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