HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2004/03/23 - Regular" I N I T I A T I O N :
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
M I N U T E S
M A R C H 2 3 , 2 0 0 4
P u r s u a n t t o t h e A g e n d a p o s t e d M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , C h a i r m a n L e B e r t h o n c a l l e d t h e
m e e t i n g o f t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n t o o r d e r a t 7 : 3 0 p . m . o n T u e s d a y , M a r c h 2 3 ,
2 0 0 4 .
2 . P L E D G E O F A L L E G I A N C E T O T H E F L A G
3 . R O L L C A L L
P r e s e n t : C o m m i s s i o n e r s : Y u , S e i b e r t , B l u m , G r i f f i t h s a n d L e B e r t h o n
A l s o P r e s e n t : C i t y A t t o r n e y M a r t i n , C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D i r e c t o r D a w s o n ,
a n d S e n i o r P l a n n e r W i l l i a m s
4 . T I M E F O R T H O S E I N T H E A U D I E N C E W H O W I S H T O S P E A K
5 . C O N S E N T C A L E N D A R :
" A . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S M a r c h 9 , 2 0 0 4
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : A P P R O V E A S S U B M I T T E D
C o m m i s s i o n e r B l u m n o t e d t h a t o n p a g e f i v e , t h e r e w a s a c o m m e n t m a d e a b o u t t r e e s b e i n g
n o l e s s t h a n 2 4 i n c h e s i n s i z e a n d t h a t i t s h o u l d r e a d 2 4 i n c h b o x - s i z e t r e e s . C o m m i s s i o n e r
S e i b e r t m o v e d t o a p p r o v e t h e c o n s e n t c a l e n d a r , w i t h t h e c o r r e c t i o n , s e c o n d e d b y
C o m m i s s i o n e r B l u m a n d u n a n i m o u s l y c a r r i e d .
6 . U N F I N I S H E D B U S I N E S S :
A . P U B L I C H E A R I N G :
A C O N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T T O A L L O W T H E O N - S I T E
S A L E O F A L C O H O L I C B E V E R A G E S I N C L U D I N G B E E R
A N D W I N E A T A N E X I S T I N G S E R V I C E S T A T I O N A T 5 6 7 6
R O S E M E A D B O U L E V A R D
S I T E : 5 6 7 6 R O S E M E A D B O U L E V A R D
C A S E N O . : C O N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T 0 3 - 1 5 4 4
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 2
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
TEMPLE CITY MOBIL
VIKEN MANKERIAN
5676 ROSEMEAD BLVD.
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
MOBIL OIL CORP
P.O. BOX 4973
HOUSTON, TX 77210
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION
Director Dawson — Summarized the Staff report dated March 23, 2004.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if the finding about undue concentration was a finding made by
the ABC.
Director Dawson — Stated that was correct, that ABC computes the formula, which is based on
a ratio between population and outlets.
Chairman Le Berthon — Stated that was a matter for ABC to be concerned with in determining if
it should grant a license to this applicant.
Director Dawson — Stated that ABC would ascertain whether or not it was an area of undue
concentration or if the outlet is located in an area designated as being a high -crime area. State
law gives the City an opportunity to make a finding of public convenience and /or necessity,
which is typically made in conjunction with the C.U.P. The application before the Planning
Commission at this time really is a Conditional Use Permit and we have piggybacked onto that
C.U.P. request one additional finding, and that is the finding of public convenience and /or
necessity. If you look at your draft resolution, there are four findings; the first three relate to the
C.U.P. and the fourth finding relates to the ABC requirement. Stated that probably it would be
hard to make a finding of necessity but it seems reasonable that a finding could be made for
public convenience.
Commissioner Blum — Asked if the requirement was public convenience and necessity or
public convenience or necessity.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that after the riots in South Central, Central Avenue was virtually
Tined with liquor stores and after they were burned down, some of them started to rebuild so the
City of Los Angeles asked for legislation to control the number of liquor outlets. In drawing the
legislation, they used a pre- existing language, which referenced convenience and necessity.
Stated that most cities rely on the convenience finding rather that the finding of necessity.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 3
• Commissioner Blum — Asked the duration of the C.U.P. once it is granted.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that it is forever, unless ABC revokes the license.
f ommissioner Blum — Asked if there is a possibility for a time limit on a C.U.P. like this one.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that ABC won't issue until the City gives its consent and once
they issue the license, they are in control.
