Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Hearing - Appeal by Councilmember Connie Boardman to
14, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 0.1 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 April 22, 2004 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY AFL Telecommunications:for Cin ular Wireless_ 9 CITY CLERK Attn: Suzanne Gatti 167 Technology Way Irvine, CA 92618 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Dear Ms. Gatti: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, March 15, 2004 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Councilmember Connie Boardman of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application Filed by AFL Telecommunication of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility Located 19241 Magnolia Street w/s of Magnolia Street, s/o Garfield Avenue) The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of approval. As part of their approval Council amended the conditions to: 1) a chain link enclosure with slats be used to screen equipment, in lieu of the proposed masonry enclosure; 2) vines be planted along the perimeter of the enclosure for coverage; 3) if applicant no longer needs facility, the structure and equipment_be removed within 30 days; and 4).that security-lighting not be.used The Action Agenda and amended Findings and Conditions of Approval are enclosed. The March 15, 2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from March 15, 2004 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, MW City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Amended Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval Action Agenda Pages 8-9 cc: Ray Silver,City Administrator Jennifer McGrath,City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Ron Santos,Assistant Planner Connie Boardman,Appelant g:/followup/appeal/90dayltr.doc (Telephone:714-536-5227 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and structure and associated equipment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 185 sq. ft. chain link fence equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will not generate noise, traffic, demand for additional parking or other impacts detrimental to surrounding property. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located on and adjacent to existing Southern California Edison transmission towers, on an existing SCE right-of-way. The design of the facility, which features antennas painted to match the tower to which it is attached, will ensure the compatibility of the proposed facility with surrounding uses. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance including the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.94—Wireless Communications Facilities. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL (Residential Low- Density) on the subject property, pursuant to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 230.96, which serves to implement the General Plan. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: L.U. 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. U.D. 2.2: Minimize the visual impacts of oil production facilities and other utilities where they encroach upon view corridors or are visually incompatible with their surrounding uses. U. 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided. U. 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. RCS 8.1 A Revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed co-location of antennas with an existing transmission tower, and the use of chain link fencing with slats and vines to screen equipment cabinets, will minimize the project's visual impacts. The proposed facility will generate lease revenue for the City which may be used to fund park acquisition, maintenance, recreations programs and facilities and other City services. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. A chain link enclosure with slats shall be used to screen equipment, in lieu of the proposed masonry enclosure. b. Vines shall be planted along the perimeter of the equipment enclosure. 2. Lighting shall be prohibited at the facility. 3. The proposed wireless communications facility may be serviced only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except as necessary for emergency purposes. 4. The facility shall be removed within 30 days of its discontinued use. INDEMNICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 1 Ehring, Liz To: Mulvihill, Leonie; Santos, Ron Subject: RE: CUP No. 03-42 Leonie- No disagreement on your question below. The fifth condition you mention was included in the staff report in the agenda packet and addressed by Council as you stated. Please confirm that the City Clerk's Office can expect to receive an amended CUP from your office, which we then will attach to the Notice of Action we send. Ron has called today about the Notice of Action for the applicant. Ron -as I stated in our phone conversation today, we are requesting the above and it appears that Leonie will provide the amendment. I am also reiterating that the Clerk's Office wants to provide the Notice of Action per your request, but cannot do so without the amended Conditions of Approval,which we have requested. You state that you have done this several times, but we have only received one amendment as shown below. As I mentioned, we are lacking the amendment regarding the removal within 30 days: Conditions of Approval - Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. A chain link enclosure with slats shall be used to screen equipment, in lieu of the proposed masonry enclosure. b. Vines shall be planted along the perimeter of the equipment enclosure. 2. The proposed wireless communications facility may be serviced only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except as necessary for emergency purposes. Also as I mentioned to you today, Ron, the Clerk's Office does not have the Planning expertise and it would be a disservice to write the conditions. At such times as Council amends conditions by a motion, the City Clerk's Office records the actual motion. The Planning Department then develops the motion into the technical language necessary that reflects the motion of Council. Thank you, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Mulvihill,Leonie Sent: Thursday,April 22,2004 10:04 AM To: Bring,Liz; Santos, Ron Subject: CUP No. 03-42 To summarize, the City Council approved CUP No. 03-42 per staffs recommendation with the following exceptions: (1)no building; (2)vine coverage; (3) if the applicant no longer needs the facility it will be removed within 30 days of disuse; and (4) no security lighting. Staff had recommended (and City Council agreed)to a"5th"condition as follows: The proposed wireless communications facility may be serviced only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except as necessary for emergency purposes. Please advise if you disagree with this summary. Thanks. LM 1 'Ehring, Liz To: Santos, Ron Subject: RE: CUP No. 03-42 Ron - I will have a hard copy placed in the Clerk's central location called the"cubbyhole,"with your name on it. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Santos, Ron Sent: Thursday,April 15,2004 2:02 PM To: Ehring, Liz Subject: RE: CUP No.03-42 Liz, I do not believe an RLS is necessary. However, for your information, as previously noted, the conditions of approval in the minutes below are inconsistent with both the Council motion as stated in the minutes, and Leonie's list. I will be sending an intern up to get a hard copy of the minutes for our file. Thanks again for your assistance. -----Original Message----- From: Ehring,Liz Sent: Thursday,April 15,2004 12:12 PM To: Santos, Ron; Mulvihill,Leonie Cc: Esparza, Patty;Jones,Dale; Ross, Rebecca Subject: RE: CUP No.03-42 Ron - I've moved up Leonie's original message to which you referred and the excerpt from the 3/15 minutes approved on 4/5/04. 1 e- mailed to you today upon your request. I have shown both of them immediately below for your convenience to review and compare. If you would like, we can have you refer to the video tape and you are also welcome to the original pre-meeting agenda packet, the approved RCA and attachments which we can place on the back research table. I am again adding Leonie to this paper trail to advise (thanks Leonie). Ron, after this point, a Request for Legal Services may be in order. Thanks, Liz Liz From: Mulvihill,Leonie Sent: Wednesday,March 24,2004 11:20 AM To: Ehring,Liz;Santos, Ron; McGrath,Jennifer Cc: Esparza,Patty;Jones, Dale; Ross, Rebecca Subject: RE: CUP No.03-42 The City Council approved CUP No. 03-42 per staffs recommendation with the following exceptions: (1) no building; (2)vine coverage; (3) if the applicant no longer needs the facility it will be removed within 30 days of disuse; and (4)no security lighting. These terms should be included in the CUP. (City Council) Public Hearing Held to Consider Appeal Filed by Councilmember Connie Boardman of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application Filed by AFL Telecommunication of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility Located 19241 Magnolia Street w/s of Magnolia Street, s/o Garfield Avenue) - Upheld Planning Commission's Decision of Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 as Amended with Four Additional Conditions: 1) No Building; 2) Vines to Cover Structure; 3) Structure and Equipment to be Removed Within Thirty Days of Disuse; and 4) No Security Lighting (420.40) 1 The City Council considered a communication from the Planning Department. Mayor Green announced that this was the time noticed for a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility). Applicant: AFL Telecommunications Appellant: Councilmember Connie Boardman Request: To install a wireless communications facility consisting of three antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 feet, and a 185 square foot, 10- foot-7-inches tall equipment enclosure located at grade below the tower. Location: 19241 Magnolia Street (west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this Item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Communication in opposition to the appeal submitted by AFL Communications dated March 9, 2004 and titled CUP#03-42 (`Permit'g Request to Uphold Planning Commission Permit Approval was included in the agenda packet. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. Councilmember Connie Boardman, appellant, reported the reason she appealed the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 03-42 which was to provide residents a chance to be heard by the City Council. Assistant Planner Ron Santos presented a PowerPoint slide report titled Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communication Facility) which was included in the agenda packet. Administrative Services Director Clay Martin reported on cost issues relative to Southern California Edison as a service provider. Planning Director Howard Zelefsky reported that five parks throughout the City have towers. Mayor Green declared the public hearing open. Prior to announcing the public speakers, Assistant City Clerk Liz Ehring restated for the record the following Late Communications which pertain to this public hearing: Communication submitted by David and Gale Licata dated March 10, 2004 and titled Condition(al) Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeack(sic) Park Wireless Communication Facility) stating their opposition to the Planning Commission approval of the CUP. Communication submitted by Tina, Stephanie, Derek and Kyle Smith dated March 11, 2004 and titled Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Combination Facility) stating their opposition to the Planning Commission approval of the CUP. Communication submitted by Douglas and Bernadette Jackson dated March 13, 2004 (untitled) of a petition signed by eleven residents requesting Council denial of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42. 