Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090204 DH Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING September 2, 2004 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Director's Hearing was called to order on Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 1 :30 PM, in the Community Development Conference Room, located at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Principal Planner Don Hazen presiding. Also present were Senior Planner Emery Papp and Minute Clerk Kathy Simpkins. Item No.1: Plannina Application No. PA04-0264 A request for a one vear Extension of Time of an approved MCUP PA01-0019. To install 3 sector panel antennas on an existina Sprint Monopine structure and installation of related equipment. Principal Planner Don Hazen called the meeting to order at 1 :35 PM. Senior Planner Emery Papp presented an overview and staff recommendations of this project. The item was originally approved at the May 2, 2002 Director's Hearing (PA01-0019). The applicant did not obtain building permits within the two year period of time established by the Conditional Use Permit. Applicant did apply for a one year Extension of Time per Development Code requirements prior to expiration of the MCUP. The existing Monopine is 65 feet tall, located at 31008 Rancho California Road, within the Rancho California Water District tank site in the Chardonnay Hills development. Zoning for the site is Public/Institutional therefore this is a conditionally permitted use. The existing arrays at the top of the tree are about 60 feet high. The proposed arrays will be 12 feet below that and the center will be at 42 feet. The existing arrays protrude several feet from the trunk of the existing Monopine. The proposed 3 array antennas will be trunk mounted. At the May 2, 2002 Director's Hearing the project was approved because it met the intent of the Antenna Ordinance. The applicant does not propose any changes to the previous approval therefore, staff recommends making the findings to support an Extension of Time for this Minor Conditional Use Permit. Staff also finds that this is exempt from CEOA review because of previous environmental work. (Categorical Exemption) Principal Planner Don Hazen opened the Public Hearing at 1 :40 PM. Applicant Michael Collier from Delta Groups Engineering Inc. a consultant for Verizon Wireless. Verizon feels this is the best design for the environment. Verizon plans to put antennas up against the existing Monopine trunk to ensure minimal visual impact to the existing structure. They will plant several new trees and vegetation surrounding the Monopine so that in future years all views to Monopine will be blocked. Verizon feels this will enhance the site. Linda Groh of 41314 Placer Lalite, stated objections to this project due to the fact that since the time of the original apP.lication approximately 100 homes have been built within direct sight of the project. Meadows Parkway has become a thru street, carrying hundreds of cars past the site daily. Ms. Groh quoted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, stating that," this act directs communities to allow cell towers in order to provide only adequate coverage". She feels Temecula has more than adequate coverage. P,IPLANN IN GID IRHEARIMINUTES\20O4 109-02-04 minutes.doc One of her children has cerebral palsy and muscular dystrophy. She feels the increasing amount of electromagnetic radiation would endanger his health. The Federal American Disabilities Act instructs communities to protect its disabled citizens from further injury. Principal Planner Hazen explained that regarding the subject of radiation, the Telecommunication Act of 1996 prevents the city from taking that into consideration. The federal government has taken away the authority of the cities to make that an issue for consideration. The federal government regulates the amount of electromagnetic radiation. We are not allowed to deny an application on the basis of health hazards. Raylene Wheeler 41322 Placer Lalite, stated objections to this project due to constant low frequency EMF/EMR emission and potential health risk. The aesthetics are unsightly and a concern as well. The height of the antennas is a concern as the antennas will be level with a neighbor's kitchen window. Roma Stromberg 40384 Windsor Road, expressed an concerns about in project and the environmental review process which was undertaken. She was informed that the original environmental review was done as a Categorical Exemption. She has been unable to determine who the lead agency was on this review and feels a Categorical Exemption is inappropriate. Ms. Romberg would like to see an Initial Study done on this project to address issues of land use compatibility and visual impacts. Michele Clemente 41306 Placer Lalite, opposes the extension of time for PA01-0019. Has the issue of triangulation been addressed? She is requesting an acoustical/emissions study be done to determine the cumulative sound level from generators, water pumps, (from the Rancho CA water district tank) etc. The issue of privacy for homeowners is also a concern. There are maintenance workers there everyday from the various