Commissioner Blum - Asked about the possibility of a Conditional Use Permit that expires in 3
years.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if ABC was pretty good about enforcing liquor license violations.
Director Dawson — Stated that ABC monitors outlets and takes action if there are violations.
Clarified that a required finding for ABC is whether or not this outlet serves a public
convenience or necessity. In other words, it does not have to be a public convenience and a
necessity. Stated that it is hard to make a finding of necessity because we have_ an over
concentration of outlets in this area; however the issue of public convenience is debatable.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that in regard to the number of liquor outlets, it appears there
• are five in the area and this one would be the sixth.
Director Dawson — Stated that one of those five outlets is in another census tract and that is
why the numbers are different.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if any other questions of Staff and opened the Public Hearing.
Viken Mankerian, 5676 Rosemead Blvd_, Temple City — Stated that he would like a liquor
license so that he can sell items as a convenience to his customers.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor or against the project.
Commissioner Seibert —made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Vice
Chairman Griffiths and unanimously carried.
•
Chairman Le Berthon — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Commissioner Blum — Stated that there are two conflicting things; one is that there is a
statement that there is an over - concentration in the area, yet we have allowed the sale of beer
and wine at two other gas stations in the area. Stated that those are his thoughts and he would
like to hear from the other Planning Commissioners before deciding.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 4
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he could appreciate the fact that the applicant wants to
add a product that he can sell, but unfortunately he cannot find in favor of this because he
cannot see a necessity in having beer and wine sold there. Stated that at this point he does
not see the need in expanding the sale of beer and wine. Stated that just because two other
gas stations sell liquor, it does not mean that this gas station should.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he concurs with Commissioner Seibert; stated that there is an
over concentration of liquor licenses in the area and there is a point where it needs to stop.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that he concurs. Each case must be determined on its own
merits. Stated that he is unable to find that this proposal would not have an adverse affect.
Stated that there is not a public convenience or necessity that warrants granting this permit.
City Attorney Martin — Clarified that the required finding is for public convenience or necessity.
Chairman Le Berthon — Stated that he differs with the other Commissioners and that he does
not see any harm that would result from granting the C.U.P. Stated that he can understand the
argument of convenience. Stated that anyone who stops for gas and is inclined to purchase
alcoholic beverages there would have a problem if that person could not walk very well, so that
person would have to go to another location to purchase the product. Stated that he can see
the issue of convenience. Stated that he can find in favor of granting the Conditional Use
Permit.
Commissioner Seibert — Made a motion to deny the C.U.P. to allow off -sale beer and wine
(Conditional Use Permit 03 -1544) because there is not a public necessity or convenience
warranted in this particular instance for the issuance of a State license to allow the sale of
alcoholic beverages and that the sale of the alcoholic beverages could be offered elsewhere
and not at this gas station, seconded by Commissioner Yu.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Commissioner Yu — Yes to deny
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Yes to deny
Commissioner Seibert — Yes to deny
Chairman Le Berthon - No to deny
Commissioner Blum - No to deny
Chairman I e Berthon — Stated that the motion carries; the action of the Commission to deny
this C.U.P. is subject to a 15 -day appeal /review period.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 5
• 7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING:
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF TEN (10) DETACHED DWELLING
UNITS IN THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -3) ZONE.
SITE: 5527 -5539 SULTANA AVENUE
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 60850
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04 -1553
PROPERTY OWNER: PHILIP HUNG
473 WOODRUFF AVENUE
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
ARCHITECT: ROBERT TONG
SANYAO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
255 EAST SANTA CLARA STREET, #200
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
• APPLICANT /ENGINEER: HANK JONG
EGL ASSOCIATES, INC.
11823 SLAUSON AVENUE #18
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 90670
•
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION
Director Dawson — summarized the Staff report dated March 23, 2004.
Senior Planner Williams — Narrated and showed the video.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked Director Dawson what was happening with the moratorium.
Director Dawson — Stated that the moratorium area is further south and does not affect this
area. Stated that there is a Public Hearing on April 6, 2004 regarding a possible extension of
the moratorium for R -2 zoned properties further south on Sultana and Sereno, south of the
Eaton Wash.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 6
Chairman Le Berthon — Asked how far R -3 went in this area. •
Director Dawson — Stated that the residential property between Broadway and Las Tunas on
both sides of the street is zoned R -3.
