Loading...
2007 - December 3 ~50D.Q.~3 Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 1 of 20 Min utes Planning Commission City of Orange 3 December 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None ST AFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Michelle Felton, Planning Intern Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session @ 6:35 p.m. Mr. Knight stated there was a revised Agenda due to the addition of a second resolution added on item No.4. Chair Imboden had not received the revised copy and was given one by Staff. Chair Imboden reviewed the Agenda with the Commission. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Steiner stated he would abstain from the approval as he was absent from the November 5, 2007 meeting. Chair Imboden stated he would have a correction to page 8, changing OTP A to read Old Towne. Commission Business Item No.2: Mr. Sheatz stated Assistant City Attorney, Ted Reynolds would be available to answer any questions, as he had been involved in the application process for that item. Commission Business Item No.3: Commissioners stated they would have questions on the item. Mr. Knight stated there had been additional information added that would be presented during the PC Meeting. This addition pertained to information received from industry representatives. Planning Intern, Michelle Felton stated the changes could be found in Section 17.12.25 (B 1 A) which was modified; in the case of a non-stealth application of an architecturally integrated product, there would not be the requirement for an integrated site analysis. Page 1 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 2 of 20 On Section 17.12.25 (B 1D) the wording was changed to remove the term: technical. On Section 17.12.25 (D6), part B there was clarification on the distance requirement on the ground-to-ground measurement of a stealth application. Agenda Item No.4 - Archstone Gateway: Commissioner Merino asked what was the difference in the new resolution information received vs. the original packet? Ms. Thakur stated exhibit E had changed. Mr. Knight stated that there was no change as the new information had made it into their packets. Commissioner Merino stated he would have questions on the item. Chair Imboden asked if the recommended action had changed. Commissioner Merino stated in the Staff Report it was correct, it had been changed on the agenda with the added resolution number. Other Business: Commissioner Bonina asked what the agenda for the 12/1712007 meeting looked like? Mr. Knight stated there were currently four items on that agenda. Ms. Thakur stated Beacon Day School would be returning, and they had submitted fence alternatives for reView. Chair Imboden stated City Council had concerns with the full reading of the Appeal Process, as it could be misconstrued as encouraging applicants to appeal. He asked legal to prepare a brief summary of the appeal process. At future meetings, when a motion for denial was made, he would be reading that version to the applicant. The applicant could continue dialogue with City Staff if they wanted to move forward with an appeal. It would be in the purview of the Commissioners to give a full reading of the appeal process if they chose to. Chair Imboden asked the Commissioners to advise Staff if they felt they had a conflict of interest in hearing an item, and that this notification be made to Staff no later than the Thursday prior to the PC Meeting. Mr. Sheatz stated if a Commissioner felt there would be a potential conflict of not being able to hear an item, they could email him, which would allow him to research and resolve any potential problem prior to the meeting date. (He checked his email regularly and on the weekend). Meeting closed at 6:50 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None Page 2 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 3 of 20 CONSENT ITEMS (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve the November 5, 2007 minutes with the correction as noted. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino and Whitaker None Commissioner Steiner None MOTION CARRIED COMMISSION BUSINESS (2) ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.04 AND 17.14 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW The City is proposing an amendment to the residential density bonus provisions and associated definitions of Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code pertaining to affordable housing and senior citizen housing to bring the Code into conformance with State Law. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5-Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 50-07 Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Steiner asked if Staff anticipated any controversial issue with the need to define mobile home? The phrase, "includes mobile homes", was used and described as used for human habitation; he anticipated that someone might contest the definition of a mobile home. Assistant City Attorney, Ted Reynolds stated the State Law definition of mobile home park was used, and was the concern for an individual owner of a mobile home having a potential problem? Commissioner Steiner stated he had concerns with the term mobile home used within the ordinance and not clearly defined could make it susceptible to attack. Page 3 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 4 of 20 Mr. Reynolds stated the term was incorporated into the reference of mobile home park and when drafting the item he did not feel a need for a separate definition of a mobile home. Commissioner Steiner requested that if there was a definition of a mobile home provided in State Law or in some statute, he felt it would be useful to incorporate that definition in this ordinance. Mr. Reynolds stated if there was a motion to move forward, the additional definition could be added as a condition or directive from the Commission. Chair Imboden asked ifthe City's Municipal Code had a definition for a mobile home or mobile home parks? Mr. Knight stated he believed there was not a definition for mobile home. In the City of Orange there was no enforcement of mobile homes, which was done by the State under Title 25, there was no local enforcement authority in the City of Orange. Mr. Reynolds stated there was a definition of mobile home in the local zoning code and that definition could be added and reviewed for its compliance with the State