Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/08/13~~ • ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPERSON: JAMES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TONY AI~NC~~f~~RAUL B~'STWIC,K, STEPHEN BRISTOL, GA~L ~"A°S7MAN~iOhIN~~OS~ ~~° ~ COMMISSIONERS ABSEN7 P~1°i,~I~OYdST~IJN ~ ~ . ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ .., ~ ~ ;~~~ . ~ ~~~ , s~E ~~~:~'~ ~ = ~~ ~ ., ~~ ~, STAFF PRESENT: , ` ~ ~ x~ », .~ xnn ~ 3 Selma Mann, Assistant Cit. Attorne ~~ }+` ~ y"~ `~ °~" Alfred Yal"da~ Prii~cipal~Tr~n~sp~`ortation Planner Mary McCloskey, Deput~ ~?lanrxingfpire~t~t~' Melanie Adarris; Assq~~i~te En+~ir~~er Greg Hastings, Zoning~U~vis~ot~ M;an~~`er~ Judy Dadant, Seniar Planner Greg McCafferty, Prin~ipal Pl~nri"er~ ~~ Ossie Edmundson, PC~~~~,Su~pQ~ ~upervisor ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ , ~ Elly Fernandes, Ser~io~ Secr`etary ~ ~~ ~ Pat Chatici[er Senior Secret~i~r a ~--. : f ~ - , ~ f ~a~: ~ ~ ,._ .W~ , ya ~ g FSY.~k : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-. ~ ~~' ~ I :;i ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ° .. .: ~""': *4' ~ ~'.y~"` F ~ '',,., ~ Y ~ AGENDA POSTING~~ ~4~m`p~~te cop~,c~f t„~~e~P~t~nr~.tng~Gommjss-an Ag~nd~a~-as~p~osted a~ 11:00 A.M. on t~ Friday, August 10, 2(~Q.1, insi~i~ tF~e~di~p ~~~„i,~case located~~~the fay~r of the Coutl~il Charnkiers, and also in the ~ ~ outside display kiosk ~ E~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~,~~ ~ ~~, : ~~~~~ ~~,~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ € E ~ ~~ ~ s F v , M_~ ~ f? . a~E ~ .., _ sor h rrF ~` ~ >a~',w'~ PUBLISHED: Anahe~~Buflefirt~Newsp~~er~~o~~rscf~y~uly 19, ~00't~ , , ,. ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ : ,~ ' ~ ~~-h~~ ~ a% f =~ ~,~ _ CALL TO ORDER~,--., °' ° ~ ~ ~~~ ,, ~~ , ~ ~ ~ r~ _. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' PLANNING CON~VII°SSI~~°11~tC113~NING SE~SS~~dN~1~b~~- M. ^ STAFF UPDATE T~O C~L'~IVII1~l~~S~Q,~I ~~ ~RIOU~S CI'f1~,'~" DEVELOPMENTS AN~SUES {AS~RE ~1ES~E~F~I' ~ PLANNING COMMISSIO ~~~,,,,,_.,~,,~, ,.. .~:; • PREUMINARY PLAN REVIEW RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bristol PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:IDOCS\CLERiCAL\MINUTESWC081301.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 08-13-01 Page 1 • ~ ~J • AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-D in the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A, 1-C and 1-D) as recommended by staff. CONSENT CALENDAR WAS UNANIMOtJS~Y APPROVED. Consent Calendar Item 1-B was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-10 (TRACKING NO. RCL. 2001-00057), ~ Terminated CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 4096 AND 3423 (TttACKING No. cuP 2oo~-oaao2) AND TENTATIVE PARCEl. MAP NO. 98-234 (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner (TR~4CK~wG No. su6 200~-000~1) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: D.R. Boydstun was absent) Horton, Attn: Cherry Thompson, 119 North Maple Street, Suite A, Corona, CA 92880-1794, requests termination of Reclassification No. 98-99-10, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 4096 and 3423, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-234. Property is located at 8200 East La Palma Avenue. TERMlNATION RESOLUTlON NO. PC2001-108 SR8044AN.DOC 08-13-01 Page 2 ~ • • AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES B. a) DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001- 00007: County of Orange, Social Services Agency, 888 North Main Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3518, requests to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the lease of office space for the County of Orange - Social Services Agency. Property is located at 50 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 90. ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County of Orange, Social Services Agency's proposal to enter into a 5-year lease to add an additional 673 square feet of office space to their existing 8,675 square foot facility located at 50 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 90, for the program known as CaIWORKs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids) is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Approved Determined to be in conformance (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun was absent) SR8059JW.DOC Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director, introduced Item 1-B as a general plan conformity request from the Orange County Social Service Agency. It is a request for the City to find general plan conformity for a 5-year lease to add an additional 673 square feet of office space to an existing 8,675 square foot facility at 50 South Anaheim Blvd., Suite 90 in the City of Anaheim. Ms. McCloskey stated both Planning staff and Community Development staff has looked at the proposal and is recommending that the Planning Commission find the proposal is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Commissioner Arnold expfained that the reason he wanted to pull Item 1-B is to clarify that the basis for determining that the County's lease is in conformance with the general plan is the use and not the parking impacts nor the number of employees, etc. He feels this information is very useful in terms of looking at CEQA impacts, which the county is subject to, and also to get some sense of the general nature of the project. Therefore, for the record, it is important to clarify that Commission is not applying parking standards to general plan conformities. 08-13-01 Page 3 • . ~ AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00010: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests review and approval of a draft ordinance containing modifications to code provisions to reflect the intent of previously- approved code amendments for Fences, Walls, Hedges and Berms, Freeway-Oriented Signs, and Self-Service Laundries. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission determined that the proposed modifications to Code were to clarify previously-approved Code amendments identified in the staff report dated August 13, 2001 and does hereby recommend to the City Council the adoption of the draft ordinance attached to the said staff report. Approved Recommended adoption to Ciry Council SR8046CF.DOC 08-13-01 Page 4 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • D. Review and approving the amended Minutes of July 16, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting (previously-approved). (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the amended minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 16, 2001. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of July 30, 2001. (Motion) Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun was absent) Continued to August 27, 2009. (This item was not discussed) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun was absent) 08-13-01 Page 5 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEClARATION 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00395 2c. RECLASStFICATION NO. 2001-00054 2d. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04443 2e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 16254 AND 16255 2f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2001-00001 2g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e and 2f OWNER: Hazel I. Maag Revocable Trust, Attn: Lloyd Copenbarger, 4675 Mac Arthur Court #700, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Melvin and Marriam Schantz, John & Jo Schantz and Robert and Alice Pernell, 21 Chelsea Point, Dana Point, CA 92629 • • AGENT: JL Hare Associates, Attn: Holly Sandier, 505 N. Tustin, Suite 212, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 5801 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximate(y 24.5 acres with a frontage of 1,306 feet on the west side of Salomon Drive, located 112 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00395: Requests a general plan amendment from the General Commercial land use designation to the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 2001-00054: To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the RS-5000(SC) Zone. Variance No. 2001-04443: Waiver of (a) required frontage on a street, (b) maximum permitted fence height, (c) maximum lot coverage and open space requirements, and (d) minimum lot width, to establish a 128-unit detached single-family subdivision. Tentative Tract Map No. 16254 - To establish a 106-unit detached single- family subdivision. Tentative Tract No. 16255 - To establish a 22-unit detached single-family subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2001-00001: To remove 103 specimen trees. Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 30, 2001. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to August 27, 2001 SR1165JD.DOC 08-13-01 Page 6 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 2 as a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 2001-00395, Reclassification No. 2001-00054, Variance No. 2001-04443, Tentative Tract Map Nos. 16254, and 16255, Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2001-00001. To establish a 128-unit detached single-family subdivision for property located at 510 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, known as the Maag Ranch Properfy. Mr. McCafferty noted the following changes: • Condition No. 4 pertaining to Variance, Tentative Tract Map Nos. 16254 and 16255. That nof more than 80% of the unit shall be developed with 4 bedrooms and 5 bedrooms. And, of those units, not more than 40% of the unit shall be developed with 5 bedrooms. Information regarding the limitation of the number of permitted bedrooms for the individual lot shall be developed with 5 bedrooms. Information regarding the limitation of the number of permitted bedrooms for the individual lot shall be provided to the homeowner at the time of the sale of the home. Said information shall also be identified in the covenants conditions and restrictions CC&Rs for the association. • Added a condition to the specimen tree removal permit as well as the variance conditions to secure the planting of the trees on the Caltrans' parcel, to ensure that once those trees are planted they can not be removed by Caltrans. An agreement shall be obtained between the property owner and Caltrans, allowing the property owner to maintain and protect the trees planted within the Caltrans right-of-way on the Riverside Freeway or the trees shall be relocated on site. That said agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney for the City of Anaheim prior to issuance of a building permit. • Page 13, Condition No. 29, inserting Condition Nos. 7 and 22. • Condition No. 30, that prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 7, 23 and 28, above mentioned shalf be complied with. ~ • Page 14, Condition No. 4, delete verbiage, "prior to issuance of building permits". • Condition No. 25, on page 16, add to condition nos., inserting Condition No. 3 and delete Condition No. 8. • Page 17, Condition No. 12, delete verbiage, "prior to issuance of the building permiY'. • Page 18, Condition No. 23, add to the condition nos., inserting Condition Nos. 3 and 22, deleting Condition Nos. 16 and 17. Gary Wiggfe, with Kylestran Wiggle and Architects, 15759 Rockfield, Suite 210 lrvine, representing G&E Development, stated he was here with the majority of Kylestran Wiggle Architects consultants to basically make any presentation that Commission desires; to answer any questions; and is reserving the right to respond to comments made by the opposifion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Susan Sims, a resident at 6111 Apaloose Ave., in Hedley, California, stated that she is no longer familiar with Anaheim since she resided in Anaheim as early as 1952 to 1967. Ms. Sims stated that she is the Agricultural Advisor for the opposition, and a certified Arborist through ISA (International Society of Arborist). Two issues are at hand: the first being the age of the trees on the site as outlined in the Arborist report. It reports that the entire site was cleared in the early 1940s. However, Ms. Sims offered a photo from 1949, that showed trees in their mature state, and also Eucalyptus on site as old as nine years. This information was presented to the Commission because the issue of the trees serves as a bit of history to the citizens of the Canyon. The second issue in the report refers to the site not having trees that are moveable. Although, Ms. Sims, does not agree with moving trees for preservation because they usually do not survive, she feels there are four type of palm trees that should be able to survive movement. Two of the type were found at the site; a Canary Isfand Palm, which on a wholesale basis run $200-$400 per foot of clear trunk, and a blue variety of Hindu Palm, approximately 12 feet tall, valued at • $20,000 for the pair in today's market. Due to time constraints, she admitted to doing a very quick inspection, and possibly not discovering all trees on the property. Although, in the process of the quick 08-13-01 Page 7 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • inspection, she did see an old olive but did not have time to inspect its condition. Ms. Sims recommends if worse comes to worse, instead of having these plowed down, they should be relocated into another portion of the development, at least, as some type of a honorary memorial to the history of the site. And, she affirms that it is the age of the trees which she did not find to coincide with the report. Kevin Gillette, a resident at 170 Avenida Pina, Anaheim Hills which is the first street over from Salomon, reported that he was actually interviewed in the Anaheim Hills News about the property, but was not told it was going to be a gated community. He feels it is going to pose a big traffic problem for the neighborhood since it is already difficult to get in and out during rush hour. Therefore he proposes to put the entrance for Via Cortez instead of putting the entrance on Salomon. That would help alleviate a lot of traffic problems. Bobbie Fleury, a resident at 7878 Margaret Court, Anaheim California. Although the address is not near the project, Mr. Fleury held very strong feelings about the decimation of the rural, small-town atmosphere left in Anaheim Hills. He feels if left to developers, there will not be any "hills" in Anaheim Hills. Although the platt shows low to medium density, he contends that on 24 acres, 128 homes of the 4 and 5- bedroom style homes do not fall under low and medium density. A corner in that area, designated in red on the City map, should indicate commercial zoning, so a variance is needed. If homes are built there, the people who paid $500,000 for their homes not only will back up to 91 Fwy., but their view will be behind the motel and shopping center. Mr. Fleury feels a variance is needed, because a section on the City Map indicates commercial zoning. If homes are built there, the people who paid $500,000 for their homes not only wili back up to 91, but their view will be behind the motel and shopping center. He feels even though the cost would not come out of his housing budget, someone would have to pay. Therefore, he suggested leaving out a few homes, since they do not need the rezoning variance, and it would eliminate the necessity to haul in tons of soil to prepare for potential floods. A green belt completely down • Via Cortez would push houses back a little bit and allow the retention of the farm-stand, as he feels the farm-stand, Christmas tree lot and pumpkin patch, are very important to the community. It would allow a little room for a pocket park, since developers felt because there is no park they would pay fees in order to mitigate overcrowding in the schools. Therefore, he feels if a few homes were eliminated, and a little green space was left that would be a start in the right direction. In addition, he feels a full environmental impact report should be made, because a lot of the studies, on this particular site, date back a number of years to 1995 and 1996 including the traffic studies. So, the history of the site is not very valid with the growth that has taken place, particularly, farther out into the east hills. Greg Green a resident at 200 North Salomon, facing the Maag Ranch property, had primary concerns with the traffic on that street. He stated that there are eight homes on Salomon facing the Maag