Chairman Le Berthon — Asked if there are any problems with the sewer in this area.
Director Dawson — Stated that he did not believe so.
Chairman Le Berthon — Asked if we needed to start to look at that possibility now rather than
later when it is too late.
Director Dawson — Stated that the City recently completed a master plan for sewers.
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Opened the Public Hearing.
Hank Jong, 11823 Slaitson Avenue #18, Santa Fe Springs — Stated that he is the Civil
Engineer and that the project complies with all of the City's regulations. Stated that this project
improves the site. Stated that the existing property has a total of 25 parking spaces and now
there will be a total of 30 parking spaces: 20 garages and 10 guests' parking spaces. Stated
that this is a big improvement. Stated that the owner has read and agrees with the Conditions
of Approval.
Chairman I e Berthon - Asked Mr. Jong what percentage of the property is currently concrete
or asphalt.
Hank Jong, 11823 Slalison Avenue #18, Santa Fe Springs — Stated that it is probably 65% —
70%.
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Asked what the percentage is that would be covered with the new
project.
Hank Jong, 11823 Slauson Avenue #18, Santa Fe Springs — Stated that the new project would
have more concrete by about 5 %.
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Stated that condition number 62 seeks to improve additional
permeability instead of less. Asked if the percentage of permeability would change as a result
of compliance with condition number 62.
Hank Jong, 11823 Slauson Avenue #18, Santa Fe Springs — Stated that if they put in the grass
between the concrete it should make a more permeable area, comparable to what it is now.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
•
•
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 7
• Commissioner Seibert — moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Blum
and unanimously carried.
•
Chairman Le Berthon — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he does not have a problem with the project and can vote in
favor.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that he is also in favor of the project.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if he saw any drainage problems.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that he did not see any.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he also concurred.
Commissioner Blum — Stated that he also concurred.
Chairman! e Berthon — Stated that he also concurred.
Commissioner Blum- moved to approve the negative declaration and adopt the draft resolution
approving T.T.M 60850 and C.U.P. 04 -1553, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and
unanimously carried.
Chairman I e Berthon — Stated that the motion carries and that this matter is a tract map and
requires City Council approval and will be scheduled some time in April for City Council review.
B. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF A WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, WHICH WILL BE
ATTACHED TO A REMOVABLE PINE TREE; AN
EQUIPMENT SHELTER IS ALSO PROPOSED TO HOUSE
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. THE
SUBJECT SITE IS UTILIZED AS A CONVALESCENT
HOSPITAL AND IS DESIGNATED AS INSTITUTIONAL ON
THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 8
SITE: 5600 GRACEWOOD AVENUE •
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04 -1554
APPLICANT: CINGULAR WIRELESS
ATTN: SAUNDRA JACOBS
3345 MICHELSON AVENUE, SUITE #100
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612
APPLICANT'S
REPRESENTATIVE: STEVE STACKHOUSE, AICP VELOCITEL
18071 FITCH AVENUE, SUITE #200
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
PROPERTY OWNER: SANTA ANITA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL
5600 GRACEWOOD AVENUE
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION
Director Dawson — summarized the Staff report dated March 23, 2004.
Chairman Le Berthon — Asked if the City has ever received complaints about these types of
poles in the City.
Director Dawson — Stated that the only pole for which complaints were received is the one
situated outside the Civic Center. Stated that the complaint was about the required red light on
the top of the pole.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that was at the fire departments request.
Director Dawson — Stated that there are five or six cellular antennas in town, including one
Nextel monopine on this same property.
Chairman I e Berthon — Opened the Public Hearing.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that he is a representative
of Cingular Wireless. Stated that they chose this location because there is a Nextel facility
presently there. Stated that when they first began evaluating possible sights and locations for a
structure in the area based on the search requirements by the engineers they looked at the
light standards at Live Oak Park, the existing Nextel monopine that is there as well and any
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
•
•
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 9
• other suitable candidates in the area. Stated that between the light standards in the park and
the Nextel tree, those were the only two prominent and significant structures that would have
been suitable for the company's needs. Stated that when they conducted the site study and
evaluated the possibility of co- locating with the Nextel tree, there were some physical
constraints and problems. Ultimately, we realized that co- locating with the Nextel monopole
was not the best option; Cingular decided to simply erect their own monopine tree. Stated that
he knows that Nextel's tree looks a little thin. Stated that is a light density monopine and the
industry has come along way since then and Cingular is proposing at a minimum a medium
density pine tree, which would have a higher branch and needle count. Stated that it would be
much more tree -like that the Nextel monopine.