definition. Commissioner Whitaker stated he was present for the hearing a year ago, and at that time the ordinance would have brought the bonus density ordinance up to State Law. He asked why they were ratcheting back the 35% density bonus for an additional incentive for projects that were in proximity to public transportation employment centers; if it was brought into conformity with State Law, it would be saying that particular portion of State Law was too complex to administer, and would it not already be in conformity? Mr. Reynolds stated that was not the case. There was no provision in State Law relating to proximity to transit oriented facilities. It was proposed by Staff in reviewing the ordinance a year ago and he was concerned there was not sufficient criteria for defining proximity and to assure to provide additional density bonuses in that context. Staff reviewed this and felt the density bonus was sufficient. In some cases, in the ordinance, there was the ability to go beyond 35% in certain situations. 35% in State Law was the maximum; however, there was room in the ordinance to grant additional incentives or concessions that could include additional density. Commissioner Whitaker stated the item never went to City Council after the Planning Commission approval, and he asked why it took a year to corne back to the Commission? Mr. Reynolds stated it did not go forward as it carne back to him for review from the standpoint of Redevelopment Law. In Redevelopment Law there was a provision that stated every 10 years 15% of newly developed units or substantially rehabilitated units within a redevelopment project area must be made affordable to low and moderate income households. There was a percentage requirement, 6% of all new units or substantially rehabilitated units within a rehabilitation project must be made available to very low income households. The City did not have a requirement that stated every project must include a 15% low/moderate income standard. There was a potential conflict with Redevelopment Law with the density bonus ordinance. The City did not Page 4 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2007 5 of 20 have an inclusionary housing development ordinance to require each developer in a redevelopment project area to have 15% affordable housing units. They had been able to obtain 15% through the context of Redevelopment Law. The question was if a developer was complying with Redevelopment Law and giving 15% of the units, should that 15% qualify for the density bonus? What had been done in the ordinance was state if a developer provided affordable units under Redevelopment Law they would receive credit for those and not make the developer provide 15%, or 6% very low income units. The ordinance also stated the developer was required to add additional units to comply. Mr. Reynolds stated when the document carne to him he discovered the ordinance was nowhere near a condition to go to City Council. From a formatting standpoint, it had not been drafted in a condition that could go forward. There were some inconsistencies. A year ago in the ordinance there was a provision stating a concession to the developer but not more than 20% break in setback requirements or floor ratio requirements. In seeing that State Law would not allow the City to cap those, it was unlimited as long as the developer proved it was essential or made the project economically feasible. He decided to draft the ordinance properly and it took time to do that as it was a very complicated ordinance to draft. It had not been compliant with State Law and Staff could not move forward with the ordinance. Chair Imboden asked if there was any public comment, there was none. He opened the hearing for further discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Whitaker stated on density bonus rules they had typically heard speaker input from the Kennedy Commission and the development community and asked what notice was given out? Mr. Knight stated that Staff had sent out notices to the various housing groups. Commissioner Merino stated this was a formalized, better-worded document than what had been looked at a year ago. It was not substantially different than what the Planning Commission had seen before. Mr. Reynolds stated it was different. The Kennedy Commission, at the prior meeting, was concerned regarding the concessions to the developers. In the proposed ordinance a year ago there was a cap placed of not more than a 20% on setback requirements. One of the comments made by the Kennedy Commission was that the City could not limit the concession based on State Law. This ordinance now responded favorably to the concern that had been presented. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve Ordinance amending Chapter 17.04 and 17.14 of the Orange Municipal Code to reflect changes to State Density Bonus Law, noticing the Ordinance was categorically exempt from CEQA, adopting Planning Commission Resolution 50-07, with the addition of adding the definition of a mobile home to be consistent with State Mobile Horne Residency Law and review oflocallaw. Page 5 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 6 of 20 SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None None MOTION CARRIED (3) ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12.025 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES TO THE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PROVISIONS An Ordinance amendment updating the City's requirements, criteria, and mInImUm standards for the design and placement of wireless communication facilities. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5-Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 51-07 Planning Intern, Michelle Felten provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino asked, in reference to the conversations Staff had with the industry representatives, was there any discussion about the definition of wireless communication facility and wireless facility support structure and did they differentiate the two? Ms. Felton stated there was no discussion about that. Commissioner Steiner asked, in reviewing the memo dated November 29, 2007 which contained the industry input, was there any input received that would cause Staff to feel that any revision, change or modification would be necessary to the Staff Report specifically referring to pages 4, 5, and top of page 6 and the way that Staff had proposed to address those issues? Ms. Felten stated in the Staff Report, for the facility in a residential zone, nothing from the industry input would cause Staff to make any changes. In regard to justification to location there would be a change in respect to a stealth facility that it would not need to go through the same site analysis. On the equipment and screening there would be no changes. For the facility concentration it would be changed to specify that it applied to all ground mounted facilities, stealth or non-stealth; further defining issue number four. Page 6 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2007 7 of 20 Commissioner Steiner stated on page 2 of the November 29, 2007 memo referring to Section B( 6) in reference to a fourth mile and a parenthetical reference to feet; he felt that the description should be referenced as a quarter. Commissioner Merino stated one of the primary issues they had in reviewing wireless facilities was the screening, not necessarily the facility, but the ground components. In looking at the definitions, they distinguish between the support facility and the facility itself and is there a need to clarify the issue? If the support facility was not noted specifically, it could leave the ground-mounted equipment without the screening requirement. Mr. Sheatz stated they could look at that, in Section A. The ground mounted facility or antenna itself, along with the ground-mounted equipment, would not be an issue in that Section. Commissioner Merino stated in the analysis it essentially read that they looked at the alternative sighting and he asked if the ground equipment would have the same requirement if it was specifically noted? Mr. Sheatz stated in Section A it would not be applicable, as the only thing being accomplished in that Section, with the industry input, was the fact that the industry representative was looking for a little more incentive if he carne in with a completely stealth antenna, for example, in a church steeple. In providing a quality, completely stealth plan, the applicant did not want to be required to go through the alternative site analysis process or the expense to do that. The incentive being if a quality product was being furnished, the alternative site analysis would be waived. Commissioner Merino stated he understood that information, however, it did not address the ground support facilities associated with those and allowing an analysis of just the antenna and not looking at alternatives for the ground mounting facility. He did not want to leave an opening for that to be bifurcated when the analysis was being completed. Commissioner Merino stated it was very specific in defining the wireless facility and the wireless support facility, and he felt it would be necessary to define the ground components as well. Ms. Felten stated in Section 17.12.25(C)(8), which dealt with design and screening criteria and dealt directly with screening support equipment, it specified any building material used to enclose the accessory equipment shall be compatible with the existing building materials in the immediate area. Changes could be made for stronger specifications. Commissioner Merino asked if it left an opening, as it was classified as a wireless facility with two definitions of the components of the facility? He was looking for a modification of the overall facility description, one that would state the wireless facility included not just the portion that provided the signal, but also the support facilities defined elsewhere. Page 7 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 8 of 20 Commissioner Whitaker noted on the top of page 5 of the Staff Report it stated the proposed modification of the Code would require all new wireless communications facilities in residential zones to be stealth unless they were co-located and that wireless communication facilities shall be separated from each other as follows: any wireless communication facility located within Yz mile of a residential zone shall be stealth to mitigate adverse visual and aesthetic impacts. Was this the change referenced to in the Staff Report? Ms. Felten stated the change referenced on page 5 was actually in Section (C)(10), stating any new structure, building or ground-mounted wireless facility in a residential zone was required to use stealth design to mitigate visual impacts; and would address that issue. Commissioner Whitaker stated during the last Planning Commission meeting, there was approval for a non-co-Iocated, non-stealth antenna on a park lighting pole which was well within a Yz mile of a residential zone and the concern would be that if the language was over inclusive, that type of application would involve a brand new pole going up and would that have been prohibited? Would that prior application not have been approved? Ms. Felten stated that was not the intention and in (B)(l)(a), there were incentives to co- locate on an existing facility or public right-of-way. The language could be changed to address the co-location. Commissioner Whitaker stated that the application was not a co-location. Mr. Knight stated a new regulation would be needed to cover that type of installation and some of the parks were zoned as residential. Direction was received from the Commission and Staff had followed that direction. In reviewing that application and finding it favorable, there might need to be new language needed to address that type of installation, if the Commission felt it necessary. Mr. Sheatz stated in the Municipal Code, regarding Commissioner Merino's concern on ground components, by Code the definition read: A wireless communication facility is any roof-mounted, building-mounted, or ground-mounted facility and other related equipment necessary to provide commercial cellular service. Commissioner Merino stated his concern was in the Staff Report where there was a definition of the facility support structure, but it was not referenced in the wireless communication facility definition that could create vagueness. If the definition of a wireless facility support structure is part of a wireless communications facility, it would address his concern. Mr. Sheatz stated wireless communication support structures refers to the actual pole itself, a structure designed to support wireless communication facilities, including but not limited to, monopoles, towers, artificial landscape features, rocks, building