cable that goes up the pole from the equipment goes up inside the pole. Commissioner Bonina asks that if the transformer that's identified closest to The City Drive is on a pole, or it is underground? Ms. Norine states that it's an above ground vault. Commissioner Bonina states he sees. Chair Imboden states that looking at the elevations, the south and east elevations are showing a fence that is drawn at 8' and it's been changed to 6'. Chair Imboden asks if we drop the fence 2' lower than how it is drawn, what is going to be taller, the fence or the equipment? What's the height of the equipment? Ms. Norine answers the height of the equipment runs 7'6". The fence proposed is 6' tall because that's code requirements for fencing and I think the existing fence is 8', but we need to bring it into code at 6'. Chair Imboden asks what is the approximate height of the existing cabinets on site? How these will compare with those? Ms. Norine states fairly comparable. Sprint cabinets are approximately the same, similar in height, a few inches here or there. Commissioner Whitaker asks the City Attorney if there is a code requirement that the fence be 6' instead of the 8'? The applicant is making an assertion that they have to reduce the size of the existing 8' fence down to 6' to meet City code. City Attorney responds I don't know, I'd either have to ask Planning or if she could reference a Code Section or let me know where that came from I could certainly check. We have a copy of the Zoning Code right up here. Mr. Knight states that the height of most fences in the community are a maximum of6'. Commissioner Whitaker asks would that be a variance that we'd have to notice if we said put it up to 8'? City Attorney Sheatz responds yes, if you were to attempt to increase the height that would be a different entitlement that we'd have to issue. Commissioner Whitaker asks what is the type of existing fence that's out Page 5 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 there now that's 8'? Mr. Knight responds that he's not sure if the existing fence out there is 8' or 6'. They may have proposed it at 8', but I'm not sure what the particular height is of the existing fence out there at this point in time. Commissioner Whitaker states that he thought that Ms. Norine said the existing was 8' and they had to reduce it to 6'. City Attorney Sheatz states that if the existing fence was 8'6" and it was legal nonconforming, the attempt to change it out or upgrade it would cause it to lose it's nonconforming status so they would have to bring it into current Code compliance. If current Code were 6', then it would have to come in again at 6' unless they sought to process a variance to increase the height again to get it back to where it was. Mr. Knight states that we're recommending it be approved at 6' for the wrought iron enclosures. Commissioner Merino states looking at A-2, drawing I shows the plan of what you're proposing, correct? Ms. Norine states that's correct. Commissioner Merino states the way I read the south and east side it says a new Royal Street 8 x 16 tan split face CMU wall is a block wall with 4' high chain link fence on top. That's what it says, correct? And it says that on both sides. Ms. Norine reads that comment and states that correct, but that is an incorrect statement too. She states that when she was working with Ms. Nguyen we may have missed this going through these drawings and correcting them, but we were agreeing to go with the wrought iron. Commissioner Merino wants to know which is correct? We're not putting in any split face block with 4' chain link, we're putting in what's shown on the elevations? Mr. Knight responds we're putting in wrought iron. Commissioner Merino states that the site plan is erroneous and we should only go by what's shown on the elevations. Mr. Knight states that you should go by what's shown on the plans and also what's shown in the resolution, and the resolution specifically details wrought iron. Chair Imboden states, however, the elevations are not correct either. Ms. Norine states that on A-2 down at the bottom "Note 8' high chain link fence to be replaced with proposed 6' high wrought iron fence". The portion you were discussing is incorrect. Commissioner Merino states that he wants to be sure that we understand what we're getting because there seems to be some contradictory things on the plans. City Attorney Sheatz states that the property is located general-commercial and the standards in the commercial districts OMC 1718.140 regarding fences and wall heights states that it is limited to up to 6' maximum. Chair Imboden asks what height would we be able to get to with an administrative adjustment? Mr. Knight states that is a 20% adjustment. Six feet times 20% would be another foot. Commissioner Bonina states to the applicant historically we've been approving these types of projects with wrought iron fencing or chain link fencing and it never struck me that the equipment was visible from above that. Is this equipment different in some fashion? Is it unique, more modern, larger than what you typically find? We haven't really typically encountered this issue. Six feet has always appeared to be fine. Ms. Norine states that 6'6" is typically the equipment height, but then you have to put your foundations in, they end up being taller so 7' is what I like to say because when you're actually looking at it, it's going to be 7' from ground after you put in your foundation or 7'6", it's going to be that level. Commissioner Bonina asks and your foundation elevated from grade is 6"? Ms. Norine says it depends on