2 Bernadette Jackson spot in opposition to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 03-42. Ms. Jackson stated her belief that the quality of life for residents near Langenbeck Park would be adversely affected by the proposed masonry equipment enclosure. Gale Licata spoke in opposition to the proposed equipment enclosure, proposed security light and proposed fans at Langenbeck Park. She stated her belief that the approval may lead to construction of more equipment enclosures in existing city parks. Ms. Licata stated her concern regarding public safety when maintenance vehicles enter the park. Suzanne Gatti, representing the applicant and on behalf of Cingular Wireless, stated the proposed facility located in Langenbeck Park is in full compliance with land use designations in the city's General Plan. She stated that Cingular Wireless is amenable to modifications set forth by the City Council. Ms. Gatti thanked Council for its consideration and requested that they uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42. Suzanne Gatti responded to Council inquiries concerning: 1) air conditioning of proposed buildings; 2) proposed alternate commercial locations; and 3) proposed landscaping. David P. Licata spoke in opposition to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 03-42, stating his belief that the quality of life would be adversely affected by the proposed facility in Langenbeck Park. He stated his opposition for safety reasons of maintenance vehicles driving into the park. Mr. Licata asked Council to relocate the proposed facility to a commercial area. There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by Boardman, second Sullivan to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to permit the Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility with Findings and Conditions of Approval (Attachment No. 1 -to follow immediately after this item*) as amended that: 1) there not be a building; 2) vines be included in the coverage; 3) if applicant no longer needs facility, the structure and equipment be removed within 30 days; and 4) that security lighting not be used. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Green, Boardman, Houchen NOES:Coerper, Hardy, Cook ABSENT: None Attachment No. 1 Findings for Approval Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 Findings for Projects Exempt from CEQA: The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and structure and associated equipment. Findings for Approval - Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three 3 DWI, I MIR, l. F. ... .......... .......... ....... G. ........ ...... ry ..................... v. 76. Existi ng WCF Across Magno is St. r. r + t i ft Y ( y Yx i f+ 'h' +kMd4 A�fsj Nyj z E .�tc 9q3 � y rM �3 ••+/4,.�F-..� }�. �.`" L.�. ,�!"� N 'r4,4C�- :1���� 4�yh r..q.�.. - �',� .,+f •) :,{ G ) ,.I"tfi '`�,Yv.y,r }i.� •z„v' - '��� .r t.r�y s}R'�'-l+, �r. y � � �� <a '°f' � �� � ry.::a ,y'; k h. r � .�'r F.. a4�'�*,,,r �i���a ,,; 5'•g ri.9 t •7a r' t'. R &• k S `'� .0 :.;; .,w..Jt,. r� Y•- P4,," 0 ,• �� �'UA}a ^�.''� �'�;� ''`���-gig=�' ��` s . r �.�. .-e}{'. ^�'� �"" ���;..} i•.Rl�,��+�r-� � -° $"�,� �p�'' Y ��r aw"'�a ��$ �f s' .ia ;%�isIk• ry .'� ra" � ttz"�" <$17 �,) "•� a iu sfrak,' i-:,'. �e:•-3 c Cdst��1�$ ,z -�a e�r' _-#:... __ ,,:.ea.- �:...,, ?.+:.x't '"�6 1L<.:k?,._p�'!Y•: .�"tk s �:'G� ;41r°h.s* y�, �.�-' .F ��a ,,,r+• „z.. s'+., 113�.`3.. Y ,, N `w' . i v s�i 'r::`:�7s�v�t'^'''�5;�yq�� `�`fi.�k� � 4# das t,a; rt� fi-"4'�' ci-• au+? to '» e2,.",w� ..Ft�,- . c � :., g++ ?.r k-.'.. •t- t�'- rW. � ,�k r ,.6. r. ..�^+�. s.w -°�.,, t +5, to 'Y`,+r"' m' .,{ ,i 2 +k t �•' a�'Y„£� :7 o-.~ .rh . .� ..,.,.<..t• ..-. .t. �. i ?.?.. •,..•..... .,,.n-..,„{, .n.,r., r ... �C�,� an. i..r vs,- ". �.n. ',",u"tiui�.S� k..�' b•. 7'� x: z, ,d•..'{tn:v�_ 1.. ... ..,�4.. .1 S`:r: � ..,4 ,. It F.... 7t �, ,� ... .:, ,J.. . .,�k.,v. v r. 4'. �:^' :.a ,... - � r,;t• r:_wi°..� ..3.: , •, .. ...-. �"' ,w.`,N.., +t'r_. " ].f :�.-..x. ,�✓ ., :..., ...r.. ,n. ,,.�.. ,.% )..'. .. ..!£' ,. 4 "y., R F,.. A t 4 . v -.f•: r ,. ,i. ..:, ., ,�,,..}..;�`�:., ,1-{,.,.,. .r -.. ,, l , r• .: .,•G .)„ .1,':-4-,� �,. .r .. ,F - :;w� �a'.��,r .r�-- r, r'1..t. g i, yrc,... ,....,+�. -,s...� n ,r+'� ro s,: ,}.g � ,, ,...,,,,,..,.z•= r.. -„t-�E .: :r, z.�.�, 1.+9i x�' ".kri ,� '�_ .:. ...,, ..;,y r.. r t -. -s, ,.k ,z. •�..,,. t 3 3„r .;-�. t r � i3 0� ;� r 9s•.:°s��'4w �e+.",.i�;�,':.. , 4`t:'S 'rN f -r�,, r :..s- t '* ,' t h d ;. .'' `.a+- kt s'" 4 �' "+.< $,)• . = 2'. ,.raF•r ' . „��r. r. :.tx v#.�_ ;.fit. •.r.�:�-., ta' .p w., fv ax �v�"Yx.�:. �r',: ,..3.ar.i '�rx..a�-. g �;�. •�.nj.. �., `. ..t 'vo- -t�'r .o.^r?'�".,4,. F '.� k"�': �' •.z•: ',r`' k :4<.:.�A.. -..,x� h, k_:: +,t... ,,. x. r-,,ry+'e,9 F.. '_: -. ...:. rR `. b :£.- 4-'�yr. •V,Rd ''r{' en. •}. ,f� -,,:., -..,....31 5 ....•.r, ,.ySk, A ).� 4 F '.T. {;1.., w..M , :, x t,.R•t h' } �,. r. 4. &�' ..,.. ..:.- "� ,. :.'^. ,. a'? ". �r."s'.`S ws� -�? �;' r- -we�,'� ,�..,,. r,n..m.,..J,. c xt ,,.x., AS x21.,�r� n.."�r,., , >v .,.A.•r ? ,,. k .iy. r +rr ..,,.. .., t w.r,u ;s. „ .. �r: i +.,,.:."�"r t.. �.. .•+.,'A` ,s. �,h-.-. n.,�.. .s,.0 ,.ss.. ,.. ..r' .t.. ,¢-.::, ;•h.r.,. .- .✓..,.r., J',:,'r' s1:rn r...."�f. +.n":r, VI::S�,. ,.- ..,: .,.--."� ,i, :F-�.i+'e... ,r .,,p.,.,.a,��tr,_ ..yW�eM.K� � ,:xh �,q,'w Y� M..y. >-:.rv..,.• t.i, a.:. ,o- r.-'. , qh.- n .r s. 14.., dJ,r_Tt�. 1 J,4 :.'kd'x VV;. t. ..L ate; ;l „!kr. ti4,p-.:, { .5'-`s i" 7 <;•'�L,:`4K: _.,� ,+:. xb r •^ s ,.�.Cr,. -..):: �,a r r�tr =7 p- ,f' x ,r• -i. S :, t 2 -.:.xi" �-i1� 3 ,,« � J : � .},�y Sx.w.n^°s t y-� i,. t a-' s _ ..5,: ,,.v�, ,�;.� -''� S�y'F. .:,t's� .o-1 ._ - :,h�,.,,.a «., -x , rr x... e. . . -.,i�".., „,..,. _a., 1 .. s.._ er. _ .�. ,. � 3r � �•.t.'... -�r.,_i•� ,.......,. h. y.i r1b,.^M. , .*.�:-�N+�tl.. ..,.F�-�..,. w.. .,Y3_t...'*1 ,�3. ,Y,4...C , .. a. .'^a.e a..rlrnC� �.,L,., .qi ..-Yw. ..r/> �a,7Fw,'A t ..w,:�r -.•,a,C, d+ .M ..>... <..- x� --.p 4_ ., ..., , +Y,.,�t.. x -'i p .. �T 7 .:. h �J,, ..;.}r" T;''J.): ":�r..x 'aY �:3�.'"�.. �:- 1. ,.L%.�' h'2 �r, ' r ,. ';: r '-. M,x. : ., ,•{�,:; ,.::,,. . r.! -`��.,- �2, -,t �; -.r,-.... - • ..k.:.,.7t_..,.::n..c '+ _'sa.. �•]•f ,�,. t 11.. `"7 ,.. "l.dG` ,- A...�r � f 3 ,.,,.. �-� �.,r< �; i�,t3.•;�'. ..�xr dy r' c5v"t a�+„!'j {��j"y,7�.• xr 5 � \ MY "'" .S �YT ' 4'�aR '�p- ai ��,' �J �r :��' i ��ac�y �� fir$ ! �� Y F�`N;r��' ) t�!. .,���'� pr3 �y(�r' N v�Y''iY�a k"�o�iy�I �Qj� A •4 v:.., a a4?:`'F rs q 7^ 1���1#°'J �1q'r""v a 'E �E`C �+'"d>i� u.W'A� '. �.^u� „tx 1��"1Y.7r auri.: r � �n,3aC:rS"�r .1'•._ .� Yar1 r� 3'�.� im+gC'res"�55.'.:� 1� i(rk���"4w:u�i� C y S yt t JI + 4 q' k t � ; .fib+ �r 4 P s��'�'a��' 4 �Gti`i �' a � � {'n.r r r G t"7'y� l .1rta• r �.. ' r- .3 7*' 4 .0 .�6 .4•Y '^>v ? T i�wr'{, T rr �*• � Art � `���'� x� ��; a� ,,r«r�•,"'�,z"���'fi�� -�;� T}' �r,,�,,"y" :��'�. rl,�• �6gak�,vJ°„ `�' (fi sP ,a c �r �%".��y�,..'�:,���yartil7M'` k'•I w;y. "�•+P� � rw�R �W5 , r:;w;f.� d,:�.,: ". '.�'� ., f..'�: .hr71 a •'I !u :76Y1°'S f r'¢�' r� * h$�i/' • } rs., n �,, .,s,hir, h,,,.,5�.� � ,Ea � � �.�� t �$ �a�,,. y l •+w �"�' a Y.w+ ra ,� � �J s. r ,Yr;,n „3..,:,�� ;� '':J+ +� :.n"�,= a ,r., ,.':;,;. ..': "• + °' t'' '$, A.. +,G'' �,,,r, „'�., ,�+yH.: �.,,,uR�: w� 4 '.;: .. ;z. rh, .,.:. v ,pr•b, ,,.". .. �;.i, '::' .�v�,3, �!.: ,Y.... r :"'k y1� ..4,.. ��;s.'4r'a u +�3atl!i '"� e :�' ��....'"� '7: A ' `nK1� '„el Kl, Jo.'rx' •rY 4.:r�'-.'G �}..,,..q. 4,1R4•° t p '';�h :,d t. F[a�5. ..j q;s •:� .,s S l" 9:� ^4 r ;F. r.,r., •,a , ,�.sue.. :. .t ry �' :° y„ �rx's �i,•y ; :&r. tnsw r "!1:.'. ,+. .}'.H.`jy�.v..:j,^ , h: ,. s ' .: t x:n.,.:. i..v„ ,,...�,% c .R• n ,,. r 4M , " ?�- ,�'. I.: ..re: ,,,, �- ,•f, � ha e. 1A'J :. r ,. �r� . ., a Tea,,, ;a? .iser�• ° 'fi.,,� � c' yrc: .;y„ua, th g p a' h: a s. x +ka �` r,3', ,.. �r J,. 6,'':r1� :R. r t�� ,� '' •w�':• "'��'. ,swa � .: a.�•,� r4'. A,'�.'...: r"� s0, !.'U�,��r.7g 4, �A"� 1� d.,g�s J +�,� ,4 p ;. •L.,�,•` ,� i./r, .;'' *fi�}•:n,':w �A4.r,;.. ,� .�, �+,>.�;'e °s r' ' ,�, :. .V:.•"�✓f �,�'„i>1.a,v " t�ro7 "+ '�`°a17, 'YdN'.. s'"�'5, =" ^,�' C'r� ' '�'",.. .�'�1. .ri: t��' r ��,'�. „ v y q,,�'q5n, '. y , �.�',f A�c:h,,,. tx, i ?, '� .:r^' � > �>,' i•,!', Tea C.3M�' ka a�' x'§�-'a ,.a�;+� P., * xx".. F�4 �, 'e��"4"Z'� y,c , s.ca''t yy��V � �. rr •S ✓,r v' ',y,, d:. .i a, `4r� . „r K,'v ""Y., y3'. ����jj irr L'� n .r.v6'� 7 s� ,.•;F,, Sx „Tl1?'Y1,{ l'N� 4' b.. l !3.a:. J, '>r ,•.l; i r ..1; :..�^ e7: :aN:ga#'. A.X�'`';;4'rj ;e.P,,: dN s.. �A,.Fr,,.y"a"dyp••..•',.,:.:'..t,.�:Y IR'R:Ya:r$` ,''ri:�t!,'.aJ.':s«aj: {«iP['.,N..,'f#,.g.adc"��3.d.1�,,.e. s�'rWrJ,„r,,.A, «,b t 'i-..d 1• 'h�•,,::M o z J ,a,,_2r n.,.rrRa„�" '"�..P,,'': " xxnrr �. 'F�5sG '.•wq k.`.Ia:.Ci t"r':a9W•`W,.'e'.'xo-,4`�s..�. ,y•rB 4 o. , 5, „sxr, ,<.r Pvr , n'r:: .x.. „>as wr at: �A:�� ».�•�: •' :r 'd, I, ail, .R,'ai'. Jit ,.,a ',, �.v. t' Yf'' ,4b.5`:'"a,', Qt7s!o,J. ?S:.,IS,'.�«.: M'PR�' ?,• a.; .a:".,'P�-+�. "•lhd�.11 :r ,t ,., .( :4"?�., ar.,' u..... ,e,,�Rf't•a�'r "SS fiti t y b' W g 7 µ. q..'7 64 E" 9::4''� $ .Cf f,: ti ?s� 'v"'.y R4.}. il,:a:y ',•"� r rt ,�' •..: ..H ',A,`.:r .KV i r, qq E"1Y:� ,7�,"3• y �6�. ,-., oV � 'P ` gpy ^.5'r *n,; ° -'+.,.J'k :e 'Sr•' <. a,�" /+•: ;., ` -� ,a r 4 ,s.,. „ru,,�'.: 7. v., "<e ,.�,,`FJ,?`.Y' > .d., s .sL'" '..�. ,.� r• «.'s.a w: a * `� �1, a„ Yrik�1^`. w� "' '`Zt •r'v � I rl. `�. �;� !. ,u x �''4` :},'e' .a W n w" M• 5.,�,; y 7 a * ` '{�^M #' :.��i.,l..,a e'�','.,5•'•m, a ! ,'e: a"S+?.%L rr'4 '�a h,Ar,.5raY f.k r ��,' .•,��'1i l7 ."$..... T�„ yq'' '•,.. ,.,..:• t...'.'h, .: ;`.''1i'.. �T. ,'a e�rrrr r R,,, ,,'..,,:. K u�S, J ,,, „J [ .,..' ,.: 4'm. , ':4,..: r 'r ,., V.^.. 'e• ar v a •.�: d r+ ��F': a ,."n+.,g T". �1<;r!.., 2f,, >M. ",.- a. I ,x„. ..,..r ' ,.„. +✓.+ '.,„ :)'�# � . :..a ,:,, ra X.r t�'' ",�, �:. 'v ),r.. x Ai ate;,}„,..'` .. 1, ., :,,,,. ,:5,.•� rti n.w. .'',�•..a.,S,.v,a:fk'a...: � :+,� .,. r , w. :. ,a•.,rl fi. .ra„'}L xaj'-�:,aur m ,t. p^ n. �t,^ ygU`r Ry"+t':.�,J r�,J�.�. �,Y t �.d. ++ 'r '�7te ..r. 5 1u I„ t t. +S�k a, .�. �: 7`... (� 5,� .y�t� 5�, kr ..,�"vt.r ! W'Px Nr'a' :.n,'r.7 m'' ••.•A *aw ":sw fi �`�,, '•3": ,;�''u a^t' '.:,$U,, 14� ( °,� � b':.:r.Y.�,,r;J++,�. `T a' '�R.' :Z+J'�v: 5�,4 r�.5'.�E "y.��l��` �'"7' '�r?Y l+k,Y^ :•F s�A�., ra !; �' C„ '''$'dJ�..,Y f 1^•:R :4'S'i'' �• 9 9,'s +': W ,u4': ,k'rS`b.. '�4",,g W. "n.. :!v('V }, .r, '1"��; « '..w r 'W >tirJ%:.r �+a4a'�:. t� «.,aw,�,, ^, ,�ng�tl '+>'.'e "`lM M• �f,".. yr,9' ,,ff��.': .a c.a„,' �,Vr,^'�. P r's5 , 1.3.�.., .:.'� �.'. ^.,r ,..y h9{F .•,D'Xy,t�r ".rf' .:.'^ �k: ',Y, Y {'; 4""4.�'�:P a 5+ 'T,f��.ii'.3k F` 'r1:.,^� pr''° (•k .,':(: �0� '`sYa.n.? it V,..; E r`dt,?r^•„$'�.,�r•?¢� h;y t.„,. J..,.,-.4yY.,5� m, k',. �..•r,s ., .� t / f M1N. ^f';,, .Jf 5 �:ar f 19. .a. •++id. .ra• .r 4, 5 a„r � .,n q aV.r:l�.J 'c', r, � a".� „e v ,4, µ .a 4 1+.�. >' � �'•' R'i^'+.,r�,� .d",: '�.:r•� '.i;�✓� .'.^' .Pia'.,. .< a'. ;.»�'.n r ��:. '/."".q ,o ^4. x. '{'F": '�.W. ,r.._,'.r. .. .:, r ,.r,,'M1 ,� ,4, ? ., .a. •'.,t.+ka i } � ;.+Y Py^ Nr5 i.s.�' '*k e.Yr�•fA3 r15'nS'Jla .>'.. .}.,o n',e,w. ,,. d .,� s.,,u<., F„ "t'r•..,F ... �._a .r,., .•fi,r ,.,. ,.....,y,d- '.„ Ca s s �u � ,r. ¢, .y.. 4 dd . ,,,:,.�.. ,a KaFF:. :!•. >.., k ,;. .,, :�::., .. X 'Y' .."..., v .,. `c ,.,''d57. .. ,y 4T` ,j,y,,e n""M,' z}: ,I ;"J t ne`� r' ,.-y'^.» .a''.. C h i,,�':YS, -c; .$?,`�y."+i'YS, s'c'•' :x., r� R- 'r',d y.t, r.F:„.t� y.�- [. �'wq i 25t } kf{ ••A i _",}. �. a .iY...;..,4 t'�iL. l �e fi .;8... .J. A, TriJ'p.n .:,,.::r., .� W:,.,rli 0 3� .; tR�„a,,;'$r,�::...,� I , G,^ ,n ';�. ,'m+e�jtY�•ifK':.°,.t�,v as� �sr..z,:y �;µ :5.#.sv ,hn � .sSr35.p x'#tau' � r°�.: w�. ,r�. s. �- r,�-, '.,, ..,":, a ,t:;qt PY'a.:t C`aty"RE:-'�, �'' �.'e '' `p „�:,. ,.r�.... x'••�ti'ik4'r'w a'�" C �.a J'•��;R,rt 's� :,,° t,#�, "'�aQ..ya,•.„ Ir+K.,M�p '��� � '�`.a'+:SC },�a�. °�'M rrw"��- '.�: VIEW TO SITE (SOUTH) ���y�M1,"r." th��t,�'�jYC1i,�"S.'h"�'��rq"�'."'}'a'�'N'y�7�.� 3{ H,r���(r6n+iq�$ �'tC�m�r'p^�.�W�€ ��at'G� �.�*� 17'naa !•++m i' 4 4:"1�,�'. .]N.:"'�".v'"a u�,!sS ..:i.i�� ¢la":wd".w.�L;s'ad�k�Y.+'''1,.Y.a.l'es, � h fj� 't+, �i..�7a.i � ...spad.:l�E:,.;`��sa''�a�.d.,.�f';ayR�u _•'s�alt�.';t �.d.,..",s`'t'tn.;.• i i f f ZONING AD-MINISTRATOR ACTION 1 *OCTOBER 22 2003 HEARING - DENIED } BASED ON : } { • Use will I have detrimental impacts to surroundin9 E residential due to close proximity . Impacts on active use of park . Obstruction of views from adjacent residential properties. . 3 residents spoke i n opposition; petition in opposition signed by 9 residents of the surrounding neighborhood. ANALYSISst wN ProJect is compati ble w/ existi ng uti l ity i right-of-way land use . Project minimizes impacts by co-locating with existi ng faci l ities and use of qua l ity building materials. * Minimized impacts to park use by occupyi ng space designated for uti l ity infrastructure . *Support Genera l Plan pol icies-, 't't Yfi r`t Nnfiz 't^�,�7 W e,�e ,� ,�i n � 7 a x �rx.