Ranch property, seven of them have children and six of them have children 10 and under. The number of homeowners he spoke with are all against the traffic access to this particular development and feel that Via Cortez is a viable access to the 128 homes. He feels that the commercial interest will both be effected and benefit because 128 new residents will profit the commercial industries. So the commercial industries should experience the major impact of the traffic just as much as the 8 families on Salomon. Regarding the 11-foot green belt and wall, Mr. Green stated that in a two-story home, his bedroom is going to be a lot higher than a 9 or 11 foot wall. So from his bedroom he would be looking down into the backyards of the homes. Therefore, as a viable alternative, he suggests that the new homes should face his home on Salomon. The last issue has to do with the mitigated negative declaration not being available for public comments 20 days prior to the approval. It was available to the citizens on Friday prior to the Monday meeting. Ms. Stefanie Perry, representing the concerned citizens of the Canyon, expressed regret for board members who could not attend the meeting due to the necessity of earning a living. Ms. Perry stated that • their organization received several letters and e-mails in opposition to the project, but they were not ready to submit them for public record. Instead, she stated that they would provide them to the City Clerk at a 08-13-01 Page 8 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ later date, so that they can be included in the public hearing to be held by the Anaheim City Council. Ms. Perry requested a continuance on the project for several reasons: The first being they felt a mitigated declaration shows some serious mistakes on behalf of the City staff and of the developers own consultants. She feels while the errors may not have a major impact on the project itself, the residents of Anaheim have a right to receive and review accurate information prior to voicing their opinions on the project. An example of such flaws is in the chain of succession of the property. While the mitigated negative declaration states that the property was purchased by Hazel. In 9932, Federa! and County records show that the land was deeded to the Maag's in 1923. The Declaration also states that cattle never grazed on the land, but there are many photos and eye-witness accounts to attest to the contrary. While these issues may have no bearing on the project, it does show a lack of knowledge on behalf of the City. So, she asked, if there are such obvious errors in just skimming the report, are there major flaws that will indeed directly impact the mitigated negative declaration? Since the residents only had 72 hours to review the document, they are requesting more time. They feel they have a right to a full and accurate disclosure on any project that directly effects their quality of life. Another reason for requesting a continuance, is that several of the reports in the declaration are based on the findings of several studies done in 1996 and those studies are based on a two-thirds commercial project, with only one-third being residential. The line of thinking is that the environmental effect should be considerably less for a 100% residential project, but again the citizens are entitled to an accurate reporting of the facts as they are today in 2001. In a report prepared in late 1999, it states it is common for pesticides and herbicides to be found in association with agricultural land, which are not likely to impact commercial development on the subject property. Although that thought is comforting, Ms. Perry asked, "where is the report that states it will not ~ effect a residential development on that same prope~ty?" In regards to the traffic study, the citizens request the traffic department compile a more accurate report. The report presented at the current meeting does not include the increase in traffic estimated to occur by the construction of fhe new home developments in Orange Hills. She feels that when Serrano connects through, there will be a drastic change in the flow of traffic in the canyon, especially since many of the children in the new homes will be attending Anaheim Hills schools. Since the current traffic was done by hand-count on Wednesday and one Friday, the citizens request that traffic-counting strips be placed across the roads in the subject area for a one-week period to get a more precise estimation of the actual car trips per day. The citizens asks Commission to consider a 30 to 60 day delay on their decision of the Maag Ranch project, because as they state, not only are the residents entitled to a complete and factual summary of the project, but so is the Commission. Therefore, she asked Commissioners how they could make an intelligent and informed decision without the facts?" Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Wiggle responded by stating that in terms of the density, the zoning code allows a maximum of 147 units on this property, and this proposal is for 128. So, it already is below the allowable density. In addition to that, houses facing Salomon as a viable alternative were studied. However, there is a large storm drain that parallels Salomon which takes most of the water from the upper half of the valley down underneath the freeway that is in a 12 foot easement just behind the curb on Salomon. It was found in the studies that that pipe is about 3 to 4 feet below grade in certain areas, therefore, it was deemed to be inappropriate to have something that size in front yard of the residents. As a result, the decision was made to reverse the houses and face them into the new development. Regarding the trees, his company, Kylestran, Wiggle and Architects, completed a study regarding the age of the trees, and also, the report shows that the size of the trees at the green belt are larger than 5-gallon trees. He contends that the • community is not being proposed as a gated community, rather it is private streets. 08-13-01 Page 9 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Marty Hanigan, of the GME Devefopment, responded to the tree issue. She stated that they have done everything that they could to mitigate per the city ordinance. In fact, they are replacing trees at a 4 to 1 ratio on that site. The specimen tree ordinance does not have any requirement of what the age of the trees are or what value they are, other than they need to be mitigated if the specimen tree plan permit is applied for. However, the only place that reference age in the ordinance is if the tree is old and weak, it should be removed. Ms. Hanigan stated that they have been in contact with their arborist, and the National Historic Tree Registry, and have offered them the opportunity to come out and take seeds and samplings for their regeneration program. Therefore, they feel they have done more than enough on the proposed site to accommodate the replacement of the trees. Mr. Kyle Maberry, with Lyn Scott Long and Green Span Engineers, responded to the concern of access on Via Cortez as oppose to Salomon. He feels the access on Salomon is a logical choice for several reasons: (1)A primary principle of neighborhood design is not to mix residents with retail for security issues. (2) People getting lost in the neighborhood, because if there is a cut through situation they tend to be the ones that are speeding and that offers the most safety problems. And, (3) A signal is being proposed at Satomon and Santa Ana Canyon, and that will provide relief to the access of the roadway, since Salomon has the capacity to accommodate the new traffic. Relative to occurring analysis, in consultation with staff, an updated report was submitted in May. Chairperson Vanderbilt reminded the consultants that there was a question raised by one of the opponents in regards to the accuracy of Wednesday and Friday counts and being limited to one-day counts as opposed to a full week. So, he asked them to respond in regards to that. Mr. Mayberry stated that in their profession, the requirement is to conduct one day of peak hour counts, a.m. and p.m., during a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, which is typical traffic. So, regarding the ~ sensitivity of the area, and consultation with staff, a count was performed on a Wednesday and a Friday in order to get an absolute worse case, which was Friday. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Mayberry, regarding the level of service at Salomon and Santa Canyon Road, to summarize a before and after, with project versus without project at that intersection. Mr. Mayberry stated that at Santa Ana Canyon and Salomon, if the traffic signal were there today, it would be level service "A" in the a.m. and "C" in the p.m. Since it is not currently signalized, the level of service may be somewhat worst. But, hypothetically, if the condition before the project were "A" in the a.m. and "D" in the p.m., with the project, the change would be of no significance, it would stay "A and D". John Erkstine, with Knotts and Elliott, commented on the CEQA issue. He stated that they do not think there is any procedure problem, as long as Commission takes action in approving the mitigated negative declaration immediately. He feels the CEQA guidelines are pretty clear on what occurs when the item is being passed up to the City Council, which serves as lead agency, and takes final action. He feels it is within Commissions discretion to approve the immunity today during the pendency of the review period by the public. Christopher Townsend, speaking on behalf of the applicant's team, just wanted to give feedback in response to the comments made. He stated that he met with concerned citizens of the canyon at a community meeting on July 25'h with approximately 50 to 75 people in attendance, including some of the Commissioners. He wanted to confirm that at that meeting information was distributed on how they could be reached if there were any comments or feedback. Also a detailed, multi-page response to the questions and answers that were raised was released, in addition to the verbal discussion engaged. He stated that other than phone calls that his office received from Debbie O'Neil, there was no other feedback • from anyone else from that hearing or from the written responses that was given to them. 08-13-01 Page 10 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt stated for the record, that he was one of the Commissioners in attendance at the meeting on July 25'h, he recalled that there was some agreement that if there were any issues, they should be directed to one individual, Debbie O'Neil. Mr. Townsend responded they offered for people who wanted anonymity, and they feel they have given all the responses asked of them. So, other than what was done in that exchange, they have not received any additional request for information. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the Commissioners to focus on this issue in regards to the environmental impact report, since it had the largest consequences regarding any actions of the current meeting. Commissioner Bostwick suggested that the Assistant City Attorney give her opinion pertaining to the CEQA. Issue. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that ordinarily there is a 20-day review period before a project reaches the Planning Commission. But, in this instance, there is a general plan amendment that is part of the project, which necessarily means that it is the City Council that is going to be the decision making body that makes the decision on this project. CEQA defines decision-making body as any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue. And, in this instance that is going to be the City Council. It will be up to the Planning Commission to decide to have additional time in order to consider the issues raised. Commission has the authority to approve a continuance on the project in order to consider environmental or other issues fhey feel they ~ have not adequately addressed at the current meeting. This also includes the decisions that would ordinarily be final, if made by the Planning Commission, with regard to reclassification, variance, and the tract map. Staff report is recommending Planning Commission request that City Council review those items, in effect as permitted by the Municipal Code, appealing its own decision, so that the entire matter will go at one time to the City Council. Everything that happens at the Planning Commission when a matter is appealed to the City Council is void. It is as though the Planning Commission had not made a decision, but all of the testimony and all of the information that is presented at the hearing is then presented once again to the City Council. Currently, there is a full notice public hearing at which everyone will have an opportunity to speak. However, that meeting will be well beyond the 20 days that is required under CEQA. Commissioner Koos asked if Commission were to continue this item, how long would they need to get the 20 days in? Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, stated that the document was available for review on the afternoon of Wednesday, August 8, 2001. She informed that she personally made telephone calls to a couple of the community groups out in that area, as well as a telephone message to a gentleman who had indicated he was interested in reviewing the document. Commissioner Koos clarified that the confinuance it would need to be approximately four weeks if the 20- day period is to be met. He suggested Commission could approve everything, and not recommend to the Council to take it all as one in theory, which would thereby not allow the public the opportunity to review the negative declaration for twenty days before Commission makes the decision on everything but the reclassification and the general plan. Commissioner Arnold states what the Assistant City Attorney indicated is persuasive on the legal • requirements, but CEQA reflects the general policy of full information available to the public, for a certain amount of time. Planning Commission has been really attentive to public participation and public 08-13-01 Page 11 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • information values throughout its process. Those same values are at the heart of local government. So, it is better to have futl confidence of the public and the fairness of the process, even if it is not technically required by CEQA, than to move quickly and have people concerned that they did not have enough time to digest the information. He states that he does not think Commission is required by CEQA to wait twenty days because of the advice that has been given, although accurate, but it is just general policy matter in terms of public confidence and the City's operations that Commission give more time for people to review the item. Although, the document is not necessarily going to change, other people might have comments that they want to make to the Commission, and they may have other comments that they raise at this level that the applicant can respond to as opposed to getting blindsighted at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Bristol asked for a response regarding the one gentleman's house on Salomon, and the frontage of the single family, also if staff concurs with the drainage issues. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department, asked the applicant to clarify what his concerns were with the storm drain. Since the storm drain is contained within the public right-of-way and it is beneath the sidewalk area, she was not aware what the particular technical impact of that storm drain on the front yard could be. Mr. Greg Green responded that one of the major concerns with the storm drain issue was actually bringing the utilities in from Salomon, because it gets very shallow from the ground level and pad level to where the storm drain is actually located. He believes this location bares induced water and electrical leisures, which leaves very little area to work with as far as maintaining utilities. The other issue in trying to have continuity in that community and contain it off of Salomon, is not to have cars backing onto Salomon. This would help to contain and make the traffic stop at two separate ingresses and egresses ~ rather than having traffic backing out in conjunction with people coming in and out the two entrances. Chairperson Vanderbift asked Commissioner Bristol if that answered his question. Commissioner Bristol replied that it did not, because whether depth of dirt, depth of the easement, it is still depth. He did not know if it makes a difference, front or back. Ms. Adams, responded concerning the utilities, if the Commission is interested in having front yards on Salomon, then it would be best that the applicant demonstrate that they can not make utility connections on Salomon, rather than just making a blanket statement to the effect. Commissioner Bostwick stated the other concern was the fact that there is backing out opposing traffic. Currently one side is already backing into traffic, so another side would only add to the traffic. He feels that Planning Commission and the citizens are both aware that it is going to happen, and there will be more cars going up and down Safomon than before. He asked Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, to discuss access off of Cortez and why the City does not like that. Mr. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded that as the Traffic Engineer mentioned, Transportation agrees with the separation of commercial and residential, and also with Commissioner Bostwick regarding the driveways. The less driveways there are in any public street, the less vehicular conflict with the public. Therefore, he stated that they are happy with the way plans are designed; putting all the driveways on their own side and not accessing to the public street. Commissioner Bostwick mentioned that there was talk about wanting to connect through to the street at the end, which is Camino Monzano. • 08-13-01 Page 12 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Yalda stated that when all the housing is completed, they will study the two intersections that are going to create four ways; one a three-way and one a four-way. At that time they will take a look to see if it meets City's stop sign warrants, and then they will go ahead and put the stop signs at these two locations. But, at the present time there is not a warrant for the signs. Commissioner Bostwick asked if at the present time the City is constructing a traffic signal at Salomon and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Yalda stated the actual contract has been awarded to the contractor, and it is 30 days if they have all the equipment. So, at anytime, actual construction should be starting at the intersection. Commissioner Bostwick stated that there were no requirements for putting in the scoot traffic system, from that signal down to where the post office is located. Mr. Yalda stated that the condition is there but it is not a genera! condition. It is the mitigation measures that the scoot system will be installed. Transportation is requesting four locations to be installed. He feels installation of the scoot system will improve the traffic flow throughout the area at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial, Imperial Highway and Avenida Bernardo North, Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Cortez, and Santa Ana Canyon Road and Salomon Drive. So, there is a condition for them to install the scoot system, along with 2070 signal cabinet to improve the traffic flow within that area. Commissioner Arnold stated that he recalled the scoot mitigation was going to involve five intersections, more than four, possibly seven. • Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Yalda to explain, in simple terms, the scoot system and how it helps and improves up to 3%. Clarifying that the level of service which exist now with the project and with the scoot system is really going to be either equal to what it is today or a little bit better. So, he asked what does that actually meant for the people and how are they going to be effected by it. Mr. Yalda explained that it means if you are driving southbound at Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road, and you are trying to go eastbound and make a left turn, it will automatica!!y send the signals to the other two intersections; Via Cortez and Salomon Drive. In other words, it is going to adjust its own timing at the real time. If you have ongoing traffic, it will not be fixed timing. It is going to pick up the real time effect, and it is going to transfer data to the other signals that traffic is heavy at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial, and that the traffic is making left turns going to Via Cortez, so it will adjust the signal timing there to clear that intersection, and the next intersection on Salomon Drive. Mr. Yalda states that although, 3% may be a small number, in terms of cars, it has a lot of effect on clearing the intersections. Commissioner Bristol clarified that according to the mitigated declaration, it wiA be 120-130 plus a.m., p.m., effected by the project 2003. So, in effect, the scoot system will vastly assist the traffic. . Mr. Yalda states that it gives the opportunity to control the traffic 24 hours a day, not only during the p.m., peak hours. Commissioner Arnold stated that it is reported on page 7, of the Maag Ranch Updated Impact Analysis, from Windscott Law and Greenspan, that it will be four signal light intersections on Santa Ana Canyon and two on Imperial Highway. This would require instalfation at four signal light intersections on Santa Ana Canyon and finro signal lights intersections on Imperial Highway in order to be effective. Mr. Yalda, clarified that there will be four intersections; two on Imperial, and two on Santa Ana Canyon ~ road. 08-13-01 Page 13 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold determined that it is a total of six; four signal light intersections on Santa Ana Canyon and finro signal light intersections on Imperial Highway. Mr. Yalda suggested that maybe the consultant could address the issue more specifically because when the Transportation Department looked at the area, there were four intersections; three on Santa Ana Canyon Road and one on Imperial. However, in reality one could say five intersections, but it is really three and finro, which four intersections would really be impacted because one overlaps. Mr. Townsend stated that the four intersections on Santa Ana Canyon Road was the consideration of the signai to the west of Imperial Highway, but staff decided that it was not the proper complexion for the area. Commissioner Arnold concluded that one was determined by staff not to be necessary, and one is an overlap. Mr. Townsend stated that they are never pleased to take delays if they feel they have a good project and it has been thoroughly examined. He stated that technically and legally, they are fine on the notice issue because it is the City Council that will make the final decision. And, if they are looking at a Council date no earlier than September 11, there is going to be more than okay timing before that. However, respecting the issue of process and making sure everyone feels they had a fair chance to review it, the concern would be that a four week continuance would create an undue burden. Also, respecting the issues that have now been raised concerning the trees, they feel they have completely addressed the tree issue and answered all concerns to the satisfaction of the law, they recommend, and would be willing to accept, a two-week continuance, in addition to accepting all the other conditions and recommendations is a two-week continuance. Mr. Townsend feels that gives plenty of time for people to go through the material and make any comments or feedback, considering the large volume of letters to be reviewed. • They welcome the opportunity to see them and not be blindsided by the contents and large volume of letters that might be an apprapriate balance between keeping the process moving forward legitimately, and giving the public the opportunity to make their comment. Chairperson Vanderbilt expressed appreciation of the applicanYs offer to be agreeable to a two-week continuance, although he feels it does not satisfy the twenty-one day period that the audience and Commission are saying they will be comfortable with. Commissioners Bosfinrick and Bristol stated a two-week continuance is appropriate since there will be no effect on the document. Commissioner Koos addressed the issue of the letters to be presented to City Council by the public, stating that the Planning Commission should be awarded the same courtesy since they will also be making a decision. He feels if the City Council is going to factor the letters into their decision, Commission should probably factor it into theirs as well. Commissioner Arnold explained to the public audience that the same principal behind giving extra time for all people interested to have a chance to comment, is the idea that all of the relevant information should come through Commission as well. Mr. McCafferty asked if there is anything from the public that they want to make Commission aware of with regard of the project, that it be forwarded to Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, as soon as possible, so that it can be incorporated into the staff report. Ms. Dadant, stated preference to receiving aii material before the finalization of the staff reports which is the week before the Planning Commission hearing. • 08-13-01 Page 14 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES \ J OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition to the subject request (1 person who spoke in opposition was present representing the concerned citizens of the Canyon). ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue the subject request to the August 27, 2001, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow appropriate time for concerned citizens to be able to review necessary material pertaining to the subject request. Staff would also request that any prepared documentation/correspondence from concerned citizens be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for them to review such materiai. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 59 minutes (1:39-2:38) r ~ ~ ~ 08-13-01 Page 15 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \ J 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04400 Approved Granted for 5 years (to expire on August 13, 2006) OWNER: Sierra Vista LLC, 11812 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 510, Los Angeles, CA 90049 AGENT: Whalen and Company, Attn: Jim Marquez, 357 Van Ness Way #150, Torrance, CA 90501 LOCATION: 100 South Chaparral Court. Property is approximately 1.24 acre located at the southeast corner of Chaparral Court and Kaiser Boulevard. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-109 . • SR8048VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 3 as a Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04400. It is for property located at 100 South Chaparral Court. It is a request to permit a telecommunication antenna and accessory ground-mound equipment. Commissioner Koos requested a conflict of interest, as he possessed a business relationship with the applicant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Jim Marquez, a representative for Verizon Wireless, stated that they reviewed the staff report, and supported it, although it recommended denial. However, there were a couple of conditions in which they wished to express concern: Condition No. 1, identifies that the applicant should renew the Conditional Use Permit in a five-year increment. Verizon feels that in order to function as a public utiliry, the Conditional Use Permit remain in place; especially since it is an unmanned facility and it will not take any change in appearance or character probably over a thirty year period. So they are appealing to the Commission to change or stretch this condition to a fifteen-year period. The basis for this suggestion is that the conditions for maintenance and longevity and sustaining the character of that facility rest on Condition Nos. 7, 8, and 9. The conditions that treat the exterior character of the pole, Condition Nos. 7 and 8 refers to maintaining the grounds and the cleanliness of the property itself. Condition No. 9 refers to the flag being maintained in a clean and orderly condition. Mr. Marquez feels these are the three physical effects that Commission would be most concerned with over the term of the use of the land. Condition No. 5 requests that the flagpole be lit up in the evening since this is a utility that is focused to just provide telecommunication or wireless communication facility, and is not intended to use or consume anymore electricity than what it is designed for, they feel that the location of this site, whicn is up and far away from the freeway, is too distant for a prominence such as a lighting condition to be of any good effect for the community itself in terms of art in public places or a visual element. Mr. Marquez explained that the site is in the industrial park setting of the Scenic Corridor and its distance from other effects is too great, as the use itself is closed up at night and since there is no activity in the park in the evenings. He stated that initially it was rather difficult to find a site since being directed by their client to find a location in the hillside area to provide coverage for the freeway principally and the hillside running south of the 91 Freeway. 08-13-01 Page 16 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , However, working with staff has been a good experience in that it afforded the opportunity to find a pleasing location coupled with the complexion of the facility that is being proposed. Condition No. 4 identifies that the dish itself should be painted to match the color of the roof. But, when looking over the site photographs, just to confirm the understanding of that condition, the roof is a light-sand-colored gravel, and the building has a gray color tone effect, therefore Mr. Marquez requests that the condition be altered to read the building rather than the roof. Phil JouJon-Roche, a representative of the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Association, and also affiliation with the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, read for the record, a letter from their Chairman, Mr. Pat Pepper. The letter stated that the board of directors of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition strongly opposes Items 3 and 6, both of which propose to erect flagpoles as telecommunications towers. These locations proposed are extremely prominent rather than being disguised. The flagpoles call attention to themselves because of their height, design and location. Other options exist and should be explored. Mr. JouJon-Roche suggested the Edison easement that goes through the Canyon or other remote areas rather than the prominent areas that are being considered. He asked Commission whether those sites have been explored such as a camping ground in which the towers could be hidden rather than right in front of everybody's sight in industrial parks and along the freeways. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt being considerate of all concerns asked staff if any of the new information changed their position or if they had any responses for the specific questions asked. Mr. McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated that it did not change their recommendation because overall they are restricted by standard conditions. He explained that Condition No. 1 is a standard condition that is ~ placed on all telecommunication facilities, and the reason the time limitation is recommended is because technology changes overtime. Mr. McCafferty demonstrated that when the towers first appeared in the City, they were just steel poles; but now they have evolved to other stealth types of technologies, and could eventually be made into invisible poles or possibly no longer necessary. So the whole reason for the limitation is to keep abreast with the technological changes. Condition No. 4 depends on where you are viewing the antenna. He suggests if you are looking at it from the right-of-way, obviously, it should match the building, which is gray, and would make sense for the condition to indicate that it is the building instead of the roof, since that is primarily from where it wil! be viewed. With regard to lighting the flagpole, that is just standard flag protocol. It would be consistent with conditions placed on past flagpoles, that either the flag is taken down each night, or it must be lit up. Commissioner Bostwick addressed Mr. Marquez, stating that presently, across the street from the proposed site, a new church is being built on the property. So Commissioner Bostwick asked if Mr. Marquez talked to the members about locating panels on the building or incorporating them into a roof- mounted application that could be screened rather than putting up a flagpole? Mr. Marquez replied yes, they had contacted them. However, the church is specific with the height that their towers and their structures are going to embody. Therefore, he feels that the height Verizon requires would create an imbalance in the physical massing of the structure because they would have to be at a higher elevation than the height for which the church was designed. Commissioner Bostwick then referred to the photo simulations, which showed a fairly uniform pole with the ball on the top and a flag, but in the actual drawings submitted show a bubble on the top of the pole. He cautioned that he does not like that took, and it has to be a uniform pole or a tapered pole to make the look of a real flagpole rather than something that is an add on. u 08-13-01 Page 17 ~ ~ ~ AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Marquez informed that they were in contact with the staff planner, Ms. Norwood, and submitted a composition that references the straight pole mass. And, that is in fact, the item they understood would be approved. He suggested submitting another copy for the exhibit. Commissioner Bostwick confirmed that the actual pole would be as appeared in the photo simulation. Chairperson Vanderbilt reflected that there has been some concern about this particular style of flagpole having consistent width and length, and until recently he had not seen one that looked more like a flagpole. However, it has since been pointed out to him that there was one over by the Dollhouse location, which is close to the intersection of Lincoln and the 5 Freeway. So, given that, Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there are any conditions at this location that would allow for that kind of a pole? Mr. Marquez replied it has to do with the length of the panels and what type of spacing they need from an internal standpoint, and how they mount. They are trying to do something from an urban design standpoint to make it more fitting to the setting. He admitted that it cannot be perfect, but in the long run, he feels that it is good. Commissioner Bostwick contended that is why a 5-year period is suggested because obviously technology is changing, and hopefully they can do something different to make it look better in 5 years. Mr. McCafferty suggested when the plans are submitted for building permit, they actually reflect what the photo simulation shows in terms of uniform diameters of the flag as well as the ball on the top. Commissioner Bristol questioned why is it Verizon cannot do something else, such as stealth, so an antenna cannot be seen in this area? Mr. Marquez answered that it is interesting, because initially fhey had proposed to put the antenna behind the roof-top screening like a penthouse. But, since these buildings are poured in place concrete with large span roofs, they can not tolerate the wind load for the attachment of the enclosures on the roofs, thereby, limiting their options. That is the character of most of the buildings there. They were never designed to take additional loading on top of the building. It is just an architectural fact. However, they proposed a tree ensemble with some Pinenous Canary Acid trees and the setting of trees surrounding it, but staff felt the flagpole was more fitting to the character of the industrial park neighborhood, and they feel very comfortable with the results. Commissioner Bristol asked staff if it is true, that the City is going to flagpoles now, versus trees. Mr. McCafferty, stated staff's recommendations have been consistent on the flagpoles based on the lesson learned from the Center Street flagpole, which did not turn out in an appealing manner. But staff still believes there are opportunities in this area. Commission has seen those that have been integrated into the architecture and we have seen those administratively. There are several buildings, and there are multi-storing areas that might achieve the objective of this integration. The ground-mound equipment can be put on the ground, and the heaviest part of the installation can be put on the ground, moving the antennas on top with the cable run. Commissioner Arnold verified with staff if they believed it is possible to make this work on some of these roof- tops. Mr. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, pointed out that it is actually occurring at the corner of Santa Ana Canyon and Lakeview, northeast to the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon and Weir Canyon. There are two roof-mounted facilities there. Greg McCaffety is correct, the actual equipment is on the ground, buf fhe antennas are up on the roof. In that case, they integrated it into a modification of the parapet and 08-13-01 Page 18 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • it is very difficult to see. The reason that proposal came before the Planning Commission was simply because in the same corridor, roof-mounted equipment, regardless to what it is, requires a conditional use permit, even if it is stealth, So, it has been done. Mr. Marquez made one other comment that he believed to be germane to the issue at hand. The pole as illustrated, is approximately 50 feet high, the building is 25 feet high. So, when considering excessive loading onto the roof trusses and rafters, one must consider holding back the wind load of a 25-foot high panel, that is the engineering behind it that becomes the complexity. If the distance above the roof were lower or not as extreme, Verizon would, by all means, be coming in with a different kind of composition. Mr. Marquez believes the real aim of this facility is to provide the neighborhoods with coverage. So when he mentioned they would be providing coverage to the freeway and up the hill to the canyon, in all actuality it would be helping out the coverage that exists along the freeway, which is a little bit of extra coverage. He asserts that people use their phones at home, etc., and it is very important work for Verizon to provide coverage to the neighborhoods of the City. That is why this height is very important. However, as the level of the building is approached, they can not reach up the hill, which is a design problem. Commissioner Arnold questioned the exhibit where there is a view looking northwest with a building that is significantly taller than the ones that are exhibited in the previous pictures. Mr. Marquez replied that they were not approachable. He referred to Mr. Matkins, from his office, and asked him to talk about their discussions with the property owner. Mr. Andreas Matkins, with Wailing Company, stated that for the past 18 months they actually approached ~ a large number of landlords along the area but they did not want to do a deal at this time with a telecommunications company. He expressed that right now, the hold for Verizon Wireless coverage is that one cannot get any service when traveling up and down We+r Canyon. So for 18 months Wailing Company has been looking at different buildings trying to come up with a design or trying to provide the best coverage possible for Verizon Wireless. Initially a City owned park on top of the hill was of interest, but that did not work for either the City nor Wailing Company. In the past, Wailing had to terminate leases because they just could not get a good design that would work for the RF (ray of fegucial) needs as well as from a landlord's perspective. In addition they looked at the proposed building and the building right across the street, and approached up to 5 different landlords. So they feel they have exhausted their options and concluded the proposed building is the building that is workable, and a good design. He mentioned that they put a flagpole design in the right location of the property. Commissioner Bostwick asked how far could they go in the search ring area. He stated that the reason for his thinking of this is that, northeast of this location, on the other side of the freeway and the river, there are Edison towers and next to it, there is a cell site on a metro water district, water weir that sticks up on one of their big conduits. Therefore, he believes the Edison towers would facilitate a cell site without adjoining any part of the community. Mr. Matkins responded that they like to work with towers because that seems to work quite well for them and they feel that is a good integration of their use onto a SCE fower. The unfortunate part is SCE towers are too far away from the center of the ring right now, since the center of the ring is pretty much up the hill on Weir Canyon it is approximately a mile away from the center of the ring. Going to a SCE tower would make it even farther away from thaf ring, that will not provide the coverage they are seeking. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked a question in regards to the statement Mr. Marquez made with the need to service the neighborhoods as the basic intent of the search ring. When talking about the other locations, ~ he asked if any of those would become better prospects if the need to service the neighborhoods were removed. He explained that the reason why he asked is because he feels it might be less to service 08-13-01 Page 19 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • neighborhoods where most folk have telephones and hard lines, rather than those on the freeway or in business areas. Mr. Marquez explained that when Verizon was licensed, and when Air Touch initially received their license to provide coverage, they were given a license by the Federal Communication Commission. This permitted them to turn the switch on providing a business opportunity to selling phones where people can talk wireless, with only a 35% antenna coverage. Mr. Marquez feels they are in the throws now of meeting the balance of that 35% coverage; he feels they are close to meeting the 35% coverage. So, whether it happens today or in the future, Verizon is going to want to provide additional coverage. It is their responsibility as a radio license holder with the FCC. They made a promise that they would increase their coverage to the population. Getting back to Commissioner Bostwick's concern, "Why do you have to have the locations where you have them, and can you put them on features that are already vertical real estate," Mr. Matkins stated they try; however, Verizon has a master lease agreement with Southern California Edison, and if there ever is a facility in the proximity of that search ring, they go to them, and thus the business transaction for obtaining a lease site is answered. Verizon then works with the community to provide a facility that seems to be good, there are significant reasons. They usually rest with the radio transmission coverage that is the objectives of the RF Engineer, to provide the widest range of coverage for the people. Weir Canyon is a highly traveled canyon, and calls will be lost. But, with Verizon this problem will be eliminated. Commissioner Arnold followed-up on a question for staff regarding the question that Commissioner Bristol raised, in that it seems there are certain staff goals with respect to these type facilities. Additionally, he has the sense that there is some concern about tress, monopalms, monopines, etc., having an artificial look, or they're out of scale for the landscaping of the area. He added he is curious if staff has ever seen any of them work. And, when looking at the building and the concerns the applicant mentioned with the ~ owner of the building, and looking at the row of fairly tall palm trees, he wondered if staff is ever immuneable to, for example, a monopalm or that kind of context. Mr. Hastings, answered that staff's experience with the monopalm so far, even "good ones", is that they are easily discernable. If there were something tucked away somewhere, staff probably would feel a little bit better about it. But being in such an obvious location where there is a lot of drive-by tra~c, especially in the Scenic Corridor where there are a lot of views that people have throughout the area, he stated that staff has looked at the monopalms and monopines but have not found one yet that has been stealth enough to really look like it is something staff would like to see as part of the landscape and as part of the environment. Commissioner Arnold asked what percentage of flagpoles has staff seen that look natural or appropriate for the context? Mr. Hastings answered that there is only one, so far, that has been built in Anaheim, and that apparently had a different technology which did not require the antennas to be out as far. Whereas the proposed one has a 2-foot 6 inch diameter, that is a 30-inch wide flagpole, and typically it may be 12 inches. So, that is where staff's concern is. Mr. McCafferty added that it is also the same concern with regards to the monopalms. There has to be a clear line-of-sight for them. So when planting them, other trees would be much lower around it to make it look like it is in context with the planter, but the monopalm for line-of-sight is above all the other trees, which makes it stand out. Commissioner Arnold clarified that for example, Commission generally would not see an applicant coming • in with just adding another palm on the end of the row of them, because of the line-of-sight issues. 08-13-01 Page 20 ~ ~ Mr. Hastings concurred with the clarification and stated that also if they could keep the other palms from continuing to grow because eventually they would be higher than the monopalm, and it would cause problems. Mr. Hastings noted that The Festival Shopping Center located in that same area has a lot of architectural detail to it. In fact, the part up by the Wood Ranch area has clear view exits and a big sign that is viewable from the freeway. So there are opportunities there; and also there is Weir Canyon and Serrano Shopping Center, which in terms of height is much higher, because as you go south on Weir Canyon Road, you get a bit of height. So there are opportunities out there, and staff realizes that sometimes there might not be cooperation between the property owner and the provider. Commissioner Bristol stated that Commission is forced with an issue where the applicant says, "hey, I can not put it anywhere," and the City is not crazy about a flagpole, they do not like the monopalm trees anymore, so what do you do? Either there is going to be service or there will not be service, So is Commission going to have it restricted for five years, or what? He illustrated that staff might say, " hey let us wait and take another shot at some buildings or wait until you get a nice thin flagpole, or you go back and look for some more property and keep looking." Commissioner Arnold wondered if part of that trade off is simply the possibility of the applicant getting caught in between Planning Commission and property owners elsewhere, which could pose a problem. But the other side of that may be if Commission readily approves proposals there is less of an incentive for the technology to develop to impose lesser impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04400 for 5 years (to expire on August 13, 2006), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 13, 2001 with the following addition to the conditions of approval: Added the following condition: 15. That the final plans submitted to the Building Division shall reflect the flagpole as designed in the photo simulation (i.e., the flagpole shall have a uniform width) that was presented at the Planning Commission of August 13, 2001. . AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Arnold voted no; Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Boydstun was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 36 minutes (2:39-3:15) 08-13-01 Page 21 • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04401 OWNER: Southern Califomia Edison, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92692 LOCATION: 1653 South Walnut Street. Property is approximately 2.5 acres located on the southwest corner of Walnut Street and Audre Drive. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTtON NO. PC2001-11Q Approved Granted for 5 years (to expire on August 13, 2006} SR8056KB.DOC Mr. McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for Conditional Use permit No. 2001-04401 to permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground mounded equipment at 1653 South Walnut. Applicant's Statement: • Mr. Paul Kim, with the consultant group at 18500 Von Karmen Avenue, Irvine, California, 92612. Thanked the Commission for, at the very least, being open to discussion about this particular industry and the technology that is involved and the need for it as well. He stated that The Country Suite Hotel, is a stealth design on behalf of Cingular. Mr. Kim explained that they just mounted antennas, built an additional dormer on front and back of the roof, and added two additional chimneys as weil. Ne stated that there is an interesting story behind this particular design because when they first designed it they actually proposed two dormers where the two chimneys are located, but when they submitted it to City, City actually suggested they change it to chimneys. However the architect in charge, was very irate about the design and the suggestion of dormers and so forth. He felt that particular location was suitable for dormers because the height of the dormers were lower than the actual chimney. Mr. Kim suggested that this story demonstrates that Cingular and the consultant group, actually go out of their way to work with the City in providing stealth designs. Ne feels it demonstrates the+r ability to find suitable locations and really present a design that is not only compatible with the technical requirements of their industry, but one that the City enjoys. However, there are times when these things do not converge. Often times you will find technical requirements do not meet with requirements for landlords, etc. Hopefully, this SCE tower falls into line with the idea. Mr. Kim hoped the City is more conducive. He added that they have a situation where the SCE facility is located in the search ring, a willing landlord who is SCE, and they have a situation where they believe this particular design integrates well with the towers; there is a lot of vertical, horizontal elements. So they feel that the placement of these antennas in mounting flush, would help to mitigate some of the visual impacts and would not enhance what is already there. Mr. Kim believes the merits of the projects speak for themselves. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Kim to refer to paragraph no. 14, of the staff report where it mentions, in ~ bold, that the property owner has allowed the antennas of the previous Sprint facility to be installed AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08-13-01 Page 22 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • without complying with afl condifions of approval. Therefore, Mr. Koos stated that generaily the Commission likes to have approvals on properties that are already following all of the rules. He asked, Mr. Kim if they have contacted Sprint. Mr. Kim answered that they had not talked with Sprint, but had talked with SCE to hopefully get them to push forward with it. He stated that unfortunately, that is a situation where they would like for them to adhere to all of the conditions, because although they are a different carrier, Cingular feels that what other carriers do is a reflection on this industry as a whole. Commissioner Koos contended that it is irrelevant who the facility is, even if owned by the same carriers. He states, the Commission is looking at the underlying property owner as the primary applicant. So as a whole the owner is not following the conditional of approval of a CUP. Mr. Kim appealed to accept a condition of sorts or anything that ties them to a certain extent. He stated he knows how strongly this issue is because without an applicant adhering to a condition of approval, it is really bordering on breaking the contract. Therefore, they would be more than willing to accept certain conditions that would somehow, within legal bounds, tie in the property owner, bringing everything on his particular property up to conformance in order for their project to be approved as well Commissioner Arnold stated that it is really not about breaking a contract, it is about breaking the law. It is a requirement of the CUP, which is imposed by the Zoning code, and so therefore, they are simply not in compliance with the land use regulations of government property. He stated the reasons for these condifions are to mitigate the impacts of exactly the same types of use that is occurring on SCE's property. Therefore, if it were a condition imposed in the other CUP, and they have not complied with it, . just putting it in another CUP, is not going to achieve compliance. To continue to multiply these types of uses and therefore multiply the impacts that the Commission is trying to mitigate without the mitigation in there is useless. It has been determined that these mitigations are necessary in order for this type of use, therefore it conflicts moving forward. The ideal remedy would be to continue the proposaf untii SCE come into compliance. Commissioner Arnold suggested that perhaps Mr. Kim could put a little pressure on Sprint, otherwise, it is a great project. Commissioner Koos confirmed that this is the same facility that Commission approved, and then Sprint came back and said they wanted that condition removed at a later date. However, Commission upheld the original condition of approval maintaining that Sprint have two years to complete the work. Commissioner Koos concluded that Sprint has a track record now since within the two years they have not completed the work, they have demonstrated that they do not want to comply with Commissions decision. Commissioner Bostwick suggested putting a requirement on the new CUP that the landscaping that was conditioned under Conditional Use Permit No. 4165, be performed before the building permit is issued for this project. Commissioner Arnold suggested if mitigation is necessary for this type of abuse of property, and Commission has reason to believe that conditions might not be complied with, then it deems necessary to require certain completions of certain mitigation conditions with all sorts of CUPS prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Koos concurred with Commissioner Arnold and added there certainly should be a certificate of occupancy or something to determine how the applicant finished the site, compare how the site on air without them complying with all the conditions of approval. ~ 08-13-01 Page 23 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, resolved that the question was asked with regard to the nexus, and under the circumstances, based on the way it was expressed, it is the same type of use, and the same type of mitigation that is being required. Therefore, there would be a nexus under these circumstances to impose the condition, particularly when the applicant themselves is saying that they do not object to such a condition. Some real efforts are needed to flag for file because apparently from what is noted in the staff report, the property owner has already allowed antennas to be installed without complefing conditions of approval. Ms. Mann, concluded fhat there need to be a certain amount of vigilance to insure that the history is not repeated. Mr. Kim stated that Cingular is in a very aggressive build out, and they want to satisfy their clients as much as possible. He appealed to Commission to put in a condition that has them do the work, instead of potentially losing the site. He assured Commission that Cingular would be more than willing to do the work that Sprint should have done. Commissioner Koos stated that it is not relevant who does the work, as long as it is legal. But it is up to Mr, Kim on how to appoint the work. Mr. Kim contended that if Cingular takes up this project, and it means approval of their site, he guarantees the passed improvements, and that the ones they are able to do, especially the landscaping on Walnut, will be done in a timely fashions. He assures it will be done at the same time Cingular does its project. Mr. Kim stated that such effort is their proof of sincerity if it means approval of their project. He appealed to the Commission to impose the condition upon them and they will revise their plans to reflect issues such as landscaping along Walnut Street when they submit their building form. ~ Mr. McCafferty asked Commissioner Bostwick to state for clarification whether he intended to have these issues under the immediate condition he is proposing; to have the landscaping in before they get a building permit. Commissioner Bostwick confirmed Mr. McCafferty's clarification and verified the property owners woufd have to fulfil the conditions immediately, and then submit their plans fo get their permit. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Kim if he did not have a building underneath the tower. Mr. Kim answered that the cabinet is underneath the tower. Commissioner Bristol stated that he did not see a condition in the CUP for the cabinet, and that his argument was based on the premise that there were conditions of approval on the other tower. His thought was if Commission does exactly the same thing for this one as for the previous one, he was sure if there was not something present on the site that is not in the conditions; cabinetry and other items beneath it. Mr. McCafferty explained that there are VTS cabinets under the tower which they would be enclosing with chain links, which by themselves do not require a building permit. However, their VTS cabinets would require an electrical permit. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Kim if he used the stealth requirements to make things appear more attracfive. Mr. Kim stated that they are open to several items; block walls, wrought iron fence, chain linked with slats, corrugated metal, etc. But the only problem they had was the requirements from SCE that there not be ~ landscaping underneath their towers and around their lines for about a 25 foot diameter. SCE has very strict requirements that prohibit landscaping immediately underneath the towers simply because they do 08-13-01 Page 24 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • not want to run the risk of trees, vines, etc., climbing upon the towers. Mr. Kim assured that other than that, they could work with other items, or other features that may conceal the cabinets entirely, even if it means putting them within block walis, etc. Commissioner Bostwick reminded Commission that one of the problems with putting in a block wall is the fact that you get graffiti on it. Commissioner Bristol stated that the issue at hand is that the other identica(, or similar use does not have what they are suppose to have either. So he wondered why the property owners were unwilling to comply with fhe conditions of approvaf on the first use. Commissioner Koos stated that the landscaping has not gotten any tougher; it is that Sprint is just one of the carriers that does not like to do anything extra. Mr. McCafferty, stated that the intent of the condition on the original Conditional Use Permit is for the site- screening fence that would be seen along Walnut Street; the thought being if there were landscaping and then the slats and the chainlink, that everything else under it would not be seen. If the applicant complies with the condition of approval, then it should be taken care of from the site-screening standpoint. Mr. Kim stated that if the intent is to bring this property up to conformance, it would be similar to a project being brought before Commission, and Commission determining that the design element to a particular housing deve(opment woufd require more trees, etc. So instead of approving the project, they would just add a conditional of approval. Therefore, Mr. Kim asks, if Commission looks favorably upon this project, whether a condition be added that there must be landscaping along Walnut Street, and also create a streetscape? If so, on behalf of Cingular he would accept that condition and their plans would reflect that. . He contended that on their building plans they would actually show the streetscape and submit it to the Building Division. He feels that their antenna facility would not get built unless they complete Sprints project. He asked Commission to tie SprinYs condition into one condition of approval, and Cingular would complete the project. Commissioner Bostwick stated that his suggestion would be to add Condition No. 10, that the applicant complete the landscaping that was required under Conditional Use Permit No. 4165, approved by the Planning Commission on December 6, 1999, and add that Condition No. 7, which is prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 10 above mentioned shall be complied with. In other words, they cannot get a building permit until they have done the landscaping that was required in the previous Conditional Approval. Commissioner Arnold suggested two things. One is to also add the slats on the existing chainlink fence, and rather than reference the other CUP, take those requirements and incorporate it into the new approval. In other words, rather than the condition state, "reference the other CUP", simply take the language out of the other CUP and put it in the new CUP, because it has the same kind of impact. Commissioner Bristol stated that he understands where this logic is going, but cannot understand why this company is being penalized for another company that is not complying with the conditional use permit. He suggests Code bring that use in and insist they comply, and then if not complied with, place another condition, because this use is approximately 100 feet from Walnut, farther away from Walnut compared to the other one. Commissioner Koos concurs with Commissioner Bristol but would like to accept Commissioner Bostwick's ~ language. He suggests simply restating it, but add a Condition No. 10 that states that before they pull a building permit they need to comply with all the previous conditions of approval. 08-13-01 Page 25 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Hastings wished to clarify that if this is on the basis that there are no other feasible locations to place this type of equipment in the area. Commissioner Bristol stated that applicants have made comments that they have searched and searched all over the area and other than Disney across the way, there were no other locations available. Mr. Kim confirmed that there are mainly low residential areas in that particular search ring. The only structure with any significance is the Disneyland Resort. However, approaching them is very di~cult. Commissioner Koos expressed that Edison towers is probably more of the appropriate location for these type facilities in this entire metropolitan region. 7~] A R~~9~1 h[e~ f.'~:l•`1U 1~11-41_\:a L~l i ~:1~ J~e\-1-11- [rIK~]P~11~11 E.`~•`j [~]- Ie~N 1[~7- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04401 for 5 years (to expire on August 13, 2006), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 13, 2001 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: Added the following new condition, as Condition No. 6: 6. That the landscaping and screening with polyvinyl slats on the existing chain link fence along Walnut Street must be completed as was originally required under Conditional Use Permit No. 4165 which was approved on December 6, 1999 prior ~ to issuance of a building permit. Amended the remaining conditions of approval to read as follows: 7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with pfans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and as conditioned herein. 8. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 9. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 10. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicabfe ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner 8oydstun was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (3:16-3:43) 08-13-01 Page 26 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04404 Continued to September 10, 2001 OWNER: Synod of Southern California, 1501 Wiishire Boulevard, Los Angeles, Ca 90017-2205 AGEN7: The Consulting Group, Attn: Dayna Aguirre, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 2580 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Orange and Magnolia Avenues (St. Pauls Presbyterian Church). To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ ~ SR8053VN.DOC Mr. McCafferty, Principa! Planner, introduced this item by stating Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04404 concerning the property located at 2580 West Orange Avenue, known as St. Paul's Presbyterian Church is requesting to be permitted to install a telecommunication antennas and accessory ground mound equipment. He reported receiving a letter of opposition from a resident in the area, Bob Carter, who lives at 513 South Erin Street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicants Statement: Mr. Kim stated that he is aware staff was not able to recommend positively for this particular item. However, he felt positive about the item and wished to make an appeal based on the merits of this project. He stated that this is another example where they have also exhausted this entire search ring quite extensively. St Paul's church is actually right below the search ring area, located on Orange and Magnolia. Across the street is a strip commercial center with low-rise, maybe one-story, 15-foot tall buildings. Proceeding North on Magnolia, there are a lot of residential homes. The corner of Broadway and Magnolia offered the most potential for roof mount type facilities. 8ally's is located on the eastside of Magnolia, behind the gas station, but when they were approached as a potential site, they flatly refused. All the other commerciaf opportunities within that intersection are strip malls with one-story buildings, without any real capability to mount. But apart from the search ring, they have been told that this church has plans to expand. He fee(s the main point of the staff's argument against this project is that they feel this particular structure is out of context with this area, as well as the church, which is one story. Because of the plans to expand, this one would probably be well integrated with the church. Mr. Kim states a lot of churches, today, like to have some type of prominent feature on their property. So this is a good example that satisfies both parties, and with this particular agreement, the church also benefits from getting the extra revenue to help with their expansion. This is a design where they feel they have really gone out of their way. It has gone through at least two or three design manifestations in addition to going back and forth with the City. He feels it not only satisfies their fechnical requirements, but in an area where there is really not much pleasing to the eye, this particular element wi(f not only add an architectural enhancement to the area, but it is one of high quality in terms of design. Just as a sign or cross identifies the church, it will help people find the church and become a very distinctive element to the community. Unfortunately, 08-13-09 Page 27 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 50 feet is based upon technica! requirements, but they feel they have made up for that with this particular design. Ms. Judithanne Gollette, a representative of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) stated that the biighted area in the corner of that area is a corner that she sees everyday of her life. The church stated many years ago it was going to build a cathedral there, but ever since then it has been a weeded area with a few trees. She feeis that some kind of revitalization is defin+tely needed. But, whether or not it needs a bell tower is another thing to be seen. Wand would like to go on record to request a denial to fhe proposal as stated. The appearance is blighted, and the large lots on the location have four s'tgns already for churches. Ms. Goliette referred to Mr. Kim's statement regarding revenue, stating that West Anaheim has been talking a lot about nonprofit organization properties that have been removed from the tax rolls. Well, at the present time four telecommunication centers have been proposed to the City. She asks if the land is being leased, and if the churches are now being used as profitable businesses and making revenues or does that make citizens put in the tax rolls? She stated that the Living Stream on LaPalma and Gilbert, is 40 acres of telecommunications. And, the proposed property is the small bell tower so she wondered if this is setting precedents for the rest of the churches in the area to use their roof- tops. Ms. Gollette applauds St. Paul as definitely being a friend to the neighborhood. They house a lot of nonprofit organizations that otherwise would not have been able to provide a program. So while she suggests this proposal be denied, she further suggests that for the future, the telecommunication center, the church, the community, the neighborhood, Wand and the City work together to find out what would be the best situation for the corner in question. She affirmed that it is not that they are saying no, but as a whole they should try and find what is the best use for the corner, and what is the best use at St. Paul's. Not just close the door at the first business opportunity, but open it to a better and more beautiful, aesthetically appeasing opportunity. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos pointed out that about a quarter of a mile away, there is an Edison easement; the same easement Commission has been dealing with on a couple of other projects. He feels there is a trend developing at the Planning Commission, and the City Council is upholding their decisions, on placing telecommunication facilities on these type easements. He suggested Mr. Kim look at that as a first option in the future. Mr. Kim stated thaf he would have to get back to Sprint to see how willing they are to maybe locate something outside of the search ring. But again it is a situation where they want to be within the search ring as close as possible. Commissioner Koos stated that he concurs with Ms. Golfette's assessment of how bad it would look. It would be pretty prominent given the low profile of the church, and the bearing nature of the corner. The base alone is 8 feet tall, and it is going to be 50 feet tall overall, which is pretty imposing, given the adjacent land uses. tt is out of context with the neighborhood. He suggests a continuance to the church to see if there are any other designs that could be incorporated into their actual buildings. Commissioner Arnold expressed appreciation for the comments of the people in the neighborhood. However, he stated he is not too sure he agrees with Commissioner Koos about the appropriateness and the scale, especially if there is reason to believe that structures on that property are going to expand. Although it seems a little distant from lower buildings, there have been a lot of instances in which churches have come in for expansion. He feels it could possibly tie in very nicely. It just becomes a problematic timing issue, because overall, Wand is concerned with thinking through this plan carefully, while Cingular is concerned with an immediate need. But the nagging question remaining is the talk about ~ alternate sites, and hearing time and time again from just about every applicant #hat they are being flatly turned down by centers, buildings, and owners, etc., so one has to wonder why that is. If there is a fairly 08-13-01 Page 28 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANMING COMMISSION MINUTES • significantly tall building, and these are stealth, and as much as staff pushes the applicants to stop, one has to wonder why is it that so many landowners are unwilling to enter into a lease if the lease is tucrative enough for the landowner. Commissioner Arnold expressed suspicion that while this is a lucrative business for the telecommunication industry, the industry is not really wifling to pursue ieases at true market rates, they are looking for properties in which lesser rents would be more attractive. In other words, ifi becomes a matter of looking for properties that are under utilized and then coming to the Commission and saying, "well, nobody else will allow us to locate on their site". This suspicion is based on hearing that so many landowners do not want to enter into deals with telecommunication industries, which makes this premise become a major concern. Commissioner Arnold feels if all things were fair and equal, economics would tell us that the rational economic landowner would at some price be wif(ing to enter into the business deal. So it makes one wonder if Commission is not, in essence, by approving these sort of requests, subsidizing the telecommunications industry for locating on cheaper properties. Mr. Kim responded there are several issues at hand with Commissioner Arnold's stated premise, as related to this particular instance. Sometimes within a search ring, search rings actually vary in terms of size, they can range from anywhere to half a mile to nine miles, depending on the location, etc., but in this particular case, the search ring automatically limits the number of potential and viable sort of land owners. It also deals with the conversion of several factors that do not meet Cingular's needs, nor does it meet the City's needs, as the concerned search ring would demonstrate. Apart from Bally's, which Cingular approached with earnestness, there was not anything else that would possibly open up to them. The other aspect is an issue of economics, just as the land owner would want to reap the most out of Cingular, in terms of its lease, Cingular in terms of its business interest, has a very keen business interest of being very aggressive with their negotiations. That is an issue of the free-market, in terms of businesses responsibility to maintain its profits, while keeping expenses low; but not in an irresponsible manner. For example, the Country Sweets Hotel, clearly demonstrates once these things work out, Cingular, Sprint, • and all carriers will go out of their way to make a positive impact. Mr. Kim states Cingular is very conscientious about the impact of the community, but their hands are also tied with the business aspects of it and the technical aspects of it. It is also an issue to be very forthright. They need to have a business sense about it, and wherever they can, they will try to negotiate as tough as they can, but as fairly as they can as well. Commissioner Arnold stated that he is concerned from the City's perspective in that the City also has a business sense for both the city neighborhoods and the city industries not to impose but to maintain structure and balance of the entire spectrum. He states, the basic problem with economics in the pure private market, is something the City should not be interfering with, except when the negative externalities are imposed on the surrounding neighborhood, and then that becomes the concern of the City. Mr. Kim stated that the merits of the architectural features of this particular facility, really boils down to the issue of whether it is in the eye of the beholder or not. And, for Cingular's part, they have deliberated and really gone through a lot of design sessions to come up with something they feel is best. As a result of fheir efforts, this particular design was accepted, but again, it is really in the eye af the beholder. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Kim if his suggestions to continue to look at other options, would be at all fruitful in his opinion or if he had not already exhausted all options, in reference to the church design. Mr. Kim responded that Cingular had been talking with the church, and since it is a one-story building, and they have to achieve 50 feet, sometimes certain structures won't look good on certain buildings, which is the determination staff has made on this proposal. If there were an opportunity present with the church to locate on their building or nearer to the building, they would have gone with that. Cingular thinks it would be a good location to place an antenna, only because it serves several purposes and one is that it acts as • an identification marker for the church; not unlike a sign for a particular business which they would also put out nearer to the corner. Therefore, they feel they have exhausted all options. However, Mr. Kim 08-9 3-01 Page 29 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • stated that they would be more than willing to continue to explore other placements of the structure if that is the wish of the Commission. Commissioner Koos stated that he would be supportive of Mr. Kim's offer to explore other options, because it seems there are interest of inembers of the community in opposition of his request. Therefore, it might be worth exploring in the dialogue with a number of people. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Kim if he were not involved with the Sunkist tower. He explained that it was a similar issue to the issue at hand except the church is much closer to the tower, and the church is much taller than what Mr. Kim is currently proposing, and even with that, it looks out of place. Although the antenna is pretty nice looking, but coupled with the building, it looks like Knotts Berry Farm. So he suggests the church should be integrated with the antenna somehow to make it aesthetically appealing. Mr. Kim expressed concern with Sprint coming back to him about this particular location; not only the property, but the exact corner where the bell tower is going because it is right outside of the search ring, just at the tip. So, he feels they could possibly come back and say, "it is okay to have the tower back farther, but this location pushes us out of the search ring even more". Nowever, Mr. Kim ofFered to explore with Sprint, if it is the Commissions desire. Commissioner Eastman questioned why this search area is so small, while other search areas seem to be much bigger. Mr. Kim explained that search rings serve different purposes, and have different objectives. There is a need for coverage sites, and a need for capacity sites; it just so happens that this particular area, which can be found on the propagation map, demonstrates that the coverage is very bad. So, Cingular is frying ~ to create a seamless network and connect with other area antennas. Commissioner Eastman wondered has the possibility of the palm tree idea integrated somehow with the school property or the park property because it would be an appropriate fit. Mr. Kim stated that they had approached the school, and the school was eliminated as an option immediately for various reasons. However, he feels the palm tree actually has advanced in its looks to a great extent, with the combination of planting trees surrounding them. If the trees were 10 feet lower they could probably look into that. He states they are getting constant feedback from staff that monopalms are looked down upon, and not as tolerable as flagpoles, which results in the proliferation of flagpoles. This limits industry's ability to sell its monopalms. Therefore, he asks Commission if there is feedback they can offer before he makes a decision and exhaust other possible options, particularly on the design itself. If all other options are exhausted and they are lett with the design at hand, what would be the thought processes of the Commission. Commissioner Koos assured Mr. Kim that he did not want to design his project, but he concurred with Commissioner Bostwick that he should look at the Edison easement, and exhaust that option. But in terms of this site, it is the type facility that will impact the people who actually live there more than the city at large. Commissioner Koos suggested Mr. Kim interface with some of the people and try to develop some consensus on what this could be. He feels hearing from people in the community that say, " well, you know we went to the applicant and he listened to us" would go a long ways with the Commission making their decision. Commissioner Bostwick stated he would like to see a reduction in the signs around the property. In other words incorporating signs to where some of the visual clutter is removed, and bringing it closer to the ~ building so that it looks more a part of it rather than standing off by itself. 