•
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Yu — Asked is there was such a thing as a high- density pole and if so why was
Cingular not proposing a high- density pole.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that cost is a consideration
and a high- density has a greater cost. Stated that the medium density is the beginning point
and generally speaking that meets most of the needs across the board.
Commissioner Yu — Asked if he agreed that a high- density tree would be a little better looking
and more tree -like.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA Stated that it would have a greater
branch count and would look more like a pine that a medium density.
Commissioner Yit — Asked if the monopine would have a bark -like finish on the pole.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA — Stated that the engineered pole
would be clad with a bark -like finish. The pole would be designed for maximum safety during
an earthquake.
Chairman! e Berthon — Asked how long this antenna would be good for.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA — Stated that they prefer to establish
leases for 25 — 30 years. Stated that if technology changes prior to that and there is something
more appropriate, then this would probably be taken down and the current technology would be
implemented. Stated that generally the lifespan is 20 to 30 years.
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Asked if that was including its outward appearance.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave. Ste. 200, Irvine, CA — Stated that if there is heavy winds
or anything that might cause some of the branches or needles to loosen or come off there are
• field technicians that do come out to the sites and inspect them and fix any problems.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 10
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Stated that he has no further questions. Asked if anyone else wanted
to speak in favor or in opposition of the Conditional Use Permit.
�.
- III
-
., .,-
-11• -
— Stated that he was opposed to the
project. Stated that currently he is staring at the Nextel monopine. Stated that he did object to
that when the application was granted. Stated that his issue is that in 1983 the neighborhood
in dealing with the convalescent hospital stated that if they allowed the variance to add 24 more
beds to the convalescent hospital that the hospital would not ask the City for any additional
expansion. Stated that they asked for various requests since then and some have been denied
but they were granted the one for the existing monopine and now they are asking for this
request. Stated that their western horizon is blocked out by the existing monopine and he is
concerned that there is going to be a growth of trees overtime as more communication centers
want to locate on that retirement property. Stated that at Live Oak Park there are field poles
and he feels that would be a possible location because that it is at a public park. Stated that
could also be revenue for the City.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if it were a real tree, would he still have objections.
David Steinmeyer, 5563 Hallowell Avenue, Temple City- Stated that he would not like that
either because when he moved into that property there was a full western horizon and would
like to continue to enjoy that.
Chairman Le Berthon — Asked if he had anything in particular about the tree being an imitation
tree that causes a unique objection that he would not have if it were a real tree.
David Steinmeyer, 5563 Hallowell Avenue, Temple City — Stated that for him the issue is not
the tree; the issue is the blocking of the western horizon. Stated that adding more trees would
block it even more. Stated that in conclusion, he would ask that the Live Oak Park site be
looked at as an alternative.
Robert Cheney, 5569 Hallowell Avenue, Arcadia, CA — Stated that the imitation tree and the
lights at the park already burden them. Stated that what bothers him is the tree that looks so
bad. Stated that the convalescent hospital has changed their lighting and that there needs to
be a stop somewhere.
Joan Cheney, 5569 Hallowell Avenue, Arcadia, CA — Stated that she has to look at the existing
monopine in her back yard. Stated that what she presently sees is overbearing, obtrusive,
evasive and ugly. Stated that she looks at this everyday in the middle of her property. Stated
that she does not want another monopine in her view from her backyard.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked if she was upset because it looked like a tree or because it does
not look like a tree. Stated that the one that is proposed is going to look more like a tree
according to the applicant. Asked if it looks more like a tree would she still have objections.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 11
• ,loan Cheney. 5569 Hallowell Avenue, Arcadia, CA — Stated that she likes having the freedom
of an open view.
,loanne_Steinmeyer, 5563 Hallowell Avenue, Temple City — Stated that four year ago when the
first monopole was approved, they were shown brochures that it would look just like a pine tree
but the problem is that once it is up you can't take it down and it does not look like the pictures
shown.