construction. It could be 6" to 12". Page 6 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 Commissioner Bonina asks if part of the function of the foundation is to elevate off the ground for drainage issues? Ms. Norine states drainage or soil issues. Commissioner Whitaker asks the City Attorney, echoing Chair Imboden's concept on the administrative adjustment, is that something that can be done here from the dais or does that have to be noticed as well? City Attorney answers that it should be noticed as well. I was just looking through the section on the administrative adjustments; it does carve out different types of percentages of adjustments for different things. I don't see fences in here at 20%, but it did talk about the adjustment of other development standards in all the other zones. It could be adjusted to a maximum of 10%, so you'd be looking at an additional 6" but it would still be an issue that would have to come back and get reprocessed, it could not be done from the dais. Chair Imboden states that we've seen proposals come forward with actually enclosed structures. Obviously that kind of proposal would not have a 6' height limit, is that correct? Mr. Knight answers that would be correct. Commissioner Merino states that back on the C-103 sheet, that sheet shows a retaining wall on the south and east part of this. Staff has asked you to pull out the wall and put in the fence but if you do that have you gone back to the master grading plan for this property to verify that you're not going to come back here asking for a change to go back to put the retaining wall in because the property owner intends to do something grading wise with the retaining wall to make that site work. Do you see what I'm saying? That's perhaps why the retaining wall is in there in the first place. Chair Imboden states that I know you're waiting for an answer from the applicant but that leads me to another question. To City Staff how do we typically consider fences on top of retaining walls? At what point of grade are we measuring from; low point, high point? Mr. Knight replies he'd have to refer to the Zoning Code for that item. I believe that there is a provision in the Code that takes into account retaining walls, but I don't know off hand. Chair Imboden states that it would be good for us to know the answer to that question and go ahead to the applicant to answer that question if possible. Ms. Norine asks if she may have the question again? Commissioner Merino states, regarding the C-103 sheet that's been included as part of this project package, it shows the wall that you say is no longer there because you're going with a wrought iron fence. I think part of the staff process, the retaining wall was in there and Staff said we don't want to see a retaining wall we just want to see the fence. Am I correct in that happening? Ms. Norine responds that as she understands it she is just dealing with the wrought iron fence surrounding the lease area. Commissioner Merino states the plan attached appears to him to be a retaining wall and it's reflected also in your C-103 sheet. Ms. Norine states yes, the proposed split face. Commissioner Merino states then you've essentially removed and we're not approving any block around this enclosure. There is no block anymore. Ms. Norine states that she is going to do what Staff wants her to do. I realize there is a CMU, an existing fence that we're proposing to put in a split face CMU wall that's 4' high. Commissioner Merino says I'm hearing what you are proposing because you've been asked by Staff to go with a strictly wrought iron fence around the lease area. Ms. Norine explains this is a separate fence. Commissioner Merino states that the top of Page 7 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 wall condition that we're looking at on C-l03 is not the same wall. That's what you're telling me? Ms. Norine answers correct. Commissioner Merino asks if there is an elevation difference, a CMU wall that establishes a certain grade and then above that is this 6 or 8 foot wrought iron, so that the elevations would show us a flat looking site aren't really true. There is a retaining wall that creates a level and then above that is this 6' or 8' fence. Ms. Norine states that when she's been on the project site, it's a flat parcel. Commissioner Merino says that the reason he is asking this question is he believes this grading plan that's been included with our package may represent some future work. If it's a flat parcel then the entire project may include a retaining wall. I'm just trying to understand the relationship between what you're proposing and what the entire plan is for this parking area because I think there may be a grade differential that's not being taken into account for this entire screen discussion. Ms. Norine states she doesn't know, she'd have to find out. As I understand it, this is a flat parcel; we're putting up a CMU wall to the east. Commissioner Merino asks so you are putting up a CMU wall? Ms. Norine states to the east, outside the lease area. Commissioner Merino asks you're not putting it up, someone else is putting it up? Ms. Norine states that we're proposing to do this. Commissioner Merino states that he is completely confused now. What we have before us shows a wrought iron fence enclosure around the lease area, there is no CMU wall at all. Ms. Norine states not around the lease area. Commissioner Merino asks if the CMU wall being shown as part of the C-l03 sheet and the wall that you keep referring to, are part of the project? Ms. Norine answers to the east. Commissioner Merino then