+ Ana ��:! a 1'�� r P�!7,•�<>r FKga� ��r�.J�4' �, ;���j�I�'At�' !" rMat'^5^�hm '.., ?�?W3.,�,,t . ���9�4�'�n..' 4.t 4��;,ip ,�7���y��k.' ti i,��,' fr eS� 9ft`3}a'M�i i• �ri...3b3 _�` .�6�. . •Fw:.L.' u+1.zrl.,"'� '.e�.L.•h5 `�a•;�r: ..w..a �";�iar'w"n il�tSca` ru"�� a�e�.i�.d,"5:, 4 i 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION r'1 2JANUARY 27, 2004 HEARING — APPROVED f • w MODIFIED CONDITONS BASED ON : e R • Facilitywill be compatible with existing utility f infrastructure use of site/ no significant impacts. g ificant . Consistent w General Planpolicies to facilitate / improved telecommunication service levels • . Complies w/ HBZSO . • 1 resident s spoke in opposition • 2 letters in p opposition + 1 letter from applicant submitted as late communication . BASIS FOR APPEAL * PROPOSED WCF WILL : • NEGATIVELY I M PACT AN D INTERFERE WITH VIEWS • SECURITY LIGHTING WILL " NEGATIVELY I M PACT • SU RROU N DING LAND USES E f y! i i STAFF RECOMMENDATION , *APPROVAL BASED ON : E • • Compatible w existin utili ri ht-of-wa land w/existing utility right-of-way use. • Facility will be co-located w/ existing utility infrastructure. • Will not si nificant detrimental impacts generate g • to surrounding properties. • Consistent w/ General Plan Policies to facilitate improved telecommunications service and to incorporate revenuegeneratingfacilities inparks, RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communication Facility) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 15, 2004 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party.Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS N/A REVLEWED RETURNED FOR DED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial G1�,o City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR,RETURN OF ITEM SpaceOnly) RCA Author: HZ:SH:RS:kjl D D Pz Lid MEETING DATE: March 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT RECEIVED SUBJECT: REQUESTING: DATE Planning 02/23/04 Approval of CUP 03-42 (Langenbeck Park) Wireless Communication Facility TODAY'S DATE February 23, 2004 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: Ray Silver City Administrator February 23,2004 1:42 PM • � __ _ . P� �� -� 3�s/ �o k -� � ����� NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIQIDGa)�, OF Date of Planning C mmisso A o i TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: �P-C) 4 City Attorney ((1 copy') n FILED BY V ✓�cam! �'�9 n �..� �O A c C�!rtc� ,.� 11 REGARDING: � C'� � a` �,S-9 Q 9-(Y1w,A Mp, b---�—`1..II 2 Lr-\N (^n o p C-lL � Tentative Date for Public Hearing: Copy of Appeal Letter attached. LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. A AMING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Connie Brockway City Clerk x5227 CA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA W"j- -1 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICA 606 -6 P 12: 11 TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Connie Boardman, Council Member SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (LANGENBECK PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY) DATE: February 5, 2004 At their January 27, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility—Cingular). It is a request to install a wireless communications facility consisting of antennas attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower and a 185 square-foot equipment enclosure located at the base of the tower. The site is within Langenbeck Park, located on the west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue. I am hereby appealing the Planning Commission's approval for the following reasons: 1. The proposed equipment enclosure will negatively impact and interfere with views. 2. The condition of approval requiring security lighting will negatively impact surrounding residential land uses. c: City Council Planning Commission Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Ron Santos, Assistant Planner CB:RS:rl CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: WaL QC e,G. D • Q 3-,42 G-, WgfZE%t�5 GOMMU ,ICA lWl'\1 DEP TMENT: , RL.AN m. Y- r MEETING DATE:-3.-j 15-©4 CO ACT: I(Z�1N 5��1'DS PHONE: S 36- S 5-6 ( ) (V� ( ) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) (V) ( ) Are the date,'.day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal,is the appellanes name included is the notice? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? i ( ) ( ) (V) Is there an.Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) • (�( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellanL's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Develo meat Permit,is the Coastal Commission art of the aiailin ' (� • (' ) ( ) P P g labels? i ( ( ) O If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? 01 ( ( ). ( ,) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept.items only) Pleas complete the following: ; 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date (! i 2. Number of times to be published 1 3. Number of days between publications 21 • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 15, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: ❑ 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (LANGENBECK PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY): Applicant: AFL Telecommunications Appellant: Councilmember Connie Boardman Request: To install a wireless communications facility consisting of three antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 feet, and a 185 square foot, 10-foot-7-inches tall equipment enclosure located at grade below the tower. Location: 19241 Magnolia Street (west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) Project Planner: Ron Santos NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, March 11, 2004. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (040315) CUT & PASTE v NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 15, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: Ell. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (LANGENBECK PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY): Applicant: AFL Telecommunications Appellant: Councilmember Connie Boardman Reauest: To install a wireless communications facility consisting of three antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at-a height of 43 feet, and a 185 square foot, 10-foot-7-inches tall equipment enclosure located at grade below the tower. Location: 19241 Magnolia Street (west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ron Santos NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,-California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will.be availableao interested parties at the'City Clerk's.Office on Thursday, March 11, 2004._ ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications.to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street; 2nd Floor..... Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 53675227 (040315) PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE I, ROBERT CASTRO , hereby certify that the attached list contains the names and address of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the-latest available assessment roll of Orange County within the area described and for a distance of three hundred (300) from the exterior boundaries of property legally described as: See Attached Application 153-581-01 t Date: AUGUST 13, 2003 Signed SITE: SC 132 MAGNOLIA BLVD. CITE' OF HUNT PC o � .ON PEACH .A - PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2000 MAIN STREET �- HUNTiNGTON BEACH, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RE QUIREMENT.S The City of Huntington Beach requires notification to all property owners, business owners, and tenants renting or leasing units or land on commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject parcel(additional noticing distance required for public school sites and for sites greater than 5 acres in size pursuant to Policy Memo PP-57). The applicants)shall provide the following: 1. An area map indicating all properties within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the subject parcel. The subject parcels and tenant spaces shall be identified by the following: ❑ An Assessor's Parcel Number, (e.g., APN# 149-181-02) ❑ An assigned sequential number ❑ A separate site plan shall be submitted for all properties that are occupied by more than one tenant (e.g., commercial centers, industrial centers, mobile home parks, apartment complexes etc.) 2. One typed list and two(2)sets of gummed mailing labels of the following: ❑ All property owners, including name, address, zip code, assessor's parcel number, and the sequential number corresponding to the number assigned on the area map. ❑ Labels addressed to residential, commercial, or industrial tenants on the subject parcel(s)and properties within three hundred(300)feet of the subject site. o Labels addressed to homeowner's associations within three hundred (300) feet of the subject site,if any. ❑ Labels addressed to applicant and property owner. ❑ Labels addressed to the Calif.Coastal Commission for projects within a coastai zone. 3. All property owner information shall be prepared by either a mapping data service or a title company which utilizes one of the following sources: First American, METROSCAN, or DATAQUICK. The preparer shall certify that the information.was obtained from the latest available tax rolls and that one of the above sources was utilized. 4. Failure to comply with all of the above items may result in the rejection of the submitted application. APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I, "F'Du _(_]n ne Ca hereby affirm that all the public notification requirements (Print Applicant's Name) listed above have been completed. AW LUlj�i a Q,r W I r(�L2 J..� g 5 U Ak`1 ant's Signature Date SAMPLE N P AND LABELS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ON REVERSE, SIDE I 1. APN: 153-132-03 • 2. APN: 153-132-04 • 3. APN: 153-132-05 BERC N.&ANI CERAH DAMON & SANDRA LYNN WHITE PHILIP D.&JULIE A.DOHRMAN 19291 MCLAREN IN 19281 MCLAREN LN 19271 MCLAREN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2753 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2753 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2753 4. APN: 153-132-06 5. APN: 153-132-07 6. APN: 153-132-08 FRANK G.&ROSEMARY R.MENDOZA KEITH A.&LISA A.KICHLINE WESLEY M.BANNISTER 19251 MCLAREN IN 19241 MCLAREN LN 19242 MC CLAREN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2753 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2753 . HUNTINGTON BEACH.CA 92646-27.54- 7. APN: 153-132-09 8. APN: 153-421-13 9. APN: 153-421-14 MICHAEL R.MAGDALENO KATHRYNE L.NORRIS ARTHUR T.NOZAKI 19252 MCLAREN LN 19142 LNNDSAY LN 9859 ELLIS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2754 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2226 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 10. APN: 153-421-15 11. APN: 153-421-16 12. APN: 153-421-17 JAMES W. I'CY A.LEE MOTL 2002 TRUST THOMAS C.&MARILYN RYAN 685 E WIGGNS S 19182 LNDSAY LN 8852 LUSS DR SUPERIOR CO 80027-8009 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2226 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2230 13. APN: 153.421-18 14. APN: 153-421-19 15. APN: 153-421-20 ERN LITTLE DOUGLAS L.&BERNADETTE JACKSON DEREK ADAM&TNA INETTE SMITH 8842 LUSS DR 8832 LUSS DR 8812 LUSS DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2230 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2230. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2230 16. APN. 1.53,4212-1 17 APN:. 153-421-22 18: APN 153-422123 MELODY J.GUIVER KENNETH J.