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Asked if anyone else would like to speak against granting the C.U.P.
5640 Glickman Ave., Temple City — Stated that he was against the C.U.P. Stated that the
hospital is over expanding its business. Stated that this will not affect him but he is speaking
on behalf of the residents that it does affect. Stated that he felt these types of monopines
should be placed on City property.
Maureen Flarity, 5566 Hallowell, Temple City — Stated that when she looks out of her window
there is a really big and ugly tree and her horizon is now blocked.
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Asked her if it were a nice looking monopine would she object.
Maureen Flarity, 5566 Hallowell, Temple City — Stated that if it were a real tree, she would not
• object. Stated that she does not trust that they will make the monopine look tree -like.
City Attorney Martin — Asked how she would feel if it was not a monopine but a plain pole.
Asked which she would rather have; a pole or a monopine.
Maureen Flarity, 5566 Hollowell, Temple City — Stated that she would not like a pole; she would
prefer a monopine if they had a right to anything.
Jackie Adaimy, 5556 Hallowell Avenue - Stated that she was against the project because it
would lower the property value of the homes in the area.
Commissioner eib .rt — Asked her what evidence she had that the monopine would affect the
value of the property surrounding it.
Jackie Adaimy, 5556 Hallowell Avenue - Stated that when people see something unusual, they
are less likely to buy that house. Stated that she felt that was the reason.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if she had anything that proved that.
• ■. • I - 1 -
Stated that was based on her real estate dealings.
Chairman L e Berthon — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak against granting the Conditional
• Use Permit.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 12
Chairman Le Berthon - Asked Director Dawson if the property owner wanted to put up a real
tree, would there by anything to stop them.
Director Dawson — Stated that they could plant a tree on their property at any time, without any
restrictions.
Chairman Le Berthon — Asked if a private resident wanted to entertain one of these
telecommunication facilities would they need approval.
Director Dawson — Stated that they would need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Le Berthon — Asked why a Conditional Use Permit was necessary in this case.
Director Dawson — Stated that the Code is set up that way and also because of the height of
the monopine.
Chairman L e Berthon — Asked the applicant if he would like to give a rebuttal.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that there is a distinction to
be made; he is representing Cingular Wireless and they are asking for approval for a wireless
telecommunication facility, that is separate and apart from the prior development at the
convalescent care center. Stated that Cingular is the applicant not the convalescent hospital.
Stated that Cingular will be leasing property from the owner. Stated that Nextel was approved
in 2000 and agrees that the tree they used is not the best looking and that the tree Cingular
was going to use is going to be much different, a much better looking and better quality tree.
Stated that the Planning Commission could take into consideration placing a condition that the
tree be a heavy density tree instead of a medium density tree. Stated that the acquisition
department looked at Live Oak Park as a possible site, but ultimately moved on to this site.
Stated that he did not feel there would be a proliferation of monopines; stated that Nextel's
monopine is co- locatable, but Cingular could not go on their pole because of the equipment.
Stated that Cingular's monopine is also going to be co- locatable. Stated that the precedent of
Nextel having been approved has been established at this location. Stated that they did not
come in with a request of just a standard monopole; they are trying to be a good corporate
neighbor and provide the best possible alternative. Stated that when they get close to
residential areas, they try to go into a park or a church property or any other use that is not
residential. Stated that they are trying to provide a structure that is pleasing ascetically.
City Attorney Mares — Asked if the applicant could show on the map provided where the
monopole must go. Asked if he could show the approximate area of the location that the pole
would be.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
•
•
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 13
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that they provided a map
that shows the circumstances both before and after the site is implemented. Stated that
generally speaking the areas can be small and as tight as a quarter mile radius; generally, they
do not go much beyond a mile radius or diameter because the coverage needs to be
centralized. (.
Commissioner)
//- /- . - -
.- /I.I ./• 0 ..
• - .t- • .- • ....!