states so if I'm looking at the elevations that you're showing, how does that screen wall relate to what you're showing us? Is it in front of it, is it behind it, do you actually see your enclosure the way you show it to us? Ms. Norine states that it's not on the elevations. Commissioner Merino states exactly my point; it's not on the elevations. So we really don't know what this looks like, correct? Ms. Norine answers correct. Chair Imboden states that when he looks at the south elevations there is change in the horizontal alignment. It shows the fence being higher on that portion of this project so I'm not quite clear on what is being proposed this evening. Mr. Knight states that he thinks the drawings are fairly clear. If you look at A-2, they are showing a wall that is going to be built and it says Royal Street, but you're saying that Royal Street is not building that wall. They are showing this wall and the wall is a 4' high chain link fence on top and the wall. It is approximately 3' so that total would be around 7'. That's not going to be built now; it will be built at the time that the County redoes this temporary parking lot. Commissioner Bonina asks, so what would it look like in the interim? Mr. Knight responds initially it's going to look like the SIMS that we have out there now in the existing condition. Chair Imboden asks a chain link? Mr. Knight responds no what you are approving if you look at A-2 and that section of block, the fence that's inside of that block, go toward the top of the page and there's a little note that says chain link access gate to be removed. That's the area that's going to be enclosed by Royal Street. It's set back from this retaining wall. Commissioner Bonina asks and that's the 8' high? Mr. Knight states that's the 6' high wrought iron. The existing is 8' high. Commissioner Merino states that what his concern is that it looks flat now but if this wall Page 8 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 is put in and the purpose of the wall is to lower the grade around the part that's going to be put in the future, that this thing will be, to one side, whatever that grade is lowered to plus the height of the wall, plus now our fence on top of it. So we essentially have, if I read it correctly, a situation where we're looking at an enclosure that's sitting on top of 4', plus some fence, plus this stuff behind it. Mr. Knight states that Commissioner Merino is not entirely correct. The existing condition is level. It appears that the wall that's going to be there, built in the future, will range from y,' to 2 and 112' and then there will be, on top of that, a 4' chain link fence that will be built by the County of Orange when they go through and do this temporary parking lot. It will not be built as part ofthis application. It's not included in this. The enclosure around these antennas is the fence that's inside of that wall, inside of that fence as indicated on A-2, that 6' wrought iron fence. Commissioner Merino states that he understands all that but he thinks the reason we were given the C-l03 sheet is because that will influence the appearance. By the time this grading is done, the elevation that we're being provided is not a true depiction of what this situation is going to look like at some point in the future. We're looking at it for planning purposes so I'm just questioning whether the elevations truly reflect, at least on the east and south sides, to what this is going to look like? Mr. Knight states that from the SIMS it would show from the street side because this retaining wall would be on the opposite side of the pole and not be viewed from the street. If you look at C- 103, City Drive is on the left hand side of that I I' x 17'. The retaining wall is behind them and cannot be viewed from City Drive and the retaining wall, as I read from here, is averaging around 6" to a maximum height of about 2-112 feet. Chair Imboden wants Mr. Knight to share where he is getting that information because all he's seeing is 4'. Mr. Knight states on sheet C-103. Chair Imboden says he does agree when you look at the plans it does say that it's a 4' block wall. Commissioner Merino says that when you look at the top of wall and finished surface on the east side, at the southeast corner of our area, it's 124 and 121.49 and that looks more like a 3-112 to me. Mr. Knight states that on one side of the beginning wall 124.87 and 124.37. Commissioner Merino states that the finish surface, because it's in retaining, is going to be different on one side than the other and I'm looking at the extreme negative and you're looking at the extreme positive. On one side you're actually looking at a 3-112" surface difference. Again, the only reason I bring this up is I want to understand what it is that we're approving when these things come in front of us and I see that the elevations are not truly reflective of what this thing is going to look like when it's done. Mr. Knight states that the elevation where the pole is now does not change. The only thing that would change is that the parking lot is lowered and a small retaining wall is put on the far side to permit drainage, but that would still not change the view ofthese SIMS. Commissioner Whitaker asks regarding Sheet A-3, would the retaining wall be on the south and the east elevations? Am I correct in assuming that the reference grade shown on these elevations would actually be the top of the proposed future wall and so the elevations do show us from the top of the wall what it will look like on those two sides because the proposed wall is only on the south and east