&TOMOMI NORMAN JOYCE A.WOERNER 18685A MAN ST STE 456 8792 LUSS DR 8782 LUSS DR HUNT NGTON BEACH CA 92648-1710 HUNTNGTON BEACH CA 92646-2228 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2228 19. APN: 153-421-24 20. APN: 153-421-25 21. APN: 153-421-26 HAROLD L.CRANK MAURICE HIVELY TIMOTHY &JACQUELIN'E ROGERS 8772 LUSS DR 8762 LUSS DR 8742 LUSS DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2228 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2228 HUNTNGTON BEACH CA 92646-2228 22. APN: 153-422-49 23. APN: 153-422-50 24. APN: 153-422-51 GARY GAPYONG CHOUGH GILBERT PEDRO&ANNEMARIE QUINONEZ KATHLEEN PARSONS 5601 OCEAN TERRACE DR 975.2 ELGIN CIR': 8762 ELGIN CIR .HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-7511 HUNTINGTON-BEACH CA.92646-2213 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CA 926.46-2213 25. APN: 153-422-52 26. APN: 153-422-53 27. APN: 153-422-54 MICHAEL J.CALDARELLA PETER M.OUTCAULT PAMELA REGAN S782 ELGIN'CIR 8792 ELGIN CIR 8802 ELGN CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2213 HUNTNGTON BEACH CA 92646-2213 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2213 28. APN: 153-422-55 29. APN: 153-422-56 30. APN: 153-422-57 SOLOMON A.FITZGER4LD DONALD F.FRENCH GARY B.GIBERSON 3812 ELGIN CIR 19141 LINDSAY LN 19151 LNDSAY LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2213 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2246 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2246 Cup �3-q/L O.C. b3-IE-oi - I �f11RFt'Ir ill(; C ntio,0 �� 31. APN: 153-422-58 32. APN: 153-422-59 • 33. APN: 153-422-60 RICHARD D.&MARY LOU HENDRICKS BRIAN YOUNG MARK P.KENT 19171 LINDSAY LN 8811 LUSS DR 2309 YUCCA WAY HUNTINGTO\BEACH CA 92646-2246 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2229 CAMARILLO CA 93012-9253 34. APN: 153-422-61 35. APN: 153-422-62 36. APN: 153-422-63 FRANK A.&TERI L.ADKINS KIM J.FEDELE LANCE E.&OLGA R.MUELLER 8791 LUSS DR 8781 LUSS DR 8761 LUSS DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA.92646-2248 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646:-2248 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2248_ 37. APN: 153-422-64 38. APN: 153-431-28 39. APN: 153-431-29 JOHN C.&JENNIFER A.KERWIN MICHAEL &ELIZABETH LOVIE PENNY L.HARDISTY 20901 SPARKMAN LN 5832 BELLFIELD LN 9021 HYDE PARK DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6529 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1005 HUNINGTON BEACH CA 92646 40. APN: 153-431-30 41. APN: 153-432-27 42. APN: 153-432-28 STEVEN_R.GRAFF JESUS MAENEZ MICHAEL &GERALDINE VIRAY 9031 HYDE PARK DR 9042 HYDE PARK DR 9032 HYDE PARK DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2301 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2302 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2302 43. APN: 153-432-29 44. APN: 153-432-30 45. �: ] 32 NATALIE P.MEINHARDT JANICE L.HARTER CITYN BEACH 9022 HYDE PARK DR 9012 HYDE PARK DR PO BOX 190 HUNTINGTO`BEACH CA 92646-2302 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2302 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-0190 46. APN:153-501.26 .47.. APN: 153=501-29 48 APN: 153-501-28 JOHN 13.VOGELSANG MYRON M.MARTIN MAW=RONG &JENNY K.C.-CHIN. 19152 HOMESTEAD LN 19162 HOMESTEAD LN 19172 HOMESTEAD LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2220 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA.92646-2220 49. AP\: 153-502-16 50. APN: 153-502-17 51. APN: 153-502-23 ARDEN PRATT TI-KE SHEN JOSEPH E.BAUM 8701 LUSS DR 121 KELVINGTON DR 8672 LUSS DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2227 MONROEVILLE PA 15146-4746 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2200 52. APN: 153-502-24 53. APN: 153-502-25 54. \,,!APN: 153-502-26 JEFFREY SCOTT&VALERIE TIMMERA.AN ANDERSON OF KELLEY TRUST JOSEPH E�BAUM 9682 LUSS DR 8702 LUSS DR 8712 LUSS DRY . .HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2200 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CA 92646-2228 . HUNT .GTOr BEAM CA 92646-2228 55. APX: 153-502-27 56. APN: 153-521-03 57. APN: 153-521-05 THU TRU\TG VUONG ERIC W.BRENN FONG SENG CHUG 8722 LUSS DR 2140 OCEAN WAY 3256 WHITE CLOUD DR HLNrTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2228 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651-3242 HACIENDA HEIGHTS CA 91745-6325 48. APN: 153-534-01 59. APN: 153-534-08 AP;\�,153-581-01 CLARKE TRUST DENNIS P.&KRISTEN J.MCCARTHY SAME AS OW--NERSHIP#45 19292 BAYW ATER LN 19291 PISMO LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2607 HUNTNGTON BEACH CA 92646-2637 - 60. APN: 153-581-02 ol. APN: 153-581-03 • 62. APN: 153-581-04 FLORENTINO F.ALACAYAN CHARLES &MICHELE LEESTMA MARC PENSO 8761 CRESCENT DR 8771 CRESCENT DR 8781 CRESCENT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2201 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2201 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2201 63. APN: 153-581-05 64. APN: 153-581-06 65. APN: 153-581=07 FIRELLI BRAUNAGEL SANDRA JEAN KATO STEPHEN R CASEY 8791 CRESCENT DR 8811 CRESCENT DR 8821 CRESCENT DR HUNTINGTON:BEACH CA 92646-2201. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2203. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2203 66. APN: 153-581-08 67. APN: 153-581-10 68. APN: 153-581-11 MARGARET PORTER-HORVATH DAVID PAUL&GALE LYNN LICATA JACK P.HUGHETT 8831 CRESCENT DR 8841 CRESCENT DR PO BOX 7588 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615-7588 69. APN: 153-581-12 70. APN: 153-581-13 71. APN: 153-581-14 THOMAS WOOD JOSEPH KAR CHUN LO JERRY A.&CAROL P.GREEN 8871 CRESCENT DR 8881 CRESCENT DR - 8891 CRESCENT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2203 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2203 72. APN: 153-581-15 73. APN: 153-581-16 74. APN: 153-58 1-18 IRIS S.LAIRD CHARLES E.&AMY LAMMERS MARTIN J.&GEMMA A.BANNON 522 ILLINOIS ST 8911 CRESCENT DR 8921 CRESCENT DR EL SEGUNDO CA 90245-4416 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2205- HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2205 APN: 153-581-19 76. APN: 153,-581-20 77. APN: 153-581=21 : SCHARF TRUST CALDER MCNAB LANH &THUY-HANG T.NGUYEN . 8941 CRESCENT DR 8951 CRESCENT DR 8961 CRESCENT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2205 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2205 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2205 78. APN: 153-581-22 79. APN: 153-581-23 80. APN: 153-581-24 STEVEN C.&JONNA D.HOPPES THANH LE RONALD J.K.YOUNG 8971 CRESCENT DR 8991 CRESCENT DR 19252 CORALWOOD LN HU`7Ni GTON BEACH CA 92646-2205 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2205 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2624 81. APN: 153-581-25 82. APN: 153-581-26 83. APN: 153-581-27 HL�iG MANH&TINH T.NGUYEN NICHOLAS A.HARITAKIS MARTHA K.POLLOCK 19272 CORALWOOD LN .. 19282.CORALWOOD`LN: 19292.CORALWOOD LN•= HL77INTGTON BEACH CA 92646-2624 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CA 9264672624 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2624 84. APN: 153-582-01 85. APN: 153-582-02 86. APN: 153-582-03 MI\G &SU Y. CI-MN ROBERT &CYNTHIA MARTINDALE YLN C.&IRENE PENG 9772 CRESCENT DR 8782 CRESCENT DR 8792 CRESCENT DR HLN-TINIGTON BEACH CA 92646-2202 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2202 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2202 87. APN: 151-582-04 88. APN: 153-582-05 89. APN: 153-582-06 ELISABETH BUELHLER JAMES F. &CHIEN N.PARKYN ROBERT N.ENDO 8812 CRESCENT DR 8822 CRESCENT DR 8832 CRESCENT DR HL-N'TI�'GTON BEACH CA 92646-2204 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2204 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2204 90. APN: 153-582-07 • 91. APN: 153-582-08 • 92. APN: 153-582-09 TIMOTHY &COLLEEN L.LYONS DAVID P.TSONEFF GARY &REINE BRIGGS 8842 CRESCENT DR 8852 CRESCENT DR 8872 CRESCENT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2204 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2204 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2204 93. APN: 153-582-10 94. APN: 153-582-11 95. APN: 153-582-12 BRUCE L.&JANICE L.CURTIS ROBERT A.HUR ZDENEK L.SMEKAL 8882 CRESCENT DR 8892 CRESCENT DR 8902 CRESCENT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2204 . . HUNTINGTON.BEACH CA 92646-2204 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2206 96. APN: 153-582-13 97. APN: 153-582-14 98. APN: 153-582-15 DAVID G.DOWNS JEFFREY ALLAN&PAULINE BENOUN GRIM SHINICHI &DIANNA YAMAMOTO 8912 CRESCENT DR 8922 CRESCENT DR 8942 CRESCENT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2206 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2206 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2206 99. APN: 153-582-16 100. APN: 153-582-17 101. APN: 153-582-18 DAN VAN DANG JERRY CLARK&HODA S.STORAGE MOTOSHI &AKIKO TSUTSUI 8952 CRESCENT DR 19271 CORALWOOD LN 9302 SHADWELL DR HLN- TINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2206 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-7200 102. APN: 153-582-19 103. APN: 153-582-29 104. APN: 153-582-30 MIKE &PHUONG T.NGUYEN HARUO &YOKO MIYANO V.PAUL WALKER 19291 CORALWOOD LN 19302 SAILWIND LN 8941 SEASPRAY DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2653 105. APN, 153-582-31 106. APN:.M.-582 32 107 APN::153 �82-33. ALAN L.CHANCELLOR ANWER KHAN YASUJI &NANNETTE B.HIROI 8921 SEASPRAY DR 8911 SEASPRAY DR 8901 SEASPRAY DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2653 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2653 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2653 108. APN: 153-582-34 - 109.-- ,, APN: 153-582-35 110. APN: 153-582-36 G.ARY H. &SHERI S.NELSON JEFFREY . ANGELA SANDFORD STEVEN N.EKSTEDT 8891 SEASPRAY DR 8511 SAINT A E DR 8871 SEASPRAY DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2651 HUNTINGTON BEACH C"264�7036 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2651 Ill. APN: 153-582-37 112. APN: 153-582-38 113. APN: 153-582-39 M.JACK BROOKS SEGAL 1996 TRUST LAN T.NGUYEN PO BOX 3483 8841:SEASP.RAY.-DR.-- 8831 SEASPRAY DR COSTA MESA CA 92628-3483 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2651 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2651. l!T. APN: 153-582.40 115. APN: 153-582-41 116. APN: 153-582-42 R; I SULAIl�LAN KHANTG D.&MNH H.LE TU V.&CAM T.DAO 8821 SEASPRAY DR 8811 SEASPRAY DR 8791 SEASPRAY DR H�!TINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2651 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2651 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2649 11 APN: 153-582-43 118. APN: 153-582-44 119, APN: 153-502-28 L.'C T.&NANCY NGUYEN HRKEL JOSEPH J&ELIZABETH A SO CAL EDISON CO 87,31 SEASPRAY DR 8771 SEASPRAY DR 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2649 ROSEMEAD CA 91770 APN: 153-532-50 • AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS • NP SAME AS OWNERSHIP#45 ATTN: SUZANNE GATTI G.C. PING SERVICE 167 TECHNOLOGY DR ATTN: ERT CASTRO IRVINE CA 92618 711 MISSIO T SUITE B SO PASADENA 91030 i `t -A "// 7?7 -9:�-41--: c rehw153 421 15 , q,,r�,�,,, J 153 432 30 153 422 61 Jaynes W. &Nancy A.Leereejic David Chattaway Jack Lewin 9121 Atlanta Ave.r307 9012 Hyde Park Dr. 8791 Luss Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6309. Humtington Beach,CA_92646-2302 . Huntington Beach,CA 9264E__48 153 5 81 02 153 582 35 OCCUPANT Justin Braunagel Jeffrey K &Angela Sandford 19171 MAGNOLIA ST ri2 i 8761 Crescent Dr. 8881 Seaspray Dr. HTJNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92 646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2201 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-2651 9. • 10. • 16. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19152 LINDSAY LN 19172 LINDSAY LN 8802 LUSS DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 22. 33. 37. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8742 ELGIN CIR 8801 LUSS DR - 8741 LUSS DR HUNTINGTON.BEACH CA 92646 .. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646. HUNTINIGTON.BEACH CA 92646 38. 50. 56. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 9011 HYDE PARK DR 8681 LUSS DR 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 56. 56, 56. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#2 - 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#3 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 56. 56. 56. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#5 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#6 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 56..: 56 56 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT '. 1917IMAGNOLIA ST#8 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#9 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#10 HUN'TITIGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 56• 56. 56. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#11 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#12 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#13 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 56. 56. 56. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 191.71 MAGNOLIA ST#14 .. 