ornamentation, free standing support structures - it is the actual antenna and does not include the other. Page 8 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2007 9 of 20 Commissioner Merino stated it was now more confusing, and thought the support structure was everything except the antenna. Mr. Sheatz stated not as it was defined. Commissioner Bonina asked under what Zoning Code the utility properties would fall under? Mr. Knight stated they might be public institutional or have an underlying district. Some SCE facilities were defined as open space, some were residential districts and others were public institutional. Commissioner Bonina stated it needed to be clear on future projects what the zoning would be. He asked, in the area that Commissioner Whitaker had read, he could interpret that a non-stealth application was allowed for two companies proposing a co-located existing pole, and in reading through would that be the intention? The concern would be in a residential area with a new pole, if there were two users, would the installation need to be stealth, and was the intention to cover two users on a new stealth installation? Ms. Felten stated the intention was on a co-located existing facility it would not be required to be stealth, and on a new facility it would need to be stealth. Commissioner Bonina stated if it was noted elsewhere there would not need to be any further clarity. Chair Imboden asked where was it also stated? Commissioner Whitaker stated on the proposed ordinance, four pages in, section 17.12.025(C)(10) read: Any new structure building-mounted or ground-mounted wireless in a residential zone was required to be stealth. It would not matter if it was co- located or not, as it read any new structure. Would that be correct? Ms. Felten stated yes, that would be correct. Commissioner Bonina asked on ground equipment there was reference made to an 8' fence being permitted and why the commercial height was defaulted to and not the residential requirement? Ms. Felten stated they listed the 8' fence requirement. As in the past, a 6' fence had not been tall enough to hide the equipment. Commissioner Bonina asked was the thought to have an 8' fully enclosed structure with the top secured as well? Ms. Felten stated in discussion with crime prevention, with a full enclosure, it would be a full block building and if it would be a fence enclosure a wrought iron fence would be allowed. A wrought iron fence would be allowed without a cage, however, the landscaping could not be so dense to obscure the view of seeing through it. The wording fully screened by dense landscaping was removed. Commissioner Bonina stated the best of both worlds could be obtained with a wrought iron fully enclosed fence with landscape at the required height, providing security and Page 9 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 10of20 aesthetics. He asked, in terms of the 8' fence, the equipment varied in height and could the approach be a requirement to have the equipment submerged to maintain a lesser impact of the equipment enclosure? Mr. Knight stated, in reviewing wireless proposals, the applicants were encouraged to submerge the equipment. The applicants typically wanted a platform of 4-6" for their equipment, in order to keep water away from the base of the equipment and they resisted any type of requirement to have equipment submerged. Chair Imboden stated he was confused in looking at the current ordinance, which stated the facility shall be screened by dense landscaping or located within a building. Fully screened was being removed and they were moving toward an open fence, what was the logic for this direction? Mr. Knight stated Staff was having some conflict with the desire for fully screened facilities and the Police Department's request of being able to see through the wrought iron. How Staff approached that would not change how applications were handled in the past. Staff had struggled with the concept of saying they want wrought iron and not chain link, a landscape requirement could be added to ask for landscaping of varying heights that would substantially cover the wrought iron fencing and not create a wall of landscaping. It would still allow for the Police Department to shine a light in the evening hours and be able to see in. From Staffs perspective, they would not be changing the way projects would be reviewed, but to change the words to allow for more flexibility to address the concerns of the Police Department. This was the draft to the Commission and if they felt it needed something else, Staff needed to hear the direction that they wished to gom. Commissioner Merino stated in paragraph 8 of the draft Ordinance, it read: sufficient landscaping shall be provided to visually screen all enclosures. Sufficient is a word that often created ambiguity. He asked who would be the arbitrator of sufficiency and could this wording be changed to a possible density requirement? Mr. Knight stated if the Commission would like to add stronger or more definitive language that could be considered. The Commission had the ultimate judgment of the word sufficient when an applicant carne before them with a CUP. Commissioner Merino asked if they could add: sufficient as determined by City Staff or Planning Commission? Mr. Knight stated if the Commission wanted to make that change they could. In his minds eye he knew what sufficient meant and Staff worked with applicants to see that the requirement was met. It was not a precise term and it would be great if they could state 75% of the wrought iron area would be landscaped within 24 months, however, it would be hard to do and they ended up with a word - sufficient. Staff could corne back with some diagrams and ideas to have the Commission review informally and these could be used as tools at the counter to review with the applicant. Page 10 of20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 11 of 20 Commissioner Merino stated when you were on the other side of the counter and designing it was easier for the applicant to see what was being required of them. Commissioner Whitaker stated that on page 6 of the Staff Report regarding separation requirements and ground based facilities, other City requirements were listed, some that required more than a quarter mile and other cities that required less. On the proposed Ordinance 17.12.025(D)(6), separation talks about any facility from Yz mile from a