Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-2005 PC Minutes I CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 12, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Fasulkey, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Biddle ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The June 28, 2005 minutes were not approved due to lack of quorum. ORAL COMMUNICATION At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00am, on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 04-052 Verizon Wireless Communications Facility at St. Raymond's Church Site Development Review - Request for Site Development Review approval to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility within the existing steeple at St. Raymond's Church. The project includes six, 52-inch panel antennas to be mounted inside the existing steeple; a 16' x 16' (256 square foot) equipment enclosure with two GPS antennas mounted to the inside wall of the enclosure; an 18'-6" x 13'-8" (253 square foot) generator enclosure; and, the construction of a new trash enclosure for the church facility. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Mamie Nuccio, Associate Planner presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. He reminded the audience that the item is about land use and the denial of the request for the wireless communications antenna on the church. James Singleton, Applicant stated that process began 2 years ago. He explained that they looked at other sites within the area of the church and also other locations as well. The staff report indicated that 91 Shannon Park would serve as a potential option. He stated that the City denied it for that location. Applicant presented a letter to Staff on that subject. Chair Schaub asked Staff who denied that proposal. Ms. Ram stated she is not familiar with it being denied by the City. She explained that the letter is from a previous planner that no longer works for the City. Shannon Center at Shannon Park had to be closed due to a mold issue, which happened at that time. The Parks and Community Services Director recalls that the reason would have been because the City needs to go forward with construction at Shannon Park. It would not make sense to allow this to be put in, when everything needs to be ripped out. Something like this may be more acceptable after the new facility is constructed. Mr. Singleton stated that the park was originally the site they were interested in. He stated that they approached the City asking what type of permitting process would be required at St. Raymond's Church. Staff indicated that a Site Development Review Waiver was the specific requirement. Later it turned out that after several months and a lot of money, this was not the case. They have lost a lot of time and money and are facing a big hardship as a result of this. There is a need for this facility. He stated that they have looked at Staff's other two options, which are provided in the report and proposed it to the church, which is to rezone the property or amend the zoning ordinance. He does not want to set precedence in the City for being the company that comes in and rezones properties and does not think it is appropriate. He is asking for the Planning Commission's input. The other option was to amend the wireless communications ordinance, but this would also be setting precedence. He asked the Planning Commission to continue the item to allow them to further locate an appropriate site or rezone the property. He would like to receive a little more positive feedback from the community as well. There is a lot of opposition and concerns coming from the community. He urged the Planning Commission to continue the item. Chair Schaub asked John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney to assist. John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney stated that the resolution before the Planning Commission is for denial. If it is denied without prejudice, Verizon Wireless could come back at a later date and seek the same approval. The proposal is not currently consistent with the zoning, and another application would be required for a zone change. The reason for recommending denial is because of the permit streamlining act. There is no point in continuing the project. You could deny without prejudice so they could reapply. Cm. Wehrenberg stated the denial is for that address. They could seek another address as long as it is in the proper zone. Mr. Bakker stated, as long as the Planning Commission denied without prejudice, they could resubmit at any time for a different location. Cm. Fasulkey stated the Telecommunications Ordinance was clearly in place at the time they submitted their application. Ms. Ram stated it appears from their feasibility study that they misread the zoning for the site. Their feasibility study has the site zoned as PD, Planned Development and it is actually zoned R-l, Residential. Cm. King asked why the zoning prohibits this. 92 Jutv J:/ 2f}{J{i Mr. Bakker stated he does not know the answer to that. The ordinance was developed in 2000 before he started working with the City. These types of proposals tend to be fairly controversial and it is possible that the City made a decision to avoid that controversy. Cm. Fasulkey stated it had to do with aesthetics in a residential neighborhood. Cm. King asked what these things do. Cm. Fasulkey stated your cell phone is hooked up to their antennas. Chair