Commissioner Yu — Asked if Cingular was mandated to provide coverage.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that they are and that he
provided a project description and site analysis. Stated that the wireless industry is mandated
by the FCC in issuance of their licenses to provide coverage. Stated that it is a multi- tiered
process. They are mandated to provide a certain amount of coverage to a certain percentage
of subscribers within a prescribed time frame.
service
. -• .••
• • • .• •. . •
.99-
City Attorney Martin — Asked what rights does the telecommunication act provide for the
wireless companies to do this.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that he referenced Section
74 of the Telecommunications Act, which states that even on a local or state jurisdictional basis
40 that a local or state jurisdiction cannot withhold approval when it would discriminate one carrier
from fairly competing and operating with another carrier that is already in place. In this
instance, Nextel is already operating; to preclude or prevent Cingular from being able to fairly
compete and operate would be a violation of the anti -trust laws and could be construed as a
monopoly and a violation of Section 74.
S;ity Attorney Martin — Asked if that act requires them to put in a "tree ".
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that it simply requires them
to provide service in whatever means that might be; it could be a monopole. Stated that would
be the carriers' preference because it would be more cost effective but that is not the reality of
what is trying to be accomplished. They are trying to be a good corporate neighbor by
providing a monopine.
Chairman l e Berthon — Asked if the Conditional Use Permit were denied, would that action
potentially is in violation of federal law.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that he is not an attorney
but that is his belief.
Commissioner Yu — Asked if other carriers come into the site, would there be more antennas
placed on the Cingular Pole.
•
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 14
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that potentially yes and
potentially no, depending upon the equipment and electronics. Each carrier uses a different
technology that drives different circumstances when it comes to equipment. Stated that the
short answer is that some companies have the ability of having fewer antennas rather than
more, while some companies have the ability of having antennas that might be flush mounted,
so other carriers down the road might be able to implement theirs with even less visibility.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that generally in the City's C.U.P.s, there is a condition about
subleasing with the City's consent.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that it would not be the
intentions to have a second or subsequent carrier co- locate without first coming to the City for
approval. Stated that he is merely suggesting that this structure could accommodate a second
or more carriers.
Chairman I e Berthon — Asked how far away is the proposed site of the antenna from the
adjoining residential properties.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that he knows that they are
further away than the Nextel structure. Stating that he is guessing at least 100 to 150 feet,
perhaps 200 feet.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that it is about 128 to 140 feet.
Commissioner S .ibe - moved to close the Public. Hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman
Griffiths and unanimously carried.
S:ommissioner Seibert — Stated that there is a pole there already and the applicant is willing to
make the proposed pole look better than what is there and with this he could find in favor of the
Conditional Use Permit, subject to the discussed conditions.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that the suggested condition is that the monopine structure
include bark looking cladding and have high density foliage as opposed to the medium density
foliage.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that concurs generally with Commissioner Seibert remarks,
but would like to add that he is not sure about the heavier foliage vs. the medium foliage; he is
not sure if it might look too overpowering. Stated that the medium tree might be more
appropriate, but he is not sure. Stated that he can approve the application.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he is in favor of the C.U.P. with the condition that it is a high -
density tree with bark -like cladding. Stated that the purpose of the high density is to disguise or
hide the antenna so that it is more life -like.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
•
•
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 15
• Commission r BI im — Stated that he would prefer to set conditions to get a better looking tree
rather than to have the federal regulations allow them to put something that is totally
unacceptable. Stated that he can support the Conditional Use Permit.
•
•
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that taking Vice Chairman Griffiths comments into
consideration, is the high- density tree overpowering as far as how it looks.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that the higher density tree
might have too much mass. Stated that the higher density tree is going to be almost solid and
really dense.
Commissioner S ib .rt — Stated that maybe the condition could be modified to have the Staff
look at that it and make the determination, because if it is overpowering it might be just as bad.
Commissioner Yu — Asked if Cingular had the high density tree installed anywhere so that it
could be looked at in comparison to the medium density tree.
Steve Stackhouse, 18071 Fitch Ave., Ste. 200, Irvine, CA - Stated that he cannot think of a
site immediately but he would not be opposed to finding a site from the carrier to provide
photos for the Staff.
Vice Chairman Griffiths - Stated that he thinks that is a better approach.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that the motion is to assign to the Staff the decision of deciding
that is most appropriate, the medium or high - density monopole.
Commissioner Seibert - moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 04 -1554 with that additional
condition that Staff will determine the density of that monopine tree, provided that the density
be no less than a medium density, seconded by Commissioner Blum and unanimously carried.
Chairman I e Berthon — Stated that the motion to approve the request carries; the action of the
Planning Commission is subject to a 15 -day appeal /review period to the City Council.