residential zone and was not noted in the Staff Report. One-half mile was a large area and he understood they wanted to visually protect the residential zones, but this appeared to be a rather large area. He asked where Staff carne up with that number and what other city had that requirement? Ms. Felten stated the requirement was for a non-stealth design. Staff carne up with that number after surveying other city requirements. Other City requirements stated that any new facility must be stealth. As the City of Orange still allowed for non-stealth installations, Staff wanted to protect the residential zones. If a stealth design was provided it could be closer to the residential area. Commissioner Whitaker asked if there were cities in Orange County that allowed stealth, and if so what were their buffer requirements? Ms. Felten stated those requirements were anywhere from 100 to 400', it was not very explicit and most cities were going towards a stealth requirement. Chair Imboden stated under (B)(1)( c) of the Ordinance, it was stated that the application must corne with a proof of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act permitting wireless communication in the Old Towne Historic District. He struggled with Section 106 that was a much more encompassing review not limited by law and not restricted to properties in Old Towne. He suggested that the language could be made more specific in identifying what properties were required to be reviewed under Section 106. It appeared to be misleading in noting only Old Towne Historic District projects would require Section 106 and clearly the law required that within the proximity of other historic properties. Section 106 dealt with listed properties as well as eligible properties and they needed to be aware of that State Law. Chair Imboden stated he noticed a non-stealth facility in Old Towne that a CUP had not been required for and asked on any non-stealth facility in Old Towne would it require a CUP? Ms. Felten stated she felt it would require a CUP. Mr. Knight stated on the facility that Chair Imboden referred to, that installation was not complete and there would be screening over it. He was correct in stating a CUP was required on a non-stealth installation in Old Towne. Chair Imboden stated there needed to be some further discussion on a wide range of issues. In regard to the co-location on an existing facility, the wording could be changed to co-location on a non-stealth facility in Section 6. Page 11 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 12of20 Chair Imboden asked Commissioner Whitaker to expand on the discussion regarding a park right-of-way. Commissioner Whitaker stated he agreed with Mr. Knight in the need for specific language to carve out public facilities. In thinking of the public right-of-way he thought of the streetlights on a parkway going down the street. In the example of the application last week it was a public park. He did not feel comfortable issuing information from the dais as he felt it required additional effort with respect to specific language. He did not feel comfortable with the analysis of the 12 mile requirement for a residential install. Chair Imboden agreed that finding a common language that would encompass most of the issues would help. He was not comfortable with the language of screening and felt that it had been opened wider than what it had been. He struggled with any type of logic that stated the facility would be screened, but kept open enough to visually see into it. The requirement was for an enclosed structure with no visibility or a fence that would require some visibility, and those two requirements were in conflict with each other. The language as it read would not take them away from the problem of the recommendation at the counter and the recommendation against from the Police Department, and moving ahead would not address the issue. The Commission had spent a lot of time discussing the screening issue and there was now the potential for muddying the water instead of bringing clarity to the issue. Commissioner Merino stated the Police Department might have a very different view of what sufficient was vs. what the Planning Department felt was sufficient. Chair Imboden stated he would like to see these projects screened. He asked Commissioner Merino ifhe wanted to make a proposal regarding the facilities issue? Mr. Sheatz stated an addition under the definition of a wireless communication facility of a sub definition of a wireless communications support facility could be included and resolve the issue. Commissioner Merino stated having been on the other side of the counter and allowing the applicant to corne forward on a project and know where they stood would be helpful. The idea of having a diagram that would give the applicant an example of what was being required would eliminate a lot of discussion. Chair Imboden stated it was a reasonable request. On many of the issues they were OK as long as the assumption was that the applicant understand the intention, however, instead of placing a potential assumption it could be stated in the Ordinance. Commissioner Bonina stated applicants were encouraged to go with co-location. On new facilities there could be a way to encourage applicants to be receptive of co-location from other vendors on their site. It would be advantageous to find a way to make sure the applicants would be receptive, with a possible incentive, to encourage co-location to minimize the number of towers being installed. Commissioner Whitaker stated in reference to the exception for a site analysis, he understood the example of something that was completely hidden, as in the example of Page 12 of20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2007 13of20 the church steeple and waiving the requirement of the site analysis. He also stated that a stealth facility could be an ugly monopine with an existing non-stealth pole nearby, and he would prefer to see the co-location on the pole rather than the installation of a new facility. Chair Imboden asked, in reviewing other municipalities and Ordinances, had Staff found any research that discussed incentives? Ms. Felten stated that the only incentives would be the simplified review process, not having to go before DRC or Council were the only incentives they had uncovered. Mr. Sheatz stated one of the incentives raised by the T -Mobile representative was for ease of getting