BOA agenda 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

VOTE: Unanimous. 1 2 Samantha Cabe: Page 109, do I have a motion to adopt the finding on page 109, which actually went with 3 the prior sub section? 4 5 MOTION made by Barry Katz to adopt the finding on page 109. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 6 VOTE: Unanimous 7 8 Samantha Cabe: Page 110, that is one finding, there is no conflict. Do I have a motion to adopt the finding 9 set forth on page 110? 10 11 MOTION made by Barry Katz to adopt finding on page 110. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 12 VOTE: Unanimous 13 14 Samantha Cabe: Page 111, there are 2 findings set forth on this page with the second finding being in 15 conflict. And that is a finding that there is a copy of the installed foundation design including a due technical 16 sub surface soils investigation, an evaluation report and foundation recommendation for the proposed 17 wireless support structure. Just for the record, staff is indicating that this is not applicable because a 18 geotechnical evaluation was not required at the time that the original application was submitted in 1996. 19 And that there is no telecommunication facility proposed as part of this application, and we’ve heard the 20 Board’s legal counsel’s position on that. Do we have any discussion from the Board? 21 22 Barry Katz: Well, it seems like it’s not applicable because we’re really talking about a road. We’re not 23 modifying a tower, or the actual site where the tower is. And these are conditions that have changed and 24 that’s what the objection or concern is. But, it seems still not applicable in these circumstances. It could at 25 another time be really germane but not now… I think Mr. Bryan is right to raise this up but, this is a time 26 where it doesn’t seem to be germane. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: And I would note for our discussion as well that staff indicated that the evidence before us 29 in our packet does indicate compliance with current building codes and whether or not that might be 30 sufficient evidence to support a yes finding is up to the Board. So, if there’s no more discussion… I will 31 entertain a motion. 32 33 MOTION made by Barry Katz to adopt both articles on page 111 as recommended by planning staff. 34 Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 35 VOTE: Unanimous 36 37 Samantha Cabe: Moving on to page 112, this again is a finding that is in conflict. The existing cell site’s 38 latitude, longitude and power levels to which this proposed site will be a handoff candidate. The staff is 39 recommending that this is not applicable as there’s no telecommunication facility proposed as part of this 40 application. And counsel is recommending yes, staff is advised that if we do find an affirmative finding of 41 yes that support for that submission could be found at pages 205 to 240 of the supplemental information 42 that we were provided. 43 44 Barry Katz: I’m confused… I understand but this is about a handoff. That has nothing germane to this, what 45 we’re dealing with. I can see in the overall picture how that is, but I don’t see it. 46 47 Samantha Cabe: I think we’re dealing with fundamental different as to whether on a modification question 48 we’re considering the entire project again anew in a way, or if we’re just considering the parts of it that will 49 29