19171 MAGNOLLA ST#15 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#16 . HUNTTNGTON BEACH CA.92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646'- 56. 56. 56. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#17 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#18 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#19 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 56. 56, 57. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19171 MAGNOLIA ST#20 20821 MAGI GLIA ST 19101 MAGNOLIA ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 57. -68. - 72. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19131 MAGNOLIA ST 8851 CRESCENT DR 8901 CRESCENT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 101. 109. ill. OCCUPANT V OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19281 CORALWOOD LN 8881 SEASPRAY DR 8851 SEASPRAY DR .HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA-92646 ;_ HUNTTINGTON BEACH CA 9264.6_.. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT liUNfING10N BEACH - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ron Santos,Assistant Plannerfz� DATE: January 27, 2004 l�� SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 0342 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility) APPLICANT/ .APPELANT: Suzanne Gatti—AFL Telecommunications for Cingular Wireless 167 Technology Way, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, c/o Real Estate Services Division LOCATION: Langenbeck Park, 19241 Magnolia Street(west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 request: - To permit a wireless communications facility(WCF) co-located with an existing SCE utility tower. • Staffs Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 based upon the following: - The WCF will augment and enhance telecommunications infrastructure in the city. - Visual and park use impacts will be minimized. - The WCF will not generate noise, traffic, demand for parking or other impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 with recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 with findings" B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42, filed pursuant Section 230.96 of the ZSO, is a request to permit a wireless communications facility(WCF) consisting of three antenna arrays and a two foot diameter dish, attached to an existing Southern California Edison utility tower at a height of 43 feet, and a 10 foot-7 inch tall, 185 square-foot equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower. Each antenna array consists of four antennas, approximately four-feet six-inches in length, affixed to a 12-foot long mounting bracket. The proposed antennas would be painted gray to match the existing utility tower. The proposed equipment enclosure would be constructed of unpainted split-face block, with a pitched, tile roof. The WCF is proposed in Langenbeck Park, which is owned by the City and maintained as an active public park, in addition to serving as a utility right-of-way for Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission lines and support towers. SCE leases the right-of-way from the City and is intending to license the use of their support tower to Cingular Wireless, the proposed wireless telecommunications service provider. Langenbeck Park is linear in shape, 200 feet wide and flanked by single-family residential to the north and south (fronting on Luss Drive and Crescent Drive respectively). The existing SCE utility towers are sited in paired intervals for the length of the right-of-way, which extends from approximately one-third of a mile west of Magnolia Street east to Ward Street, approximately one-quarter of a mile south of Garfield Avenue. The WCF is proposed to be co-located on the northern most tower of a pair of towers located approximately 800 feet west of the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way; 55 feet south of the park's northern property line and 125 feet north of the southern property line. The WCF, which would serve as utility infrastructure for wireless telephone communications,would be unmanned and serviced by a technician at the site approximately once a month. Backwound: The City Council adopted the ordinance regulating wireless communication facilities (HBZSO Sec. 230.96) in September 2002, following review of the proposed ordinance by the Planning Commission. The ordinance provides for WCF's in residential zones, subject to conditional use permit approval and review by the Design Review Board. The ordinance further provides for WCF's in the public right-of- way, including installation on existing utility poles, conduits and other facilities of a public utility. Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator considered the conditional use permit request at a public hearing on November 19, 2003. The item was continued from the October 22, 2003, Zoning Administrator meeting, at the request of the applicant, in order to allow for final review of revised plans by the Design Review Board. Testimony in opposition to the request was received from three residents representing two properties in the surrounding neighborhood, along with testimony in support from the applicant. In addition, a petition in opposition signed by nine individuals (representing five properties in the vicinity, inclusive of those represented by the three speakers) was submitted. Prior to the hearing, two letters authored by residents who also signed the petition were submitted in opposition. The petition and letters are provided as Attachment No. 7 . The submitted letters expressed concerns that include the loss of park use, visual impacts, safety, review under the California Environmental Quality Act, potential health hazards and impacts to property values. PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -3- (04srO5 CUP 03-42 Appeal) Staff recommended approval of the request based on the following: ■ The proposed facility is a necessary component of telecommunications infrastructure; ■ The project is consistent with the City's policy to co-locate WCF's with existing structures and provisions of the City's wireless communications facilities ordinance; • The project is expected to have minimal visual, park use or other impacts. ■ The Design Review Board recommended approval of the design, colors and materials. The Zoning Administrator denied the request based on findings that the proposed use would have detrimental impacts to the surrounding neighborhood due to the close proximity of the facility to existing single-family dwellings, the anticipated impact on the active use of the park and the obstruction of views from adjacent residential properties. Appeal: The Zoning Administrator's denial was appealed by the applicant for reasons cited in the appeal letter dated November 26, 2003 (Attachment No. 6). The applicant asserts that the proposed facility will not be detrimental to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood, based on the following: ■ The proposed facility is similar to existing facilities, located in close proximity to residential zones, which have not had a detrimental impact. ■ The proposed facility will not impact active park use, since the facility would utilize only the property directly underneath the existing SCE tower. ■ The proposed facility is compatible with surrounding uses since it is integrated with the design of the existing utility tower and the surrounding homes. ■ The proposed WCF will not significantly interfere with views since the antennas will be mounted at a height of 43 feet and the shelter will not exceed 11 feet in height or 225 sq. ft. in area. A ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE: Subject Property: Public Residential Low-Density Public Park/SCE Utility ri ht-of-wa North and South of Residential Low-Density Residential Low-Density Single-family Subject Property — 7 units/acre residential East and West Public Residential Low-Density Public Park/SCE Utility ri ht-of-wa PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 4- (04s►O5 CUP 03-42 Appeal) General Plan Conformance. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Public. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the following General Plan policies: Land Use Element L.U. 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. Urban Design Element U.D. 2.2: Minimize the visual impacts of oil production facilities and other utilities where they encroach upon view corridors or are visually incompatible with their surrounding uses. Utilities Element U. 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided. U. 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. Recreation and Commun jU Services Element RCS 8.1.4: Revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed co-location of antennas with an existing transmission tower, and the use of decorative masonry and a tiled roof to screen equipment cabinets, will minimize the project's visual impacts. The proposed facility will also generate needed revenue for the City. 4 Zonin-e Compliance.- The proposed project complies with the requirements of HBZSO Chapter 230.96 — Wireless Communications Facilities. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance. The Urban Design Guidelines do not contain specific guidelines for wireless communication facilities. However, the proposed project is consistent with general guidelines contained throughout which call for use of quality building materials, full roof treatments and respect for the scale of surrounding development. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines, which identifies the construction of small structures and the installation of equipment and facilities in small structures as exempt from the provisions of CEQA. PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -5- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board reviewed first draft plans for the proposed project on October 9, 2003. The DRB continued the item to November 13, 2003, with the recommendation that additional architectural treatment be incorporated into the design of the equipment enclosure, including the use of tile roofing. On November 13, 2003, the DRB recommended approval of the applicant's revised plans, which included tile roofing and the use of decorative tiles on the fagade of the equipment building. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Real Estate Services Division provided a letter authorizing processing of the application and is currently negotiating lease terms and conditions with the wireless service provider(Cingular Wireless) and SCE. Preliminary agreements call for the City to receive $12,000 annually in lease payments from Cingular Wireless. SCE would also receive $12,000 annually. The Community Services Department has reviewed the project plans and recommends approval of the application as proposed. A The Public Works Department recommends a condition of approval that would require the applicant to construct a paved or semi-paved (e.g., turf block) access road between the existing park service road and the subject SCE tower. Planning and Community Services Department staff does not support this . condition, as it would result in the loss of turf that supports active park use. In lieu of such a condition, service technicians would be expected to park their service vehicle on the existing paved road and walk (approximately 75 feet) to the proposed facility. Neither the applicant's request nor the City's pending lease agreement calls for use of any non-paved surfaces within the park by service vehicles. Public Noti ication: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on January 15, 2004, and notices were sent to property owners of record and multi-family residential tenants within a 300-foot radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), the applicant, and interested parties. As of January 22, 2004, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received, except that provided at and prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing and previously identified in this report. PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -6- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) Application Processinr Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): October 3, 2003 November 25, 2003 The project was heard by the Zoning Administrator on November 19, 2003, which complies with the State of California Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws relative to mandatory processing times. ANALYSIS: Land Use Compatibility The proposed project is deemed compatible with surrounding land uses, based on the fact that the project proposed is on property that the City has designated as a utility right-of-way, and which supports existing utility infrastructure. Moreover, the proposed WCF would be co-located with an existing utility tower in such a manner as to minimize the perception of its presence. The use will not generate noise, glare from lighting, traffic or other impacts that are incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The applicant has minimized the impacts of the proposed facility by co-locating the proposed antennas on the existing utility tower, in lieu of proposing a new support tower; by painting the proposed antennas to match the tower; and by screening associated equipment with a small enclosure constructed of quality building materials. Moreover, the project minimizes impacts by locating the equipment building directly under the existing SCE tower in an area that has limited park use. It should be emphasized that the applicant is proposing to lease ground space within the utility right-of-way that the City has already leased and reserved for utility infrastructure purposes. In this light, the resulting loss of the 225 square-feet of underutilized space below the existing utility tower should be considered negligible. It should also be noted that, as described above, the proposed facility would be located no closer than 55 feet to the nearest residential property line, and at a height of I0-feet 7 inches to the peak of the roof, would have only a minimal impact on views from the adjacent residential properties or from within the park itself. Similarly, the impact on views of the antennas would be minimal, since, at a height betwyeen 39 and 43 feet, the sightline through the antennas, already obscured by the existing towers, would be only of the sky. The proposed facility is not expected to have a detrimental impact to the value of property in the vicinity, as asserted in the letters submitted in opposition to the project. The project does not introduce a new land use to the subject property or eliminate an amenity available to surrounding residents. The proposed facility consists of equipment and fixtures that are ancillary to an existing facility, and would occupy only space within the park that has already been designated and leased for utility infrastructure use. General Plan Conformance The Utilities Element of the General Plan states that the City should ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided for, and that the City should work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. The proposed WCF, along with the larger network to which it is a part and the networks of other service providers, are a necessary component of the City's telecommunications infrastructure. The proposed facility will provide for improved wireless communications service for City residents and visitors who subscribe to the applicant's network. PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -7- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) The Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plan states that revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. As noted above, the proposed facility will generate approximately$12,000 in annual lease revenue for the City by occupying an underutilized space within the park/utility right-of-way, which has already been reserved and leased for utility infrastructure purposes. Subleasing of the ground space below the tower represents a land efficient means of generating revenue from park space, which minimizes the loss of usable park space. Basis for Appeal The applicant's appeal letter notes that the City has previously approved similar WCFs in close proximity to residential zones, including most notably two WCFs co-located with SCE towers located in the park/utility right-of-way directly east of the proposed project site, across Magnolia Street. Those facilities also consist of antennas attached to existing towers and associated equipment located at the base of the towers, on property functioning both as park space and utility right-of-way. A significant distinction however is that the equipment of the two existing facilities is screened by slatted, vinyl-coated chain-link fencing, whereas the proposed project would screen equipment with an architecturally compatible masonry building. The proposed equipment building, which features split face block and tile roofing, represents a substantial improvement in design over the previously approved WCFs located approximately 1,000 feet east. Staff concurs with the assertions made in the applicant's appeal letter, believes the proposed WCF will have a less than significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood and recommends approval of the appeal and the project as proposed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Approval—Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations received and dated November 3, 2003 3. Project Narrative received and dated August 15, 2003 4. Site Photographs 5. Minutes of Zoning Administrator Meeting dated November 19, 2003 6. Appeal letter dated November 26, 2003 7. Letters in Opposition and/or Support SH:HF:RS:rI PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -8- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and structure and associated equipment. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 10 ft.-7 in. tall, 185 sq. ft. equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will not generate noise, traffic, demand for additional parking or other impacts detrimental to surrounding property. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located on and adjacent to existing Southern California Edison transmission towers, on an existing SCE right-of-way. The design of the facility, which features antennas painted to match the tower to which it is attached, and an equipment shelter constructed of decorative masonry with a tiled roof, will ensure the compatibility of the proposed facility with surrounding uses. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance including the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.94—Wireless Communications Facilities. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL(Residential Low-Density) on the subject property, pursuant to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 230.96, which serves to implement the General Plan. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: L.U. 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. U.D. 2.2: Minimize the visual impacts of oil production facilities and other utilities where they encroach upon view corridors or are visually incompatible with their surrounding uses. U. 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided. (04sr05) Attachment No. 1.1 U. 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. RCS 8.1.4: Revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed co-location of antennas with an existing transmission tower, and the use of decorative masonry and a tiled roof to screen equipment cabinets, will minimize the project's visual impacts. The proposed facility will generate lease revenue for the City which may be used to fund park acquisition, maintenance, recreations programs and facilities and other City services. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout. INDEMNICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 4 (04sr05) Attachment No. 1.2 MLUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: `Lary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Ron Santos, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: NONE ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE ITEM 1: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (SCE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS.FACILITY-CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 22, 2003 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN) APPLICANT: Suzanne Gatti, AFL Telecommunications, 167 Technology Way, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 10 ft.-7 in. tall, 185 sq. ft. equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower. LOCATION: 19241 Magnolia Street (SCE right-of-way, west of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff stated that the request was continued from the October 22, 2003, meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the plans for the equipment shelter as recommended by the Design Review Board. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff advised that the Public Works Department recommended that the applicant be required to install a driveway of turf block or other approved surface leading from the park service road to the proposed facility; however, this requirement is not supported by the Planning Department or Community Services Department due to the impact on park use. Staff stated that two letters in opposition to the proposed project were received as well as one inquiry into the nature of the proposed project. No other written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, reviewed project plans of the proposed facility and photographs of the subject property and neighboring residences. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Doug Jackson, 8832 Luss Drive, neighboring property owner, presented a letter, which was signed by neighboring property owners, opposing the proposed project. Mr. Jackson stated numerous concerns including use of the structure by undesirables during the nighttime hours, reduction in the re-sale value of their homes, health hazard from the combined radio frequency and high voltage, and impact upon their view. Mr. Jackson stated that the proposed project should not be governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because of the uniqueness of the situation. He asked when the AES power plant was to be removed. Bernadette Jackson, 8832 Luss Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Ms. Jackson presented photographs of the subject facility as viewed from her residence. Ms. Broeren engaged in general discussions concerning the distance from the neighboring parcel and aesthetic concerns regarding the proposed facility. Gale Licata, 8841 Crescent Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed project expressing the same concerns as the previous speakers. 4 A gentleman in the audience asked if an environmental study has been conducted in relation to the proposed project. Suzanne Gatti, AFL Telecommunications, 167 Technology Way, Irvin-e, applicant, addressed the aforementioned concerns and spoke on behalf of the proposed project. Ms. Gatti urged the Zoning Administrator's approval stating that the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and is regulated by the FCC. She stated that alternative sites have been considered and discussed with Mr. Jackson. Ms. Gatti referenced the Telecommunications Act concerning radio frequency transmissions stating that no state or local government can regulate wireless facilities on the basis of environmental impacts of radio frequency emission. She stated that concerning the effect of a combination of frequencies it becomes a very gray area because the jurisdiction is split between the California Public Utilities Commission and the FCC. ZA Minutes 11/19/03 2 (03=1119) THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren addressed the aforementioned concerns as presented by the members of the public. She stated that the Zoning Administrator has acted upon a number of wireless communications facilities; however, because of the proximity to homes, the standard for attractiveness has been raised. She stated that the City doesn't normally get much opposition to these types of facilities because the SCE tower is existing, and the applicant is requesting the addition of three antenna arrays. Ms. Broeren further addressed the location, height, visibility, and compatibility of the proposed facility as relatedp the neighboring residences. She stated that.the location of the antenna c � creates a localized impact and that, while the City cannot regulate the radio frequency emissions, the City can regulate the location from a compatibility standpoint to ensure that the adjacent property owners are not detrimentally impacted. Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to deny the request. She stated that the applicant has done a commendable job in terms of improving the aesthetics of the utility structure; however, the location is too close to homes, is in an active park and, even though the subject site is underneath a tower, it will reduce the City park space. Ms. Broeren asked staff to modify the findings for denial as reflected below. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 WAS DENIED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED FINDINGS. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. a FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM-CEOA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act �d(CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and associated equipment. ZA Minutes 11/19/03 3 (03=1119) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 10 ft.-7 in. tall, 185 sq. ft. equipment enclosure located at grade,below the tower, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due to the close proximity of the proposed facility to single-family dwellings and impact on the active park use. R 2. The conditional use permit will not be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located in close proximity to existing homes in an active recreational park and will result in obstruction of views. ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-48 (THE PET ZONE) APPLICANT: Denise Atkinson, 16989 Bluewater Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 PROPERTY OWNER: Edinger Associates, c/o AMC Management, 1600 Dove Street #140, Newport Beach, CA 92660 REQUEST: To establish a dog daycare and kennel facility in an existing 5,040 sq. ft. commercial suite. LOCATION: 7466 Edinger Avenue(south side of Edinger Avenue, east of Gothard Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos E Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans-and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. i Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the suggested findings and subject to the suggested conditions as outlined in the executive summary. One telephone call was received from one of the center's business owners concerning dogs leaving messes outdoors as they enter and exit the subject site. Staff stated that the foregoing concern was brought to the applicant's attention in addition to the fact that any violations of suggested Condition No. 2 would result in action from Code Enforcement and may result in revocation of the use. No other written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Denise Atkinson. 16989 Bluewater Lane, applicant, stated that she had no comments at this time. ZA Minutes 11/19/03 4 (03zm1119) .. ► _ CD Z j - - • ABUTS HYDE PARK — RI ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R I Zone 5 3 2 feet - directly North �.I East Elevation f ae f � I EXISTING WIWLESS FACILITY — ( NORTH TOWER ) ABUTS HYDE PARK — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 53 . 2 feet - directly North Looking north from tower Looking south from tower EXISTING WALESS FACILITY — ( NORTH TOWER ) ABUTS HYDE PARK — RI ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 53 . 2 feet - directly North n Looking east from tower i - Looking west from tower TOWER ) ABUTS MOORPARK DRIVE RI ZONING Distance to closest RI Zone : 70 . 8 feet - directly South le North Elevation South Elevation �►1►i��•J�+�er I1' r Y r -1 r p EXISTING WALESS FACILITY — ( SWTH TOWER ) ABUTS MOORPARK DRIVE — RI ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 70 . 8 feet - directly South East Elevation _ r i West Elevation EXISTING WIOLESS FACILITY — ( SOUTH TOWER ) ABUTS MOORPARK DRIVE — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 70 . 8 feet - directly South r Looking north from tower s, A "n i s Looking south from tower EXISTING W1ELESS FACILITY — ( SOUTH TOWER ) ABUTS MOORPARK DRIVE — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 70 . 8 feet - directly South _ V WT r � r � e f Looking east from tower \ 4, Looking west from tower G t` 0 .. 0 PROPOSED ARTH TOWER ) ABUTS LUSS • RIVE - RI ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest RI Zone : 52 . 1 feet - directly North ,u Fast Elevtltioll West Elevation 1Ip,_ a 'nor A a; PROPOSED TOWER ) ABUTS LUSS DRZONING Distance to closest RI Zone : 52 . 1 feet - directly North Looking r ✓ ' �n r• y' T5� � n;:y i � IM north Looking south from tower I% FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and..is exempt from the provisions of the.California Environmental.Quality- Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 1.5303 of the CEQA Guidelines; because the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and structure and associated equipment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 185 sq. ft. chain link fence equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will not generate noise, traffic, demand for additional parking or other impacts detrimental to surrounding property. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located on and adjacent to existing Southern California Edison transmission towers, on an existing SCE right-of-way. The design of the facility, which features antennas painted to match-the tower..to which,it is attached, , Will ensure the compatibility of.the proposed facility with surrounding uses 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance including the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.94—Wireless Communications Facilities. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL (Residential Low- Density) on the subject property, pursuant to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 230.96, which serves to implement the General Plan. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: L:U. 2: Ensure that dovelopment is adequately served by transportation " infrastructure, utility.infrastructure.and public services: U.D. 2.2: Minimize the visual impacts of oil production facilities and other utilities where they encroach upon view corridors or are visually incompatible with their surrounding uses. U. 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided. U. 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. RCS 8.1.4: Revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the: proposed co-location of antennas with an existing.transmission tower, and the use of chain link fencing with slats and vines to screen equipment cabinets, will minimize the project's visual impacts. The proposed facility will generate lease revenue for the City which may be used to fund park acquisition, maintenance, recreations programs and facilities and other City services. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. A chain link enclosure with slats shall be used to screen equipment, in lieu of the proposed masonry enclosure. b. Vines shall be planted along the perimeter of the equipment enclosure. 2. Lighting shall be prohibited at the facility. 3. The proposed wireless communications facility may be serviced only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p m., except:as necessary for emergency.purposes 4. The facility shall be removed within 30 days of its discontinued use. INDEMNICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The:City shall.promptly notify_the applicant of.any claim; action or proceeding and should.cooperate fully in the defense thereof. u WAIS Document Retrieval • Pagel of 2 1094.6. (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day foll"owing the, date.'on which. the.. becomes -final. If :there is no •prov.ision..for. re cons ideration of 'the; decision, ..o.r"for a written - decision or written findings supporting the decision, in any applicable provision of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the hearing, the date, time, and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written findings, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing, to the party seeking the writ. Subdivision (a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend the time, following deposit in the mail of the decision or findings, within which a petition shall be filed. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the .local agency or. its commission, board, officer, or agent. which. . . made the decis,ion. and shall be delivered to the petitioner.within'.'190." -days after he has filed a- written request therefor: The. local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision (c) within 10 days after the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision (b) , the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one:. (e) "As. used in :this section, decision means a decision""subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, suspending, demoting, or , dismissing an officer or employee, revoking, denying .an application for a permit, license, or other entitlement, imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost, or denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e)•, the local agency shall provide notice to .the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or employee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit, license, or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended, or whose application for a permit, license, or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=66642221521+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve 4/22/200 VVAIS Document Retrieval • Page 2 of (g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a shorter statute of limitations, in which case the shorter statute of limitations shall apply. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=66642221521+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve 4/22/20( " (8) March 15, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing is requested to complete the attached pink form and.give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms located.near the Speaker's Podium. D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Councilmember Connie Boardman of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application Filed by AFL Telecommunication of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility Located 19241 Magnolia Street w/s of Magnolia Street, s/o Garfield Avenue) (420.40) Communication from the Planning Department. Public Hearing to consider Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility). Applicant: AFL Telecommunications Appellant: Councilmember Connie Boardman Request: To install a wireless communications facility consisting of three antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 feet, and a 185 square foot, 10-foot-7-inches tall equipment enclosure located at grade below the:tower . _ Location: 19241 Magnolia Street(west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) Notice is hereby given that this Item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, March 11,2004. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence.delivered to the City at,or.prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further.questions please call the Planning Department at 7.14-536-5271 and refer to.the above items: Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. 1. Staff report i 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing 4. Following public input,close public hearing "*Communication in opposition to the appeal submitted by AFL Communications dated March 9, 2004 and titled CUP#03-42(`Permits Request to Uphold Planning Commission Permit Approval is included in the agenda packet. (9) March 15, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9 Recommended Action: Motion to: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to permit the Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility with findings and conditions of`approval (Attachment No: 1) Councilmember Boardman reported. Assistant Planner Ron Santos presented PowerPoint. Assistant City Clerk Ehring restated Late Communications for record of Public Hearing. Administrative Services Director Clay Martin reported on cost issues relative to Southern California Edison as a service provider. Planning Director Howard Zelefsky reported that five parks throughout the City have towers. Suzanne Gatti representing the applicant and on behalf of Cingular Wireless, responded to Council inquiries. Approved recommended action with exceptions that there not be a building and vines be included in the coverage and if applicant no longer needs facility, the structure and equipment be removed within 30 days and that security lighting not be used Approved 4-3(Coerper, Hardy,:Cook-No) PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) . SS. County of Orange ) _ NOTICE OF you may he limited to PUBLIC HEARING raising only those issues I am a Citizen of the United States and a BEFORE THECITYCOUNCIL ' raised at the public °r someone else raised OF THE CITY.OF hearing described in this resident of the County aforesaid; I am HUNTINGTON BEACH corresponotice, n in written ndence. deliv- NOTICE .IS HEREBY ered to the City at, or over.the age of eighteen years, and not a GIVEN that on Monday, prior to, the public _ March 15, 2004_at_7:00 hearing. If them.