through the City process and the expense involved, and ratcheting back the amount of review on an application was for a co-located non-stealth facility to have it be an over-the-counter type review. He also presented the idea of having the development or permitting fees waived. These ideas carne from an industry representative and could be the type of incentives they could look at in encouraging co- location. Chair Imboden stated under the proposed Ordinance any non-stealth facility would need to corne through the Planning Commission. Ms. Felten stated if it was co-located it would not. In commercial districts, industrial districts, residential open space and public institution if it was non-stealth and co-located it would go through the Site Plan Review and the Design Review process. Commissioner Steiner asked Commissioner Bonina as he understood his suggestion; it was not to merely encourage co-location by applicants on existing non-stealth towers, but also to encourage those setting up new towers to permit co-location by subsequent applicants? Commissioner Bonina stated yes, that was his suggestion. Commissioner Merino stated although co-location was encouraged, it did not obviate the need for the entity that would be co-locating to have their own ground mounted separate equipment, which in turn created screening issues. He did not want to think that to encourage co-location would eliminate the issue of ground equipment screening and would not be resolved with the co-location issue. Chair Imboden stated in having a more streamlined review process there would be a need for some very specific requirements in order to move forward. If the process would be streamlined any gray area that required discretionary approval would need to be removed. On a project that would meet A, Band C, and very clearly prescribed by the ordinance those could result in stream lining, however, if a project stepped outside of the envelope it would need to go through the process. Commissioner Steiner stated he agreed with the Chair's comments, he agreed on streamlining, however, did not want to give up any of the Commissions authority in those matters. Page 13 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2007 14of20 Chair Imboden stated the Commission had not spoken about changing the approval process before, and to be aware of the insecurities that would go with that. The Commission would not want to relinquish any type of discretionary review. Mr. Knight stated in reference to screening and going back to the recent park installation; there was a block wall with some type of roofing material that would not allow anyone to climb over and get inside, Staff could explore the idea of having fencing on top to preclude anyone from entering the area. If this would be sufficient for the Police Department they could corne back with denser landscaping in order to visually screen the enclosure. The concern from the Police Department had been whether the fence was chain link or wrought iron it was still a fence, and someone could still jump over it. It had been an ongoing concern; if it had an additional cover the Police Department may be more comfortable with that, and would the Commission want Staff to explore that option? Chair Imboden stated yes, the park application had corne very close to what he would like to see in screening these wireless communication facilities. As a City there were more screening requirements on a dumpster than on a wireless facility. Chair Imboden asked if there were any further questions or discussion. There were no public speakers on the item. Commissioner Bonina stated he would like Staff to look at existing equipment at the base of a pole, on co-locations there may not be room for additional equipment at the site and would the Commission consider the co-Iocaters equipment being installed further from the site. He had seen other applications where the equipment was located a distance away from the pole. Chair Imboden stated that he would like to see Staff bring the item back to the Commission addressing the concerns that were brought forth, and requested that Staff bring it back at their earliest convenience. If the Ordinance had been amended sooner the Commission could have had the tools to make their decision process easier, and it also would have made the City of Orange a better City for people to live in. Chair Imboden made a motion to continue to a date uncertain, Ordinance Amending Section 17.12.025 of the Orange Municipal Code to reflect changes to the wireless communications facilities provisions. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None None MOTION CARRIED Page 14 of20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2007 15 of 20 NEW HEARINGS: (4) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17141-ARCHSTONE GATEWAY A proposal to amend the text of the approved Archstone Gateway Specific Plan to allow the development of 532 apartment (rental) or condominium (ownership) units, in association with the larger 884-residential unit development, bisected by the City of Orange and Anaheim border. Accordingly, the applicant is also requesting approval of the aforementioned Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes. LOCATION: 291 N. State College Boulevard NOTE: The environmental impacts of the revised project were evaluated by the addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 1707-02, which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 et seq and in conformance with the local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 44-07 and 47-07. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Chair Imboden asked in terms of the affordable units, had there been any agreement established on when the 5% would begin, how many units would be sold before the 5% was established? Mr. Knight stated an Affordable Housing Agreement would be completed prior to the final map. It would be carried out by the affordable housing unit and those issues would be addressed. The number of units and when they would be available would be established at that time. Chair Imboden stated the project was different as they generally were looking at a set number of units. He asked if only 19 units were to sell, would there be no low income units available? Mr. Knight stated the project was being looked at as rental units and if the applicant did choose to sell they would need to have the final map in place. The Affordable Housing Unit Agreement would be well in place prior to the sale of any of the units. Commissioner Bonina asked if the development standards on an apartment and a condominium were the same? Ms. Thakur stated yes. Commissioner Bonina asked what was the affordable housing fee on an apartment vs. a condominium? Ms. Thakur stated when the project was approved for apartments the developer was required to provide Page 15 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 16 of 20 those fees and it had been completed and handed over to the City Housing Unit. When the properties would become condominiums the 5% affordability to moderate or low income households would take affect. Commissioner Bonina asked if the project had been initially presented as a condominium project? Ms. Thakur stated she could not speak to that as that had been determined by the Housing Department. Commissioner Bonina asked if the fees, such as school fees, park fees, received on a condominium project were the same as the fees received for apartments? Ms. Thakur stated they were the same. Commissioner Whitaker stated along the same lines, a key issue on multi family housing dealt with parking, and the chart showed that whether apartment or condominiums the parking would remain the same. It had been his experience, where apartments were being converted to condominiums, that there were greater parking requirements for condominiums. He asked if the City of Orange Code required the same number of parking spaces for either condominiums or apartments? Ms. Thakur stated yes. It was determined based upon the number of bedrooms within each unit. In looking at the addendum to the final Environmental Impact Report the traffic consultant stated condominiums generated less traffic. Chair Imboden asked about the amenities? Ms. Thakur stated the amenities remained the same. The amenities were listed required approval and review from the Community Development Director. Chair Imboden clarified, whether the requirement for amenities remained the same with a rental vs. a for sale product, and possibly the Zoning Code could be reviewed? Ms. Thakur stated it was her understanding that they would remain the same based on the zoning of the property. Commissioner Merino stated the traffic generation figures that had been discussed in the EIR and for purposes of the conversion were identical. On the traffic signal which was a mitigation measure on the original project he had driven by and it had not been installed, and it didn't appear that it would be installed on Orangewood, therefore, that could potentially be a problem for the EIR if it was not complied with. He clarified that on the original project there had been a signal indicated on Orangewood, which had been a mitigation measure for the apartment complex. Ms. Thakur stated she would need to look into the measure and respond to Commissioner Merino's statement. Chair Imboden opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to corne forward. Applicant, Cynthia Eppeldauer, One Spectrum Pointe Drive #225, Lake Forest, carne forward to address the Commission. Ms. Eppeldauer stated on the question of amenities, there was no change required from apartment to condominium conversions. She stated there had been an ongoing process to improve the project and thus far the residents were satisfied. They worked with a colorist and lighting consultant to make improvements. Page 16 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 17 of 20 Additional lighting had been added within corridors as well as other improvements to ensure they had a comprehensively designed project. In regard to the signal, she understood that the City of Anaheim had moved the installation of the traffic signal from Orangewood to another location. Commissioner Bonina asked if the applicant anticipated problems with the moving of the traffic signal and the egress in and out of the intersection? Ms. Eppeldauer stated she had spoken with the City of Anaheim Traffic Engineer and how the movement of the signal would affect the project. They understood that the intersection would remain the same, with vehicles still able to turn left into the complex and they had preferred to have the traffic signal, however, without it the situation would still be workable. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for further discussion. He stated he was concerned with compliance of the mitigation measures because they were dealing between two cities. There were technical issues that they needed further clarification on. Commissioner Whitaker addressed a question to the Assistant City Attorney; were the mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report those items that were required by the applicant to undertake to have the application in compliance with CEQA? If a municipal body thwarts those efforts would it still be applicable to say the EIR would be acceptable, whether there was compliance or not due to the fact that they may not be able to comply as it would be out of the applicant's control? Also noting, the Commission was not an enforcement body for the EIR, but a body to say whether the EIR had the appropriate mitigation measures in order to approve the application. Mr. Sheatz stated yes, it would need to be a sufficient document and the Commission would be an enforcement body if there should be a mitigation monitoring program that was attached. He could not find any correspondence stating why the mitigation measure was eliminated. The City of Anaheim and the City of Orange had to ensure that the environmental concerns were met. Because a mitigation measure was in another City's jurisdiction it could not unilaterally be removed, and without some basis for rational or substitution it could not occur and he was unable to find the documentation for the change. Chair Imboden reopened the public hearing. Attorney for the applicant, Ed Dygert, 19800 MacArthur Ste. 500, Irvine, carne forward to address the Commission. Mr. Dygert stated on the movement of the traffic signal it had recently arisen and he could not assure the Commission that it was a done deal. The City of Anaheim felt the move was a like for like change and would mitigate the Platinum Triangle, which was a project that was underway. One of the issues was the nature of approval that was being sought; the potential impact from the approval requested would not change anything. The traffic signal may be moved, however, with the variation there was no impact in placing a condominium project on the tract map. Page 17 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2007 18 of 20 Commissioner Merino stated if the traffic generation was less for the condominium project, than the original traffic signal would not have been required at all. Mr. Dygert stated that was not the case and the impacts would not change by placing the tract map on the project. If the City where the project was located decided that the fair share contributions should be used to move the signal to another location, there was not much the applicant could do about that decision process. He re-stated that the traffic impacts remained unchanged. Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Commission. Chair Imboden stated the project required environmental review and he was trying to find a comfort level in adopting the item and wanted clarification whether the mitigation measure would be acted on. Mr. Sheatz stated the fact was that the impacts had not been analyzed and it was unclear if they were the same. If the mitigation measure was a like for like, it should be cleaned up at the same time the addendum was being adopted. He agreed that the applicant's contribution was a fair share contribution and the placement of the signal would be at the discretion of the City of Anaheim. If it would be moved and removed as a mitigation measure, the reason would need to be clearly stated. Commissioner Steiner stated he was not clear whether the mitigation measure would occur. The attorney for the applicant stated it was not clear whether the mitigation measure was gone, and it had not been entered into the record as such. At this point the project was not complete, and as an enforcement body, the body to enforce in his judgment would take place when the lack of action was evident. He had not clearly heard that there was never going to be a traffic signal installed. Mr. Sheatz stated potentially the reason he could not locate documentation was due to the fact that it may not be a done deal. Commissioner Steiner asked if in the future the mitigation measure was not in compliance, would that not be the time when the Commission's enforcement powers would need to take place? Mr. Sheatz stated yes, correct. Chair Imboden stated his concern carne not from an enforcement point of view, but in order to approve the project brought forth he was required to accept the Environmental Impact Report. He had heard testimony that the City of Anaheim was discussing changing the signal and not according to the mitigation measures, therefore, those mitigation measures would not be met. Commissioner Steiner stated that anything that dealt with the EIRs had to be dealt with very cautiously and conservatively. It was his impression that the situation was in choate, given that he did not see the need to not move forward based on what might possibly occur on a mitigation measure. He had nothing in front of him that stated that the mitigation measure would not occur, and the fact that the measure was being discussed by another municipality would not cause the invalidity of the documents associated with the project. Page 18 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2007 19 of20 Mr. Knight stated on mitigation measures that crossed jurisdictional lines. On a measure that stated an applicant was to pay a fair share proportion in order for the City of Orange to adopt an environmental document that did not carry an overriding consideration, it would have to include a definitive commitment on the part of the other jurisdiction to install the signal as part of a capital improvement item and the applicant shall pay their fair share. Under the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the City would put a check next to the item when the fair share item was paid to the other city, and the City of Orange would monitor the action. If at any point in time the other City chose to re-Iocate the signal, the City would need to undertake a study, as the document had been previously certified to show that the signal change would be equivalent to the initial mitigation measure. This had been done in the past to verify that items were implemented. If the Commission certified the document, it would be certified and stated that the signal would be installed as planned and that would be what Staff would use in their MMP. At some point in time the City of Anaheim decided to make a change, it would require the involvement of the traffic department in ensuring what was certified on this project would be equivalent, and reach the same level of mitigation, with any proposed changes. The decision the Commission would make on the environmental document would be in accordance with the mitigation measures included in the proposal and was the lay of the land. Chair Imboden stated it clarified the issues for him. Commissioner Merino and Bonina stated they also felt clear on the issue. Ms. Thakur stated, regarding the earlier question on amenities, the project was approved with a Planned Community Zone and a specific plan was associated with that. Those standards contained in the specific plan would apply. In general there was no distinction in the difference in recreational amenities between condominiums vs. apartments. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to recommend Tentative Tract Map No. 17141 - Archstone Gateway to the City Council, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 44-07, adopting draft Ordinance 1-08 approving the amendments to the Archstone Gateway Specific Plan and the Zone Change 1215-02, upon approximately 12.37 acres and Planning Commission Resolution No. 47-07 recommending the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17141, and the amendments to the Archstone Specific Plan established by Zone Change 1215-02 and the addendum to the final Environmental Impact Report No.1707 -02 allowing a change to 532 condominium units to 532 apartment units on the 12.37 acres of land that straddles the Anaheim border. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED Page 19 of 20 Pages Planning Commission Minutes December 3,2007 20 of 20 (5) ADJOURNMENT Chair Imboden made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled session of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers on Monday, December 17, 2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:11 Page 20 of 20 Pages