sides whereas our SIMS are on the west and the north. Mr. Knight answers that is correct. Commissioner Whitaker goes on to state so then the issue of screening the equipment is really on the south side. It's probably on all sides because you can see it from the west too, but most notably the issue Page 9 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 of screening the extra tower on the equipment is on our south side. Is that correct? Mr. Knight answers yes that would be correct. Chair Imboden wants Planning Staff to take a look at the screening requirements for such an application and if it's not a lengthy passage if you could possibly read it to us. Obviously we've got a lot of questions that are showing concerns for the screening of the equipment. Ifwe could just read the City Ordinance as to what the fence and landscaping are to be. Mr. Knight states the landscaping on the screening can be a maximum of 5'. Chair Imboden wants to know specifically what we require for screening verbatim from the Code. Mr. Knight asks from the side of the fence or wall with the highest grade. Chair Imboden says he is not talking about the height restrictions on fences; he's talking about what are the screening requirements for cellular equipment. Mr. Knight states that the specific Code just says that the screening shall be substantially screened from view. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Knight if it is his understanding that the construction of the retaining wall is part of this application or is it not part of this application? Mr. Knight states that he would ask the applicant but it is his understanding is it is not. The only thing that is before you is a proposal to approve co-location on a non-stealth pole and the ground equipment. Those are the only two items, one CUP, that are before you this evening. There is nothing for construction of a retaining wall or regarding the site or anything related to the temporary parking lot. Commissioner Bonina asks Ms. Norine what is her understanding. Is your company, as part ofthis application, intending to build a retaining wall as part of the overall project or are you simply, in your scope of work, building a wrought iron fence as a perimeter to the proposed equipment? Ms. Norine responds as she understands the construction for this particular site, we are building the wrought iron fence around the lease, adding the landscaping, and I do not believe we are doing the retaining wall. I believe that was probably proposed with the future development in mind. Commissioner Bonina states looking at Plan C-I03, it seems fairly consistent that it's a future proposed state which is the temporary parking that would require a retaining wall and whatever fencing above it. But the current application again, as you understand it, is simply a wrought iron fence around the proposed equipment and a 6' high screen and then whatever associated landscaping that we're conditioning. Ms. Norine states that's how I understand it. That's not to say that I've totally screwed this up. I remember visibly going by the site today and looking at it, not really paying attention to a so-called retaining wall if there's one existing there. [was more interested in how we were putting our equipment layout and things like that. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Knight, assuming this moves forward with just the wrought iron fence without any retaining wall, when this proposed temporary parking lot gets proposed or comes up, is this something that goes through some level of Planning Commission scrutiny or is this Staff level Design Review Committee or does it even come to the City? Mr. Knight responds the County of Orange owns the property and they have certain exemptions from zoning requirements. They may not have to go through procedures or requirements under the City of Orange. That's provided for in the Page 10 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 Government Code of the State of California. They may not have to do anything with us if, in their estimation, what they are doing is in relationship to the mission of that site. To give you an example, a public school, you want to build a building in a public school. The building permits are issued by the State architect, the plans are approved by the State architect, all inspections are done in that fashion, there are no approvals through any given City, there are no requirements that they have to abide by the City's zoning ordinances. At some point in the future if the County comes back and regrades this area and puts in a new parking lot, they can say this parking lot is for the use of government facilities. Either the animal shelter or Theo Lacey, probably would not have to come back to the City of Orange to do anything. Commissioner Bonina states that we should look at this project as a wrought iron fence of 6' high and with landscaping. Is that your understanding? Ms. Norine states that is her understanding and if she's wrong she will come back in front of them and correct it if they have to do something different. Commissioner Bonina states that if that's the case, we're still somewhat challenged around the ability to screen the equipment properly. That's still something we're still graph ling with. Is there any kind of strategy that you've historically used to help us get a little closer to the goal of screening that equipment because that's one of the challenges we face here? Ms. Norine states that we'd like to use the landscaping that we're proposing. The fact that the antennas are hugging the pole helps a lot. We're set back from City Drive quite a ways, and we only have a retaining wall from the 22 freeway on the south. The property to the east is basically a flood channel. Looking at the site from the northwest you get a little bit of a visibility of the pole from the office building that's to the northwest and beyond that would be the City of Orange shopping area. But visibility wise, I think we've minimized and tried to place our facility where it's not really as visible. Commissioner Bonina states that one of your suggestions was landscaping. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Knight. One of challenges we have with these enclosures is security and we're proposing a wrought iron fence that is nice because you get the visibility into that enclosure. What kind of latitude do we have as it relates to landscaping to further enhance the shielding of the internal equipment understanding that there is this concern of security? Mr. Knight states that when we held our workshops on the telecommunication antennas, one of the items that he brought forward and the Chairman was also discussing was ground equipment and screening of ground equipment. One thing that he wanted to do was read the section that this comes out of and what challenges, even at the staff level, we face. It says all accessory equipment associated with the operation of a wireless telecommunication facility shall be fully screened by dense landscaping or located within a building enclosure that complies with the development standards of zoning where the accessory equipment is located. It says it shall be fully screened but it has to comply with the development standards so we're back here where the fence has to be no greater than 6', so you work within what you have. One other challenge we have when these go before the Site Review Committee is that our Police Department would like to have them as open as possible so they can look into them and see if there's anything that's happening that shouldn't be happening. From a Staff prospective, split block would be great. We'd love to have something like that because it would fully hide the equipment but the Police Department doesn't like that Page 11 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 because people could hide on the other side of it. So the compromise that we've brought to you and the reason I would suggest that we study this when we do our telecommunication ordinance amendment, it that our solution has been wrought iron which has a better appearance than chain link, landscaping around it, let the landscaping grow up and keep it under control in order that some visibility would be there in the evening hours when the Police Department shines a light in there. The light would penetrate and they would be able to see. That has been staffs solution in bringing these to the Planning Commission and trying to balance the requirements that we get from the Police Department. Chair Imboden asks about the plantings that he sees that are only about 2 or 3 feet high. He states that he has a little bit of concern and he understands the Police concern for this, but it seems to him, in this compromise, he's not necessarily seeing that we're densely screening this with landscaping. Am I correct that the ultimate expected height of these shrubs is only 2-3 feet high? Mr. Knight replies that we've been putting shrubs at the bottom that would grow 4-5 feet and also we've been asking them to put vines on the wrought iron that would grow around the wrought iron. We have some in the field that are starting to grow and take over and begin to cover some of the wrought iron. The bottom line is yes it takes time for the landscaping to grow. Chair Imboden states that's not really the planting plan that's in front of us. Ms. Norine states we're proposing three London Plain Trees, two Crepe Myrtle and we're taking the existing Palms and just relocating them. Chair Imboden states that he understands the palms are far above the height of the equipment, isn't that correct? Ms. Norine states correct. Chair Imboden says that we're not really doing anything to screen the equipment. Mr. Knight states that we can add some conditions for either plantings like vines that would cover the fencing material and other shrub materials that the Commission would rather see. Commissioner Bonina asks are there any alternatives within your specifications of equipment that allows for some equipment that's not so high? That is, the height might be replaced by some further girth or width or depth or whatever it is. What I'm hearing here is that there is a real concern about the visibility of the equipment and we're somewhat constraint by how high this fence can be. With your experience have you come up with different scenarios or circumstances? Are you aware of equipment that's not this high yet lower or maybe wider? Ms. Norine states that unfortunately we're CDMA technology. Lucent Technologies are the makers of the radio equipment and the cabinets are specifically designed with the BTS equipment in mind. Most carriers are made similarly so they have the specific technology whether it's Sprint or Nextel using TDMA. We're using CDMA technology, but whoever manufactures the BTS equipment, the cabinets fit specifically inside so we are limited. Since we are the new kid on the block, we haven't really gone on air yet; this is what we are limited to at this particular time. Commissioner Bonina asks so for any most recent and/or future Royal Street Communication co-location proposals coming forward to us, would this equipment size be what we would expect to see in the future or