Schaub stated that it is not part of the Planning Commission's discussion to debate the emissions. Mr. Bakker stated that is correct. There is a federal statute that stated the Commission is precluded from considering electromagnetic field emissions from these facilities to the extent that the facility is in compliance with FCC regulations. The Planning Commission cannot consider in their decision the environmental effects of EMS. Chair Schaub stated that this is strictly a land use issue. The denial of the request is based on the fact that it is not zoned properly. Mr. Singleton stated they just found out this information within the last month. They are working to find a solution to this matter. They did not consider withdrawing the application. They are trying to comply with zoning in every way possible. They looked at Shannon Park before and that was rejected by the City. It has now been presented to them as an option. He stated that if they would have known this two years ago, they would have moved forward at that location. He asked the Planning Commission to give this new information further consideration in light of this and give them more time to work with the owner of the church. They feel it is a great location. Cm. King asked what were the reasons they were rejected at Shannon Park. Mr. Singleton stated the offer was turned down because the City did not want to pursue it. Cm. King asked what their relationship with the property owner is. Mr. Singleton stated they would lease space from the property owner. Joan Noland, 7925 Shannon Court stated speaking for neighbor Dave O'Bando and will be reading a letter from her neighbor for the record. She indicated would not read the whole letter because it is quite lengthy. My name is Da'vid O'Bando, and my wife and I live at 7950 Shannon Court. The steepk of St. Raymond's Church is line of sight to our home and literally a stone's throwaway. When tlU! realtor first showed my wife and I t/1£ house we currently call hOn1£, it was instantly a "done deal." Wonderfully maintained landscapes, a beautiful park just down the street, a court which minimized traffic, children playing in t/1£ street, even a wondaful church right across tlU! way! Idyllic would perhaps not be strong enough a positive word to describe t/1£ communihj, and even less so the "sense" of communihj we felt then, and now. I work in a highly technical field, first at Mare Island Naval Shipyard before its realignment, and later with various Department of Defense agencies. In this way, I have come to appreciate not only tlU! real dangers of 93 " ,""- 'ic'_'¡-·n ionizing radiation, but the uncertainhj and often ambiguous nature of t/1£ safehj measures and conclusions about non-ionizing emissions. My approach to disagreements, as exists with the proposed cellular antenna within the St. Raymond's steeple, and the opposition which I find myself a part, has always been one of pragmatism. Here is my assessnænt: On t/1£ one hand, I can appreciate the technical aspects of tIre project, tIre service it renders, and what I feel is a least a moderately sincere effort to publish tIre (inconclusive) findings of t/1£ effects of non-ionizing radiation. On tIre other hand, I have significant concerns in three (3) specific areas. One, of which I am surprised to have /1£ard no discussions in regards to. 1, The transmissions and thus exposure from the proposed antenna will be continuous. Although many studies have been done regarding t/1£ effects of exposure to this hJPe of radiation, those studies have been ongoing for only t/1£ last 10 years or so, which is wholly inadequate amount of time to collect t/1£ necessanj data concerning long-term exposure. Studies I have seen have been "temporanj" or limited exposure wlren compared to tIre amount of time t/1£ residents living within proximity of t/1£ radiation source would be exposed. Although all of t/1£se studies claim that exposure is many times below t/1£ Government accepted safe levels, I consider this exposure to be cumulative with t/1£ present amount of exposure that currently exists from other sources. This places me into tIre mindset of regarding t/1£ proposed antenna as an addition to t/1£ potential overall hazard, and something to minimize, and not simply as a sole source. It is also a potential hazard that I would have no way of avoiding, save leaving t/1£ communihj and people to whom I have grown so close. The histonj of Government safehj standards is also something that I view with some suspicion, and though the record of such safety measures may fall on the side of accuracy in most cases, t/1£re are also the instances such as t/1£ /1£alth effects of smoking, Thalidomide, MTBE leeching into drinking water supplies, asbestos, and RU486. All cases w/1£re tIre governnænt safety conclusions were completely wrong. I, for one, consider t/1£ odds of such sever hazards resulting from non-ionizing radiation as remote, but new information and data is constantly being clarified, and none of t/1£ hazards which we understand now from the fornær mentioned examples was considered significant initially. There is constant verbage from studies about t/1£ effects of this hjpe of radiation such as "it is inconclusive" or "we can find no" or "statistically insignificant", and yet no studies say "completely safe" or "non- hazardous". We are dealing lrere with a situation no one fully understands and are constantly "qualified" by scientists who can always make numbers speak any way that is required, and if indeed t/1£ exposure was completely safe, why do tIre studies continue in the private and public scientific communities? If a son or daughter attended a school where t/1£re was 1/1000111 of one percent guarantee each day that tlrey would be killed, would you let tlrem attend? 