08-13-09 Page 30 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMtSSfON MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold stated that while the features, such as the bells and the cross look good, the gray stone and rock look is out of place with its surroundings. Mr. Kim responded that the church is very nondescript. However, they will try to work with giving it an aesthetic, appropriate integration. OPPOSITtON: 1 person was present who represented WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) and spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue subject request to the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to explore other possible locations and/or to propose an alternative design/location. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (3:44-4:08) ~ ~ 08-13-01 Page 31 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04409 Continued to September 10, 2001 OWNER: Madison Squares Anaheim Hills, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Duan Dao, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, lrvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 7777 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 3.06 acres located at fhe terminus of Camino Tampico, with a frontage of 783 feet on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road located 390 feet northeast of the centerline of Eucalyptus Drive (Madison Squares). To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAl. USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ • SR8047VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced this item by stating Conditional Use Permit No. 2001- 04409 is for property located at 7777 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Madison Square Self-Storage facility). It is a request to permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground mount equipment. ApplicanYs Statement: Mr. Paul Kim proposed the Cingular project as aforementioned. He stated they had worked with the property owner who currently has a carrier on its building. The immediate concern he wanted to address is the staff `s concern of "why not locate it on the rooP'. Mr. Kim said they actualfy explored that, and the original plan showed that they were going to mount it on the roof, but later found that Verizon had already taken up the ideal locations. The structure is set up in such a way that only one of the antennas section will get a clear shot to the freeway but the other two will be blocked by the architectural features of the building. The buildings are approximately 27 feet in height at the highest point or the highest ridge. So if a structure were created to only house the antennas, in order to achieve the technical climates at 25 feet, an additional 18 feet or so would have to be added on and that is roughly two-stories on a structure that is relatively low in profile. If it were done to one particular area where there is ideal coverage, it would also throw off the architectural similarity of the entire bui(ding due to the mass of proportion. In this case less is probably more desirable, simply because of the master structure and height that needs to be achieved. He advises there are two things to look at; a flagpole that is 45 feet in height and would be seen primarily from the freeway, or the issue of a flagpole that presents a mass of architectural feature. THE PUBLIC HEQRING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt wondered if there would be any possibility of having three flagpoles that are thinner, with an antenna each, perhaps a U.S.A., California, and City flag, with each tapered pole holding up an antenna, and would it pose a problem with them being so close together. Mr. Kim answered that it would not necessarily cause a problem because all the antennas are already within the cylinder cell. Regardless of what attempts are made to make it as slim as possible, there is still 08-13-01 Page 32 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MtNUTES • some depth and some bulk to the diameter simply because it functions with the coaxial cable running through. Commissioner Koos stated that he is aware of the project being proposed fhat Chairperson Vanderbilt has suggested actuaf(y in the city of Los Angeles, and he thought it would be worth exploring. Maybe exploring varying heights with engineers to offset by approximately five feet to make it look better. Mr. Kim answered that each antenna would have to achieve its height potential and in this case. The engineer would want all of them to be at its appropriate height. The poles don't look quite like the real ones and that is a given fact, but they will never look like the real pole. However compared to the previously approved project, which was at 30 inches, this is approximately 19 inches in diameter. There are very strict technical requirements and the extent this industry is going to, in order to do something for what many people have considered vital infrastructure has been extreme. Mr. Kim stated that he read a report that the United States, in terms of its business generation and wealth producing is so productive because of the fact that when people go on vacations they take their cell phones and work even when they are on vacation. Therefore, this is a service Commission needs to recognize is an infrastructure which people value. Commissioner Koos said Commission understood its importance and explained that this installation is difFerent from the last one because this site is located directly at the 91 freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, at a height much more visible than Kaiser Road up in a business park. Mr. Kim asked if it would not be a desirable option having three similar really thin poles with a United States ~lag, California city flag, for all flagpole locations. • Chairperson Vanderbilt replied that he believed it to be appropriate because the building is long with an institutional look and that is why he suggests it in this instance. Commissioner Bristol pointed out that each installation is an independent and unique consideration and not contingent upon any previous decisions. Commissioner Koos reminded Mr. Kim that it was his company that did the one on Center Street that started this whole thing, because it has an odd look. Commissioner Arnold stated that he has a concern that Commission is moving towards putting flagpoles everywhere. He states he understands the need, but thinks fhat as an industry they are going to need a variety of different stealthing options. He states that he is not really convinced that flagpoles, at this particular location, whether they are three thinner ones or one bigger one is really in context, given the particular location, the proximity to residences, and the elevation slopes down. He states that he is concerned that the City is going to start seeing flagpoles appearing everywhere because that is the preferred stealthing means when architectural features cannot be found. Therefore he suggests thinking creatively about options which minimize the visual impacts on the surrounding. Commissioner Koos stated that they are looking at continuance on this as well, but asked Mr. Kim to look into the option. He stated that Commissioner Arnold and he agree with the staff report; a flagpole is not needed in that area. However, he feels Chairperson Vanderbilt's suggestion is worth exploring. Additionally he asked Mr. Kim to look at a tower that matches the architecture of the building; one that is co-locatable tower and that would have the ability to have another carrier for the future, then come back and report that all of the options have been exhausted. • 08-13-01 Page 33 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristo( asked if that is so, why would they have a tower on the last property on the corner all by itself. Mr. Kim stated that on a case by case basis they feel that if they want a flagpole in the church that is an option but it brings them back to issues on a case by case basis. But with this particular instance they have exhausted other options. Therefore, he offered if the City feels they need to redesign it completely, they will come back with a new design. However, they also run the risk of coming back with a design that they do not fully believe in. Commissioner Bristol asked about the possibility of raising the roof up and making it look like a clock tower. Mr. Kim reminded him that they are already talking about a height of 50 feet, and that would be an additional 18 feet. He felt like they needed to see some plans, but suggests that is exactly what they try to encourage the applicant to do when they come in. Commissioner Bristol responded that obviously, the flagpole looks out of piace in the corner where it is, but Chairperson VanderbilYs suggestion of three flagpoles out front at the main entrance would look more appropriate for a flagpole location. However, as a substitute, they talked about the dormer on the hotel so if the tower were raised and clocks were placed on all four sides to make it look like a clock tower, it would add to the community and look more appropriate? Mr. Kim responded that without seeing the plan it would be difficult to say, but they would certainly encourage that kind of thought. • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue subject request to the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to explore other possible designs regarding the pole. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (4:09-4:30) r 1 U OS-13-09 Page 34 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ontinu t C ed o 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04410 August 27, 2001 OWNER: Essex Wire, 1075 North Patt Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATiON: 1075 North Patt Street. Property is approximately 8.43 acres with a frontage of 1,280 feet on the west side of Patt Street located 30 feet south of the centerline of Commercial Street. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8057KB.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue subject request to the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner to submit revised plans to the Zoning Division for the relocation of the telecommunications antenna. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 08-13-01 Page 35 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04411 Continued to August 27, 2001 OWNER: Southern California Edison, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paui Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 2720 West Yale Avenue. Property is approximately 3.9 acres with frontages of 265 feet on the south side of Yale Avenue and 265 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue located 240 feet west of the centerline of La Reina Circle. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • • SR8054KB.DOC Mr. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced this item by stating Conditional Use Permit No. 2001- 04411. It is for property located at 2720 West Yale Avenue, and is a request for a telecommunication antenna and accessory ground mound equipment. Applicant's Statement: Mr. Paul Kim stated that this is another issue where limitations and placements of these antennas are probably the main point. He stated that the property belongs to SCE, and they are experiencing coverage difficulties near the intersection of Lincoln and Dale. He stated that they initially considered roof mounted, which is their first option and the city's first option, but there are a limited number of bu+ldings of any significant height in the area. It consist mainly of single family homes, apartments, etc., which are obviously not conducive to roof mounts. 7here is a mixture of single family homes and apartment buildings within this particular search ring on Dale Street just south of Lincoln down to Broadway and north of Lincoln up to Crescent. Residential apartments and single-story commercial strip centers line Lincoln Avenue between Magnolia and Beach. Greg McCafferty explained that staff gives their best professionai judgement on something that is brought to them, whether it is a monopalm, flagpole or something incorporated in the architecture. What staff s best professional opinion is, is given as to what Commission has done in the past. So never does staff foreclose an opportunity for any sort of stealth type of facility. Mr. Kim stated limitations and placement of the antenna are the main point here. Property belongs to SCE and they are experiencing coverage difficulty at Lincoln and Dale. The single-family homes and apartments are not conducive to roof-mounted equipment. This location is the most suitable. Judithanne Golette representing WAND. WAND is suggesting denial of this proposal because it is not achieving WAND's long term objective in developing the vision of West Anaheim. It was hoped that the Edison right-of-ways would be developed into greenbelts and open space. They are trying to open up West Anaheim. Suggested that developers prove what they are doing and not just say it is the best spot 08-13-01 Page 36 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • for their development. They want aesthetically appealing design pieces that will add to the beauty of the City, not something that will just suffice. Mr. Kim responded and said there is a self interest in the company to gain approval as fast as they can, and as easily as they can. They go out of their way to be mindful and develop sights that work for them and are compatible with the City. They can't make people understand the technicaf requirements of the industry, but Commission has demonstrated understanding of the technical requirements. Also, what one person feels is aesthetically pleasing may be felt to be an architecturally poor design to someone else. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold asked applicant if they thought about putting them on the lattice tower, where they might blend in better. Mr. Kim stated they did think about that, but another carrier got first choice on that lattice tower ~rst, and they were forced to go to the A-frame structure. On the lattice there is enough room for the maintenance worker to climb up and around, but on the A-frame towers they have to climb up both sides, so arms have to jut out. Commissioner Arnold stated Nextel recently agreed to make the arms shorter on a pole and Mr. Kim said they will look into SCE requirements and see if the arms could be brought in. Commissioner Koos stated staff is getting the approved plans on Nextel project and maybe they could look at those plans and determine whether they could meet separation requirements and put cabinets • underneath that tower. Mr. K~m said they already explored that option, but because of the requirements, they cannot go below them, so it leaves them going above. The separation requirement is a minimum 10 feet, but, Edison typically allows up to 2 carriers at the most on one tower for structural reasons. In this case, there is also a requirement that from the top of the power lines, their generators, there must be a minimum separation and they do not meet that one. Commissioner Koos clarified that Cingular never goes below a carrier and Mr. Kim said they do, but at this particular location they need it at this height. There is another lattice tower, but it is in the heart of single family residences. Commissioner Bristol asked what the difference between going in the heart of the neighborhood here compared to what they did in Walnut. Mr. Kim stated they could explore the option, on that one they could go to the lattice tower and mount flush with the legs. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he looked at it from the Yale and Lincoln view and would support something along those lines. Mr. Kim stated there is another lattice tower to the north and they could put it on the lattice one thereby mounting it flush onto the tower legs. This is a full diversity sight, their engineers want maximum coverage, 2 antennas per sector with 3 sectors being on each arm. This is not the most ideal location and if it means getting an approval on that with cross polar antennas, he will try to push for it. • Commissioner Koos asked if he could agree to that now and Mr. Kim said he could not without talking to his engineer. 