historically seen in the past? Ms. Norine states that you should have seen the same type of equipment in the past. Commissioner Page 12 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 Bonina states that if that's the case and we're limited to this 6', then we're going to see a lot of equipment exposed based on what we've approved today. Ms. Norine states typically when you're dealing with 6' high fences with any carrier, most of the equipment cabinets are going to be taller just based on the foundation or 6'6" or 7' depending on how it's built. Chair Imboden states looking around the area there are a number of relatively tall buildings. Did you explore any kind of stealth application locating this on a building as an alternative site analysis and if you did what were those? Ms. Norine states that she'd have to refer to the propagation maps. If I go a little further to the south, there is actually Nextel up on the building to the south of the 22 Freeway and City Drive, southwest side, kitty corner. Chair Imboden asks if they explored that possibility? Ms. Norine states yes they did explore that but then if you look at our propagation maps you'll see where our adjacent sites are in reference to that. We're going to get too close to other sites we're building in the network; same to the north, south, east and west. This is an optimum location for Royal Street in the sense that it fits with the network. If I go too far north I'm going to interfere with the new site I'm planning on building to the north or east or west. Chair Imboden states that this next question won't preface his decision this evening, if we come to a decision. We've had a number of Royal Street applications in front of us over the past year and if! recall correctly only one of those was a stealth application. Do you expect, going forward, that it's only going to be feasible based on the network that you're designing that these are the only kind of applications that we're going to see because so far we're not seeing any kind of stealth applied to buildings or anything like that? Is that something that just doesn't fit into your program? Ms. Norine states that is the number one thing that she always looks for. If I can stealth a site and put it on a building, that's what I'm going to do. Metro is new and we don't have a whole lot of money to spend so we want to co-locate on the existing towers that are out there just to keep costs down but also it has to fit into the network. If I've got a building that I can stealth, again, the cost is relatively the same as co-locating because it's just a building no different from a pole. Chair Imboden states that a few hundred yards away there are quite a few large buildings. Did you not explore that? Ms. Norine states yes, but when you're talking a half-mile radius nowaday for coverage versus 10-12 years ago we were doing 2 and Y2 to 5-mile radiuses. Nowadays where 12 mile radiuses, we don't have a whole lot of flexibility; 200, 300 or 500 yards we're getting too close to another site. Its tough, not just for Metro, but for any wireless carrier nowadays because they're doing 12 mile radiuses. Commissioner Bonina states on your sheet C-I it shows on the upper left layout that Royal Street is literally leasing a 4' x 15' area within an already enclosed area. Is that a correct statement? Ms. Norine states that she knows that can't do 4' so that's not an accurate statement. Chair Imboden states that on the same C- I proposed antenna location mounted to monopine. Is that an error? Ms. Norine asks where? Chair Imboden states in the center of C- I and I'm also seeing that there is an existing wood retaining wall being called out of 18". Ms. Norine states that the 18" retaining wall exists. Chair Imboden states that he Page I 3 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 is concerned that this is not the site that we're looking at. As I look at the landscape layout and the parking layout, it doesn't appear to be the same site. Ms. Norine states that the parking layout is just something to show that building will be taken away. The survey is showing the existing building and what's there right now. That's also the building that is eventually going to come down. Chair Imboden asks ifthat appears to her that perhaps that's not the site that we're talking about? Ms. Norine states this is the site. Chair Imboden says okay, but we are not using a monopine as proposed here. Correct? Ms. Norine answers correct. Chair Imboden asks do we have this 18" wood retaining wall existing? Ms. Norine answers that's existing. Commissioner Merino says that he is getting a little confused, there isn't a retaining wall - there is a retaining wall. Did you actually prepare the documents that we're looking at? Ms. Norine states yes. Commissioner Merino states that in an earlier comment you would acknowledge that there are some issues with the accuracy of these documents? Ms. Norine states yes. Chair Imboden asks if there are any further questions for Staff or the applicant? He then asks the applicant if she has any comments in conclusion? Ms. Norine states no, but she would hope that they would approve the project this evening. We tried not to be as visible as possible. Commissioner Bonina asks what project would you want us to approve, what is the scope as you see it? Ms. Norine states the project here at 595 The City Drive. Commissioner Bonina asks what is the scope of work that you're proposing because it is unclear here what you're proposing? Ms. Norine states Staffs recommendation to co-locate antennas on the existing 61 ' tall pole and hug the 6 antennas to