2. I find it incredibly disturbing how the proposal for tIre antenna within tIre St. Raymond's Church steeple was put forward almost under a cloak of secreCl). An announcement was made I believe to t/1£ congregation members that t/1£ proposal was dead¡ w/1£n it clearly was not. I consider the Church as having t/1£ responsibilihj to be forthright about issues concerning t/1£ congregation and tIre communih). Not in all affairs of church business of course¡ but t/1£ installation of a radiation source within tIre Church itself certainly falls into t/1£ category of full disclosure and keeping tIre congregation and surrounding communihj accurately and completely informed if not DIRECTL Y involved in tIre acceptance/denial considerations. And the Third issue I take concerning this matter is one of t/1£ various moral obligations of t/1£ Church, and reprised to have lreard no mention of... Ms. Nolan concluded and stated that she presented the main points but did not feel she needed to finish reading the entire letter. 94 jury }__:_~ Z(~U) Shaun Nolan¡ 7925 Shannon Court stated they moved to Shannon Court two years ago. They were drawn to Shannon Court because of its safe street to raise their children and they also belong to St. Raymond's church. The ordinance for wireless communications is prohibited in a residential area. They feel there is a lot they don't know about being subjected to radiation, especially for their children. It took the government many years to discover the health effects of many substances such as cigarettes. Now even Teflon used for cooking pans may be harmful. They believe that the ordinance was written to protect them where they live. He asked the Commission to accept the signed petitions from concerned neighbors. There would have been more people in attendance if the church or the dioceses notified the parishioners and the members of St. Raymond's School of the meeting. He explained that they met with Verizon and their contractors to find a mutually beneficial site for the cell tower. We were informed that there is a cellular sight in Shannon Park. The ordinance encourages co-location. However¡ the cell site is still near residential houses. They suggested approaching the Labor Training area of the Westside Drive, as it is away from residential area and on a hill so the cell site would be at an optimum place. We encourage Verizon to find a way to keep our children safe while still being able to operate their business. He stated that the cross at the top of the steeple is in direct view of his daughter's room and felt it would be there to protect and bless her. It is ironic it may ultimately harm her. He thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated that it is straightforward; based on the zoning ordinance, as a Planning Commission there is no choice but to deny the application. The Applicant could reapply and request approval for Shannon Park. He recommended that the Planning Commission deny without prejudice. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that it is unfortunate that they discovered late in the game that the zoning for the site does not comply with this use. She suggested they reapply with the City and request approval for the Shannon Center. Another suggestion is to work with the community to do the fake tree route or to consider the new development at San Ramon Road and Alcosta Boulevard. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he is shocked because they targeted residential areas after knowing the code does not allow it in a residential district. Chair Schaub stated it is straightforward. He asked if the City could make it a priority if the Applicant resubmitted for an alternative location or Shannon Park. Ms. Ram stated yes. There are a lot of other businesses they can approach. Shannon Park may be problematic because the City will be tearing down the building to construct a new one. Looking at the papers the Applicant provided at tonight's hearing there is a contradiction between the letter that he sent to the City a few years ago and the diagram provided for Shannon Park. The diagram indicates they wanted to put the cell site on top of the building opposed to co-locating it. It is possible that is why it was denied. Cm. Fasulkey stated he recalls there was a discussion about putting the cell site on the building and that was time the City was discovering the mold issue in the building. On motion by Cm. Fasulkey¡ without prejudice, seconded by Cm. King, by a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Biddle absent, the Planning Commission approved 95 l.ui\ 2UUê¡ RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR AN UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT 11555 SHANNON AVENUE (ST. RAYMOND'S CHURCH) APN 941-0102-001-20 P A 04-052 NEW OR UNFINISHED - None OTHER BUSINESS Kirsti Spiva, Diablo Technology Partners gave a presentation to the Planning Commission and explained she works with different municipalities on broadband municipal projects. ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, ~é~ Planrung ommission Chairperson ATTEST: Pla;;t: 96 hit )':Z 200.\