08-13-01 Page 37 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol stated this area is not good, there is not an area in Anaheim that has more visual impact. Commissioner Koos stated he should talk to the Edison property management people to find out what kind of activities do they allow right within the legs, because if City acquires greenspace, could children play in that area if there are equipment cabinets there. Mr. Kim stated he has another hearing in La Palma with another SCE tower which is a park and there are no existing barriers. Edison has spikes so that kids cannot climb them, and don't mind kids coming from in and out of the towers. He will try to go on the a-frame with cross polar antennas mounted on the legs. Commissioner Koos stated that given the one proposed is right on Lincoln verses the one off of Yale, he was wondering if engineers would consider a trade off. If they had to drop down to 40 feet on Lincoln, is that better than being 50 or 60 feet near Yale? Mr. Kim stated they have exhausted that option otherwise they would have decided to co-locate, but he will look into it. Asked for a two-week continuance. Commissioner Bristol offered motion for continuance to September 10, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken, motion carried. Commissioner Arnold wanted to follow up on comment Greg McCafferty made earlier about how staff looks at this. He was not intending, by his comments to suggest that staff is not open. Sometimes ~ applicants are looking for a preferred alternative and they want the City to have a policy. He is stating that the Commissioners are looking at very context specific decisions. If they go with one format or another, they are going to end up with an overconcentration of clock towers, belltowers, and poles. Mr. Kim stated that is a point well taken. ~ __ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSlTION: 1 person was present who represented WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) and spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue subject request to the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to explore other possible locations and/or colocation on an existing Edison (attice tower. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (4:31-4:50) ~, ~ , . ~ , ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ , ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ , ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ , ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ , ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~, . ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ , ~, ~ , ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ , ~, ~ , ~, ~, ~ , ~, ~ , ~, ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~, ~ , ~ , ~, ~, . ~, ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ A 10-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN FOLLOWING THIS ITEM (4:50-5:00). ~ ~ a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%~~~%,~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~%~~,~~~~~~~~w~~~~~~%~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~%~~~~,~~~~~~,~~~%~~~%~~~~~~~%~~,~.~~~%~~~.~~~,~%~%~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~-~~~~,~~~~w~~~,~~~~~: 08-13-01 Page 38 r~ ~J 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04408 Approved Granted OWNER: Yassini Living Trust, Attn: Morteza Yassini, Trustee, P.O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA 93002 AGENT: Mohamad, Alhakim, 2950 West Lynrose #A2, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 730 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 4.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Gramercy Avenue. To permit a drycleaners. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-111 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i • SR1015CW.DOC Greg McCafferty introduced this item stating this is for property located at 730 North Brookhurst to permit a dry cleaners. Condition No. 7 should be deleted, Condition No. 8 should include Conditions 1 and 5. Applicant's Statement: Nazadam Houssan, 32 Santa Barbara, Rancho Palos Verdes, applicant, was available to answer any questions. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he read the staff report and recommendations and had any questions or concerns and Mr. Houssan replied no. Closed public hearing after asking if anyone wanted to speak on this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. During the action: Greg McCafferty advised they are proposing to amend the code that would allow drycleaning establishment by right. 08-13-01 Page 39 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04408, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 13, 2001 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deteted Condition No. 7 Modified Condition No. 8 to read as follows: 8. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the • Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (5:00-5:05) 08-13-01 Page 40 • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04407 OWNER: Cfausen Enterprises, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue #F, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Jong Chung, 1448 Post Road, Fullerton, CA 92833 LOCATION: 2663 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.76 acre located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and La Reina Circle. To permit a coin-operated laundry. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • OPPOSITION: None Continued to August 27, 2001 SR1014CW.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue subject request to the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the shopping center to be brought into land use conformity in conjunction with the subject request as required by Code. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 08-13-01 Page 41 AUGUST 13, 2001 PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04399 OWNER: Walter Shook, 4711 S.W. 101, Waldport, OR 97394 AGENT: Mark Lally, 731 Monroe Way, Placentia, CA 92870 LOCATION: 2920 East La Jolla Street. Property is approximately 1.12 acre with a frontage of 155 feet on the south side of La Jolla Street located 194 feet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street. To permit an automotive repair (autobody) and towing facility with vehicfe impound with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-112 Approved Approved Granted SR8058KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced this item stating this is for property located at 2920 East La Jol(a Street for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04399, to permit auto repair and towing with vehicle impound, with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Staff recommended Condition 17 be deleted based on the fact that this will require 6 feet of improvement for sidewalk. It will be a curb and sidewalk with no parkway, so no need for trees and it would comply with subdivision standard. Condition No. 26 ~ should be prior to commencement of activity or issuance of building permit with attached Conditions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, and 23. Condition No. 27 should be prior to ~nal building and zoning inspections or commencement of activity, Conditions 17, 20, and 25. Condition No. 28 would be deleted. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked for clarification on parking lot. • Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, sfated property owner has dedicated the full amount of 32 feet from centerline of La Jolla Street. Sidewalks have to be constructed at some point even if it is not in the conditions of approva! because it is a public right-of-way. This leaves a short area between the back of the sidewalk and start of parking stalls. Greg McCafferty stated that most of the trees will have to come out and code requires a 5-foot landscaped setback from ultimate right-of-way and because they only have 3 to 5 feet, it requires a waiver of code. Mr. Mark Lally, agent for owner, asked for guidance on sidewalk issue. He understands that La Jolla Street will be widened, which will take front 3 parking spots and all greenways, so he does not understand why he must put in a sidewalk when it will have to be removed in the future. There are other items that are in conflict and impacted with the sidewalk requirement, they would rather keep the other conditions and remove the sidewalk condition. He asked that Condition No. 1 be removed because it has already been done, they are not relocating any electricity. They are not remodeling the building or adding fences, they are taking it as it is, but feef they are being treated like they are reconstructing or rebuilding. They are just relocating and adding equipment which will have the necessary permits. 08-13-01 Page 42 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ J Condition No. 4 needs clarification because roofing idea on trash enclosures is new and there are no approved plans. He was told to draw up their own plans and bring them in for approval, which he is already doing. Condition No. 5 appears to be like they are rebuilding or constructing again. Under WQMP requirements in the Engineering Department, it identifies construction of a new property or doing significant remodeling of an existing property, which they are not doing either one. He is at a lost as to why they are being required to do this. It is not the requirement based on the code. Condition No. 6 conflicts with item 15 regarding removal of trees. They have no place to relocate 8 trees. Condition No. 8- Traffic Engineering requires them to remove the front gates. For safety reasons, they would like to keep gates with posted signs during business hours. They want to close gates at night to keep intruders out after dark. Chairperson Vanderbilt advised that they should try to tackle major issues because most items are from the code. Mr. Lally said major issues are sidewalk and gate. Greg McCafferty stated Melanie Adams can address Condition Nos. 1 through 9. Traffic Engineer's concem was to make sure that the minimum number of parking spaces are available for customers. If the gate is there, there is no active way to police that and if they restrict access, Code Enforcement will have to go out there on a continual basis. Solution may be to relocate gate further back to have ungated customer parking. ~ Mr. Lally stated they have already spoken to Mr. Yalda who has indicated he will work with them regarding the gate. It cannot be relocated because there is already a second gate inside there. They will do anything necessary to keep the gate. Commissioner Arnold clarified that the concern is not that the gate is closed after dark, but closed during the day, leaving customers out. Perhaps a condition requiring it be open during daylight hours could satisfy it, even though there will be a monitoring issue. Greg McCafferty stated that would give them something to enforce and they understand applicant's need for security. Mr. Lally stated they will post signs that gate must remain open during business hours. Melanie Adams stated that Public Works Department is recommending the sidewalk condition due to the change in use of the property. It has the potential for pedestrian use due to the bus stop on Kraemer Avenue. If condition is approved, they would reword it to state that the developer shall construct a 5%2 foot sidewalk along the parcel frontage to La Jolla Street per Standard No. 110E. Condition Nos. 4 and 5 are related to storm water quality management issues and the City's responsibility as a co-permiffee with Orange County on the MPDS. Roof is being looked at by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and must be addressed in the planning stage. Commissioner Arnold clarified that the Federal and State requirements are tightening on the City a little faster than the code would indicate. Commissioner Bostwick asked about the roof over the waste disposal, he has not seen this requirement • before. 08-13-01 Page 43 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Melanie stated that is considered a best management practice for auto repair related facilities, there will be a real increase in amount of regulation and enforcement related to MPDS and Storm Water Quality Management. Mr. Lally stated they have no problem with putting the roof on, his concern is to get plans with requirements if they are available. It is the Water Quality Management Practices Report that they were questioning. They will have no solvents stored outside and roof over trash is the only best management practice that they can put into effect on this property as it exists. Melanie stated the actual report can be a letter on record stating what the property owner is going to comply with. Mr. Lally stated the barbed wire on fence is already there and their contract with CHP and City of Placentia require that storage area have barbed wire top, so he asked to be able to leave it there. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the solution is to take barbwire and put it in the inside of the fence, below the fence line so it is not visible. Mr. Lally stated that will work. Wants clarification on which wall Condition No. 14 is referring to. Greg McCafferty stated intent is for site screening, not vines on the building. Commissioner Eastman stated it does not make sense to put in a sidewalk that goes to nowhere, because it does not look like there are any in the other areas. • During the Action: Melanie stated that they do not want any additional trees added to the public right-of-way and if sidewalks go in, there is no reason to spend more money on trees. Commissioner Bristol asked why Condition No. 20 requires English and Spanish on a sign. Greg McCafferty thought it came from the Police Department. He wants to delete the Spanish/English reference. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Melanie if there was a timeline that the City has regarding the sidewalk dedication. She said there is no timeline. When the Northeast Industrial Area was developed many sidewalk waivers were granted and at some point they will have to start calling in the waivers. A temporary sidewalk waiver can be rescinded and it is provided for in the City Council Policy. ~ 08-13-01 Page 44 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISStON MtNl1TES ~~ ~._~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04399 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 93, 2001 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. Modified Condition Nos. 8, 11, 20, 26 and 27 to read as follows: 8. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. lnstallation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. The gates are to remain open during normal operating • hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 11. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enciosed for outdoor storage uses. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 20. That signs shall be posted in front of the property that parking is reserved for customers of the subject business only. 26. That prior to commencement of activity or issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22 and 23, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 27. That prior to final building and zoning inspections or commencement of activity, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 20 and 25, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Deleted Condition Nos. 6, 17 and 28. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (5:06-5:43) 08-13-01 Page 45 • 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04412 OWNER: Orange County Water District, P. O. Box 8300, Fountain Valley, CA 92728 AGENT: Dan Copp Crushing Corporation, 1300 North Hancock Street #B, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1120 North Richfield Road. Property is approximately 6 acres with a frontage of 650 feet on the east side of Richfield Road located 1280 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To retain a concrete processing facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-113 ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Granted for 5 years (to expire on August 13, 2006) SR1011 CW.DOC Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04412 for 5 years (to expire on August 13, 2006), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 13, 2001 with the following change to the conditions of approval. Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That this permit shall expire in five (5) years on August 13, 2006. ~ AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (5:44-5:47) 08-13-01 Page 46 AUGUST 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . ~ ~J MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:50 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~~`~ Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on 4' a~, 2001. 08-13-01 Page 47