different centerlines and equipment below that screen with landscaping and wrought iron fence. Commissioner Bonina asks for the dimension. Ms. Norine states that Royal would be a 13'2" concrete slab and an 8' I 0" concrete slab for the equipment. The wrought iron fence goes around the Sprint area as well as ours. Commissioner Bonina asks again that would be 6' high. Ms. Norine states correct. Chair Imboden closes the public hearing and brings it back to the Commission for any further discussion, deliberation or motion. Commissioner Whitaker states that the one thing he is a little confused with is that we currently have a non-conforming 8' fence out there that's existing that would better screen the equipment than the upgraded 6' high wrought iron fence. If you have landscaping or vines growing on the non-conforming chain link, it almost seems to me that the applicant would have been better advised to seek a variance to put landscaping growing on the existing chain link to hide the DPS antenna mounted on the cable bridge because if that sticks up at about 7', unless there is another port lower that it can go to, it would be better off to have the existing fence with some vines growing on it. That's just my observation. Commissioner Merino states that he has a general discomfort with what they have been Page 14 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 presented. He thinks that in order for him and the rest of the Commission to approve an application you have to have a certain confidence level that what's being brought before you is representative of what we're being asked to approve. There are so many inconsistencies with the documents at this point, yes we could sort of fish out an approvable application, but it behooves us to say to the applicant or anyone who brings a proj ect forward that the drawings need to be coordinated from sheet to sheet, that they understand what the limits of their lease area is, what they will and won't approve, what is and isn't existing and I just don't have a comfort level that we're at that place. I would be happy to give this applicant a continuance to have the applicant come back with all these issues coordinated and clearly indicated on the documents. Give the applicant the benefit of the doubt to go back and fix some of the coordination issues that we've heard. I'm not comfortable that the wall is even resolved and in terms of the screening, I'd agree with Commissioner Whitaker if we actually knew what the existing conditions really were, I would be comfortable with his suggestion just providing a variance. Commissioner Bonina concurs that there is a lot of things that are not clear but not just from the City's prospective, also from the applicant's prospective. You might be agreeing to doing certain things here that you really don't realize you'd be agreeing to do and I think that's the last place you want to be and that is building a retaining wall and doing some things that you hadn't anticipated especially from a cost prospective. I think it might be prudent, as Commissioner Merino suggested, fair out the issues and get some clarity working with Staff, bring this back to the next meeting and then that way there is full clarity on your part as an applicant proposing a rather straight forward application and then we would have the clarity that we would need as well to make a competent decision. With that also said, I think Commissioner Whitaker's suggestion is a good one and that is to the extent that you can keep that 8' chain link fence and understanding that there is no ability to take that proposed equipment and reduce it in size, then I think it's a very good suggestion to try and keep that chain link fence and augment it with some vines and some appropriate landscaping. I don't know the vehicle, Mr. Knight, that we would need to use from a land use perspective if it's a non-conforming use, do we actually have the ability to do that and if so, what would be the mechanism and maybe Mr. Chair we can get some clarity on that. Chair Imboden states that he completely agrees with the comments made by the other Commissioners. I'm struggling with the proposal in all. There are a large number of discrepancies in the plans that are quite significant in terms of the proposal. The part where I'm really struggling with this application is that I'm looking at an ordinance that requires the equipment to be screened. If you're going to go the landscape route it needs to be densely screened with landscaping and I don't think that's the proposal that's in front of us. I don't think that simply changing the landscaping on this plan would meet with the approval of our Police Department. There are many options how to solve this solution, but this is the one presented to us this evening. Another option to meet the requirements would be to put this inside a building, but that isn't what you've brought to us this evening. You've chosen to go another route and personally I don't think this really comes to the intent of our current screening. I do think that we should ask City Staff to look at if we have a fence that is out there currently at 8' tall, what provisions might we have in our City Ordinance that might allow them to maintain that height since it is already an existing non-conforming situation. I'm looking at this equipment and I'm Page 15 of 1 7 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 seeing 7' clear to the top of the cases themselves, but if! scale off this drawing, which I was instructed many years ago not to do, I see that we're looking at equipment closer to about 9'. If we're looking