agencies walking near their backyards. Ms. Clemente presented Principal Planner Hazen with a petition of 454 signatures of homeowners in opposition to this proposal. Miles Clemente 41306 Placer Lalite, is opposed to the extension of time, stating that he felt it would decrease the value of his home due to the compromise of landscape and safety issues. Mr. Clemente asks that all antennae be placed at least 1,000 feet from residences. It is his request to see a Cumulative Emission Study done as the site already has two generators. Mr. Clemente further feels that the tower would be visual blight as motorists make their way out to the wine country. Marta Aguile 41258 Placer Lalite, agrees and supports her neighbors in opposition to the project. She lives directly below second antenna, she has noticed personnel walking around her property continually. She feels this is a safety concern for her children. Richard Beattie 41290 Placer Lalite, expressed his concerns regarding the visual impact of the project. He feels it is a detriment to his property. In addition to the tower itself, Mr. Beattie stated there is barbed wire encompassing the property. Mr. Beattie asked who is responsible for disclaimers when buying property. He had no previous knowledge of this project. He is opposed to this project. Michele Clemente, has the city determined how many cell sites they will allow in the city? P,IPLANN IN GID IRHEARIM INUTES\20O4 109-02 -04 minutes .doc " Roma Stromberg, CEOA states that the city must disclose potential environmental effects such as aesthetics, land use impacts, and must notify residents of public review period. Because this project was a Categorical Exemption, they did not have to notify public of cell towers. Principal Planner Hazen summarized the issue of disclosure. He explained that sellers of property are respo¡¡¡sible for disclosing to the buyer any known activity in the area that could effect their property values, views, aesthetics, or health. Seller goes off information they have available. If there are projects pending in the city he would not necessarily have access to that knowledge. As applications come into the city we are legally obligated to notify property owners within 600 feet of site if a public hearing is required. Michael Collier, due to the increasing population additional cell sites are necessary for future usage of cell phones and for better quality of service. This site was determined to be the best available in the City for this project. Mr. Collier acknowledged that we are not to take into account environmental emission effects. However, there are more current studies available than the studies cited at this hearing. His company would be happy to do an EMF emission study, as well as a cumulative study for this site if necessary. This is a co-location on the existing facility, applicant is trying to work with the City to co-locate on an existing facility. This design should make things better for residents. Verizon is proposing to add several trees to eventually cover the view of these towers. Verizon is not proposing any new generators on this property, and will be using existing back-up power currently used at the site. According to Mr. Collier, the proposal by Verizon would greatly improve the site visually. Principal Planner Hazen closed the public hearing at 2:43 PM. Principal Planner Hazen stated that the city has the authority to regulate the design, location, and height of telecommunication devices as long as we don't prevent the utility carriers from conducting their bùsiness. Applicants are required to submit justification to demonstrate that they have gone through the required steps in justifying the site. Principal Planner Hazen stated that Categorical Exemptjon is basically a finding by the city that this project does not have any potential environmental impacts on the City so no environmental review is necessary. Principal Planner Hazen expressed his concern regarding the aesthetics of this project. He stated that if the project was coming before the Planning Commission today it would not have met our minimum design requirements. Is there anything we can do to retrofit this tree to bring it up to current standards ,from a design standpoint? To adopt a Categorical Exemption is basically saying there are no visual impacts associated with this. With the absence of any past history we can not make this statement. Principal Planner Hazen therefore, indicated he would not take any action on this project at this time, and will be referring this up to the Planning Commission with the request from staff to do a detailed environmental analysis. It may mean a new Environmental Study, he will refer to the city attorney. Principal Planner Hazen requested Mr. Collier to provide detailed structural calculations from an engineering standpoint so we may understand our design options. The neighborhood has evolved since the original application in 1999 and the residents are entitled to a public hearing process with the full Commission to determine visual compatibility and design. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 3:12 PM. p, IPLANN IN GID IRHEAR 1M lNUTES\20O41O9-02-O4 minutes.doc