C. DISCUSSION ITEM: STAFF WILL PRESENT ONGOING CONCERNS
RELATIVE TO "OVERSIZED" ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
AND RECREATIONAL COURTS. PLANNING
COMMISSION MAY DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING THESE TWO ISSUES
AND MAY INSTRUCT STAFF TO PREPARE A POSSIBLE
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR CONSIDERATION AT
A NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
Planning Commission
March 23, 2004
Page 16
Director Dawson — summarized the Staff report dated March 23, 2004.
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Asked how this would play into the recently enacted State law, which
usurps the City's power to prohibit mother -in -law houses.
Director Dawson — Stated that it would not conflict with that because it is a different situation.
Stated that in this case we are talking about accessory buildings or accessory structures so it
would not be in conflict with that State law relative to second units.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that the problem with sports facilities in residential neighborhoods
has been the lighting. Stated that he is not sure if we should control it or not but it has been a
problem.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that tennis and basketball courts are more of a nuisance than
accessory buildings, however what happens to accessory buildings when the guy that built it
moves away and somebody wants to use it for some other purpose.
Chairman 1 e Berthon — Asked how could you prevent anything from happening to any building
in the future. Stated that even a garage of standard size could be converted.
Commissioner Blum — Stated that one thing that could be done is that greater setbacks be
required.
f hairman I e Rerthon - Stated that would be a Zoning Code change.
City Attorney Martin - Asked if the Planning Commission wanted to set the matter for hearing.
Commissioner Seibert - Asked if there was any input from other cities in the area.
Director Dawson — Stated that at the time of the Public Hearing we would have additional
information.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that it would be nice to put this matter to the attention of the
people who live in the community.
Chairman Le Berthon — Asked if there is an ordinance currently existing, which would prohibit
lighting of such courts beyond a certain time.
Director Dawson — Stated that one of the things about a Conditional Use Permit is that you can
condition it and if there are violations, the conditions can be referenced as grounds for
revocation.
Vice Chairman Griffiths — Stated that requiring a C.U.P. would give the Planning Commission an
opportunity to look at each case and apply conditions for each case.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES March 23, 2004.doc
•
•
•
"
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 4
P a g e 1 7
C h a i r m a n L e B e r t h o n A s k e d i f t h e p u r p o s e w a s t o d e v e l o p c r i t e r i a o r s e t i t o n e a c h i n d i v i d u a l
c a s e .
C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t S t a t e d t h a t m a y b e i t w a s a l i t t l e b i t o f b o t h .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t p e r h a p s t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d l i k e t o c o n s i d e r c e r t a i n
p a r a m e t e r s , s u c h a s 8 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t m a x i m u m s i z e f o r a c c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g s o r l i g h t i n g v e r s u s
n o l i g h t i n g . S t a t e d t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e s o m e o p t i o n s p r e s e n t e d .
C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t S t a t e d t h a t p e r h a p s S t a f f s h o u l d c o m e b a c k w i t h m o r e s p e c i f i c
i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e a P u b l i c H e a r i n g i s s e t . S t a t e d t h a t a n u m b e r o f c i t i e s d o r e q u i r e a
C o n d i t i o n a l U s e P e r m i t b u t t h e y m a y h a v e m o r e c r i t e r i a t h a t m i g h t b e h e l p f u l .
C o m m i s s i o n e r Y u S t a t e d t h a t m a y b e w e c o u l d s e e h o w t h i s t i e s i n t o t h e n e w r e s i d e n t i a l
d e s i g n g u i d e l i n e s .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t p e r h a p s t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n c o u l d f o r m u l a t e c e r t a i n
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e c o n s u l t a n t t o e v a l u a t e i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e o v e r a l l e f f o r t .
8 . C O M M U N I C A T I O N S : N o n e
" 9 . M A T T E R S F R O M C I T Y O F F I C I A L S : N o n e
1 0 . A D J O U R N M E N T
T h e r e b e i n g n o f u r t h e r b u s i n e s s , C h a i r m a n L e B e r t h o n a d j o u r n e d t h e m e e t i n g a t 9 : 4 5
p . m .
"
S e c r e t a r y
N : \ W o r d \ D e p a r t m e n t \ C D D \ M I N S \ P C M I N U T E S 2 0 0 4 \ P C M I N U T E S M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 . d o c