at a 6' fence, that leaves 113 ofthis equipment exposed and I am not comfortable with that. I don't think that really comes close to the ordinance we have in place. I will put forward what I would like to see this evening. I think I would like to direct the applicant to work with City Staff to address the concerns. Clearly this Commission is not comfortable with the screening that is proposed for this particular project and that our belief that it doesn't really come close to the intent of the requirement. I would like Staff to explore the options the applicant has here. I haven't really heard resistance to co-location itself, and so I don't think that we're really contesting that part, but we do have some requirements for screening that we feel are not being met and also another pass through these plans before they come back to us because we've got a tremendous amount of information on these plans that seem to be irrelevant to the project that's in front of us. I think also it would be helpful, if and when this project comes back to us, to have a clear definition of what exactly is the lease area, what is the responsibility of the applicant that's coming forward and what exactly is contained in that proposal because we have a lot of questions about that as well. We have to, as a body, look into the crystal ball and try to anticipate what the County mayor may not do with this project understanding that's not part of the approval that's in front of us, however, the project is being proposed based on these potential changes going forward, so if we're going to evaluate those, we have to be able to consider how this works into those proposed changes. Chair Imboden made a motion to continue to date uncertain. Chair Imboden asks Mr. Knight if they have a date certain or should we do a date uncertain? Mr. Knight states that what you're asking the applicant to do is amend their application because they can't keep the 8' chain link fence. They have to expand it and it's non-conforming right now, so if they expand it, that's still asking for a variance. They have to go back and see if they want to pursue that. I believe date uncertain would be better because if we have to renotice for a variance and go through that process, it will take us a little bit of time. Commissioner Bonina asks Mr. Knight if he's sure that the applicant is requesting an expanded area of the existing Sprint? Mr. Knight answers yes, it's actually pretty clear if you look at C-I and A-2, the Sprint lease area is 15'8" by 24'6". If you look at the drawing there is a fence to be removed at the bottom that shows a chain link fence that's a fairly well defined rectangle. It shows up more pronounced on C-1. If you look at the hatched area on C- I at the upper right hand corner of the site plan, that is the area that is being expanded in the lease area. Right now the lease area isn't a full on rectangle of 15'8" x 24'6". There is a little jog in it. That jog is being filled in to form a full rectangle under the proposal. It's real clear on the drawings that there's an expansion. Commissioner Bonina states that he wants to make sure that the landscape is maintained and the initial size of the landscaping would be good to address and the ongoing maintenance should be addressed when it comes back. The other just general comment would be maybe this type of equipment as we advance in technology, appears to be Page 16 of 17 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 2007 getting larger instead of smaller, and if that's the case, maybe our Ordinance, in terms of the height, is inadequate for this type of development. We may want to take a look at that moving forward in terms of the height of the screen area. Mr. Knight adds that's why he recommended we look at the ground equipment because he is not happy with what the Code says right now and then we have these ongoing discussions between the Police Department and the Planning Department on screenings. I want to be able to take a look at those two issues specifically when we looked at the Ordinance to be able to reconcile these things without having to resort to variances and possibly give the providers more guidance that they can use to try and put their applications together. Chair Imboden states that we have a lot of objectives that we attempt to meet through our various Ordinances. There are many different options an applicant has in bringing an application forward, however, we do expect and that's how we review these projects, that the proposal does meet the letter of the Ordinance but certainly the intent of that Ordinance. 1 want to make it very clear that there are some options here on the part of the applicant. They own the proposal that's in front of us and I think right now it's not meeting that Ordinance. Chair Imboden asks the applicant if she is interested in a continuance on this item because they are not ready to approve it this evening. Ms. Norine answers yes. Chair Imboden states that we're voting to approve a continuance of the item to a date uncertain. Commissioner Bonina asks if the applicant is aware that we'll have to renotice. Ms. Norine answers yes. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Whitaker, and Merino None None Commissioners Steiner MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Imboden moves to adjourn to Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 7:00 for a Joint Session with the City Council. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Merino, Imboden, Whitaker, and Bonina None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:30 P.M. Page 17 of 17 Pages