PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 2, 2007
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:12 p.m. by Chairman Haller at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.
Present: Commissioners John Gamboa and R. Paul Scott, Vice Chairman Randall Hamerly and Chairman Richard Haller
Absent: Commissioner Bob Moore
Staff Present:John Jaquess, Community Development Director
Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner
Bruce Meikle, Associate Planner
Linda McKeough, Administrative Secretary
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Haller.
2.0 COMMUNITY INPUT
There was none.
3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR
3.1 Minutes of December 19, 2006, Regular Meeting.
On Page 3, First Paragraph / Sentence was amended to read as follows: "Motion carried on a 3 - 1 vote with Member Moore dissenting and Vice Chairman Hamerly absent."
A motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Vice Chairman Hamerly to approve the Minutes of December 19, 2006, Regular Meeting, as amended.
Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Commissioner Moore absent.
4.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 CUP-006-008 - Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facility located at 25060 Third Street. APN: 279-151-36. App.: NTCH-CA, Inc
Chairman Haller introduced the item and called for Staff's presentation.
Associate Planner Meikle gave the presentation from the Staff Report. He explained the location, the stealth design of the proposed Tower and moving it to the north, Zoning designation, San Bernardino International Airport Authority comments, hoping for co-location capability, the proposed Project will go before the DRB for consideration, the proposed wall design and landscaping the outer perimeter of said wall. Associate Planner Meikle stated the Applicant is not present in the audience, concluded his presentation and indicated Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Project.
Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Monopine design for the Cell Tower. Staff responded that was the design the Applicant chose and would be good to camouflage the four (4) proposed tiers of antennas and there are no structures of similar height in the immediate vicinity. A concern was raised by a Commissioner not wanting another "Bottle Brush look" in the City and Staff agreed. Staff added the Applicant can purchase a different Monopine tree design than want is shown on the Plan and provide a more realistic looking Monopine.
The following are comments made by the Commissioners: 1) problem of having a pine tree with a big red light on top of it; 2) there is no technical basis for the red light atop the tree in that the Airport Authority says it is nice to have; 3) this Application is similar to the East Highlands Ranch Homeowners Association's RV Park Application, and; 4) discussion for the light - deemed not to be required in that the FAA does not require it.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the proposed red light atop the Monopine. Staff responded with regards to the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA), it is due to the flight patterns and the light also may be a white light. When other Staff members contacted the SBIAA staff, they are developing their Airport Master Plan and there is now more involvement than in the past with them. Comments were made by a Commissioner to go with another type of structure and there is no sense with a tree with a light on top of it and a suggestion was made about the feasibility of a water tank. Reiterated the light is not an FAA requirement and is the request of the SBIAA and is the discretion of the Commission. Staff responded with respect to the SBIAA's
comments, a Monopine without a light atop provides a better aesthetic to the City. There is more of a recent trend with design, rather than just pole design. Staff is concerned the providers may stop submitting cellular tower design and stated that you need to choose your battle(s). There may be a liability issue and trying to make a better (Monopine) tree; there is a need to provide entitlements and Staff is unsure if the Applicant is willing. The Commission responded regarding setback requirements similar to the setbacks for the EHR HOA RV lot, if approved as is, the feasibility of granting seventy-five percent (75%) of the Project and concern about setting a precedent. There also needs to be a Condition of Approval (COA) if the City should need to go in and remove the Tower and would need access onto the property.
A question was then asked by a Commissioner about accessibility to the property. Staff responded there is no COA proposed, but need to have legal access from the street. Staff added the Applicant is providing private access and the Commission could add an additional COA. Easements and proof of easements were also discussed. Staff responded that was part of the negotiations of the property owner, but can also add an additional COA and have the City included as needing access to the Site.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Planning COA No. 25 in reference to the block wall and adding additional verbiage, "or as approved by the DRB". Concerns were made by Commissioners regarding requiring a solid wall and Staff stated it is willing to accept to not have a solid wall. The Commission requested Planning COA No. 25 be modified.
Further discussion ensued regarding Planning COA Nos. 26 and 31.
Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any further questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then opened the Public Hearing and since the Applicant was not present, he then asked if anyone would like to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairman Haller closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed Project being co-locatable for other providers, and the Applicant will be constructing the Project all at one time and not in phases; the height of the proposed Tower; the status of the cellular tower project to be located in the Albertson's / Longs Shopping Center (Highland Village Plaza) in that there is currently a dead tree hanging over the fence and is having a hard time looking at pine tree(s) as a cell tower; the Albertson's cell tower is not built yet which is supposed to be located behind Albertson's and is also leery of looking at the one by the Freeway in the City of San Bernardino.
Another comment was made by a Commissioner the EHR HOA RV lot cell tower looks the best because of "bending the branches". Staff added there is a cell tower located near the University of Redlands next to the stadium which is a Monopine design and looks good. The Commission stated how the City has "tightened up" the COAs. Staff responded the Applicant is not present and asked if the Commission wants the Applicant to submit stealthing concepts to the Commission and continue the Public Hearing and indicated the Commission is "not stuck" with this particular design. There was a response by a Commissioner that is comfortable with a tree, as long as it looks like a tree. Another response by a Commissioner all for safety, but if there is no basis for it (the light), then not require it. Staff explained about the City's Title 16 Land Use and the submitted entitlement, applicability, revocation of permits, there is language in the entitlement to enter the property.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Title 16, COAs, the City's right for property access and the feasibility of revoking the CUP due to abandonment, etc., and surety bonding. The access is exclusive and a COA could be added and also added on the Plans and is on the entitlement.
Further discussion ensued regarding accessibility, to rights of easements and different property owners. A comment was made by a Commissioner to leave it open for the City Attorney for the added verbiage. Staff reiterated to add the COA (No. 31) and forward to the City Attorney for proper wording and that Building and Safety, and Engineering also has to go out to the property for inspections, etc. Staff suggested to add COA No. 31; keep COA No. 3 and add all applicable Sections of the City's Municipal Code and stated that will become a standard COA from now on.
There being no further questions of Staff, or comments, testimony or discussion amongst the Commissioners, Chairman Haller then stated he would entertain a Motion.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Chairman Haller to adopt a Resolution:
Planning Conditions of Approval:
3. * The proposed project shall comply with all applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 16.45 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities.
a. The Project shall also comply with all applicable sections of Title 16, Land Use and Development of the City's Municipal Code.
25. * The Applicant shall enclose all ground mounted Facilities within a six (6) foot high
solid wall enclosure and a shed(s). Prior to the submittal of any application for grading and
building permits, the design of the screening material shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review.
Obstruction lights shall be installed in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K.
31. * The City shall be provided with an access easement over the proposed twelve (12) foot wide private access easement across Parcels 0279-151-36 and 0279-151-23.
Motion carried on a 3 - 1 vote with Commissioner Gamboa dissenting and Commissioner Moore absent.
Chairman Haller indicated the Commission's action can be appealed within ten (10) calendar days to City Council. He then thanked the audience for their patience.
There were no items.
There were none.
There being no further business Chairman Haller declared the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
Linda McKeough, Rich Haller, Chairman
Administrative Secretary Planning Commission
City of Highland