-are any .-party - to or-- -interested --in---the--below-- - p.m: in the City Council. further questions please Chambers, 2000 Main call the Planning De- entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of Street, Huntington partment at 536-5271 Beach, the City Council and refer to the above the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a I will hold ll public hearing items. Direct your / on the following planning written communications andzonin newspaper of general circulation printed L ' to the City Clerk. items: b � 1. APPEAL 'OF THE, Connie Brockway, PLANNING COMMIS- City Clerk, and pu lished in the City of Huntington SION'S- APPROVAL OF City of Beach, County of Orange, State of i CONDITIONAL USE PER- HuntingtonBet,2 MIT N O. . 0 3-4 2 2000 Main Street; nd (LANGCalifornia, and that attached Notice is a WIRELESS COM PARK Floor,Huntington WIRELESS COMMUNICA- Beach,California TIONS'FACILITY): Appli- 92648, true and complete copy as was printed . 5227 cant: AFL Tpp.II nt- (7ished untie nications .Appellant: Published Huntington I Councilmember Connie Beach Independen.t; and published in the Huntington Beach Boardman Request: To March 4,2004 031-256j install a wireless com- and Fountain Valley issues of said munications. facility newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: i consisting of three antenna arrays attached to an.existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 feet,; and a 185 square foot, 10-foot-7 inches tall equipment enclosure March 4, 2004 located at grade below the tower. Location: 19241 Magnolia Street (west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue)- Project Plan ner:Ron Santos NOTICE IS HEREBY declare under penalty of perjury, that ' GI that Item " 1' , , I is- categorically exempt, from the provisions of the foregoing is true and correct. I the California Environ mental Quality Act. ON FILE:A copy of the, proposed request is on file in the.City Clerk's' Executed on Office,2000 Main Street;j March 4 , 2004 Huntington Beach, Cali- fornia 92648, for in at Costa Mesa, California. spection by the public. ! A copy of the staff, report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, March 11,E 2004. ALL INTEREST.EIDi PERSONS are invited tol attend said hearing and + iexpress opinions .ors submit evidence for or against the application•' as outlined above.If your Signature ( challenge the City Council's action in court; Esparza, Patty From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 7:17 PM To: Esparza, Patty; Jones, Dale; Roberts, Robin; Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW: CUP NO 03-42 File Note Re: Continuance of Standard Procedure Findings& :onditons(CC final.. atty - Please keep a copy for your follow-up procedures and include this e- mail with the attachment as a file note for the 3/15/04 Public Hearing on Cingular Wireless: After discussion in my office at around 3:30 p.m. today, Scott Hess, Principal Planner confirmed that the Planning Department will continue to craft Conditions of Approval and amendments to Conditions of Approval. In this instance, Ron Santos, Assistant Planner amended the language for CUP 03-42 in accordance with the City Clerk's previous requests. I received the amended language below and Patty has issued the Notice of Action to all parties involved. Minutes do not have to be resubmitted for Council approval. -----Original Message----- From: Santos, Ron Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3 :58 PM To: Ehzing, Liz Subject: CUP NO 03742 1 . (3) antenna arrays atthed to an existing Southern California tison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 185 sq. ft. chain link fence equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will not generate noise, traffic, demand for additional parking or other impacts detrimental to surrounding property. 2. r 4 The conditional use permoill be compatible with surrounding usfbecause the proposed facility will be located on and adjacent to existing Southern California Edison transmission towers, on an existing SCE right-of-way. The design of the facility, which features antennas painted to match the tower to which it is attached, will ensure the compatibility of the proposed facility with surrounding uses. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance including the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.94 -Wireless Communications Facilities. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL (Residential Low-Density) on the subject property, pursuant to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 230.96, which serves to implement the General Plan. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: L.U. 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. U.D. 2.2: Minimize the visual impacts of oil production facilities and other utilities where they encroach upon view corridors or are visually incompatible with their surrounding uses. U. 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided. U. 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. RCS 8.1.4: Revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed co-location of antennas with an existing transmission tower, and the use of chain link fencing with slats and vines to screen equipment cabinets, will minimize the project's visual impacts. The proposed facility will generate lease revenue for the City which may be used to fund park acquisition, maintenance, recreations programs and facilities and other City services. Conditions of Approval -Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. A chain link enclosure with slats shall be used to screen equipment, in lieu of the proposed masonry enclosure. b. Vines shall be planted along the perimeter of the equipment enclosure. 2. The proposed wireless communications facility may be serviced only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except as necessary for emergency purposes. LM -----Original Message----- From: Santos,Ron Sent: Thursday,April 15,2004 11:20 AM To: Ehring, Liz Subject: RE: CUP No.03-42 Thanks Liz, but, as it turns out, the official minutes are also inaccurate. There is no reference to the condition of approval requiring the facility to be removed if abandoned -which was the subject of numerous a-mails 5 back in forth between Aning, the Clerk's Office, and the Attorney'llffice; nor to the restriction on security lighting -which was also identified in Leoni's March 24 e-mail (see below). -----Original Message----- From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Thursday,April 15,2004 9:47 AM To: Santos, Ron Subject: RE:CUP No.03-42 Ron -here you go . . . << File: 031504rm.doc>> -----Original Message----- From: Santos,Ron Sent: Thursday,April 15,2004 7:37 AM To: Ehring, Liz Subject: RE: CUP No.03-42 Liz, I was referring to the e-mail version of the minutes which were sent immediately following the Council meeting at which the project was approved. I have not seen the official Council-approved minutes. Would you please e-mail that document to me? -----Original Message----- From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Wednesday,April 14,2004 9:04 PM To: Santos,Ron; Mulvihill,Leonie Cc: Esparza, Patty;Jones, Dale; Ross, Rebecca Subject: RE:CUP No.03-42 Ron, I've added Leonie from the City Attorney's Office(thanks Leonie)to the e-mail for assistance and her recommendations. The City Clerk's Office does not issue a Notice of Action, but we will be happy to send the applicant a letter with the approved RCA and all attachments, as well as the approved minutes. Both can certified upon your request by a Deputy stating that the originals are on file with the City Clerk's Office. We prepared the minutes accurately in reflecting what took place at the 3/15/04 meeting. We have done so with the City Attorney's assistance, as can be seen in the paper trail below. Leonie viewed the tape and listed what took place at the meeting with regards to the exceptions the City Council approved. We listed these conditions verbatim in the minutes. The minutes were approved on 4/5/04 by Council. Please take another look at these approved minutes, as we had requested and received from you an electronic version of the Conditions of Approval as amended, subsequent to the meeting. This e-mail version differed from the hard copy version which had been included with your staff report in the agenda packet. This e-mail version was imported verbatim and in its entirely into the minutes. It incorporated changes corresponding to what Leonie listed above. If they do not accurately reflect the amended conditions of approval, we have no other means of providing information to the contrary. -----Original Message----- From: Santos,Ron Sent: Wednesday,April 14,2004 10:21 AM To: Ehring, Liz Subject: RE: CUP No.03-42 Thanks for getting back to me. What we're looking for is a copy of the formal notice to the applicant which advises that the CUP has been approved and the corresponding conditions. (Planning sends out a "Notice of Action" letter following Planning Commission actions). The conditions must be printed verbatim on the applicant's plans for building permits. The minutes 6 will notork, since as noted in my e-mail a week or to ago, they do not accurately reflect the conditions of approval. -----Original Message----- From: Santos, Ron Sent: Tuesday,April 13,2004 11:15 AM To: Subject: RE:CUP No.03-42 Liz, has the final CC action been transmitted to the applicant? If so,would you please send a copy of the action notice to me via interoffice mail? (The applicant has submitted for building permits, issuance of which is pending review of plans for conformance with the official CC action). -----Original Message----- From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Monday,March 29,2004 5:26 PM To: Mulvihill, Leonie; Santos,Ron CC: Esparza,Patty; Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW:CUP No.03-42 Leonie-you are absolutely right. It was the message from Jennifer below that refers to the 6 months. Therefore, since we need to remove the facility within 30 days of disuse, does Ron have to show that in the CUP? Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Mulvihill,Leonie Sent: Wednesday,March 24,2004 11:20 AM To: Ehring,Liz; Santos, Ron; McGrath,Jennifer CC: Esparza, Patty;Jones,Dale; Ross, Rebecca Subject: RE:CUP No.03-42 . The City Council approved CUP No. 03-42 per staffs recommendation with the following exceptions: (1) no building; (2)vine coverage; (3) if the applicant no longer needs the facility it will be removed within 30 days of disuse; and (4)no security lighting. These terms should be included in the CUP. LM -----Original Message----- From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Tuesday,March 23,2004 5:48 PM To: Mulvihill,Leonie CC: Esparza, Patty;Jones, Dale; Ross, Rebecca; Santos, Ron Subject: FW: CUP No.03-42 Hi Leonie-we will await the decision based on the e-mail messages from you and Jennifer below. Liz -----Original Message----- From: Mulvihill,Leonie Sent: Tuesday,March 23,2004 4:09 PM To: McGrath,Jennifer; Ehring, Liz;Santos, Ron Subject: RE:CUP No.03-42 I reviewed the tape from the March 15th meeting of City Council. The motion by Connie Boardman was to move the recommended action with the following amendments: (1) no building; (2)vine coverage; (3) if applicant no longer needs the facility equipment will be removed within 30 days of disuse; and (4) no security lighting. Motion seconded by Sullivan. Approved 4-3. LM 7 • -----Original Message----- From: McGrath,Jennifer Sent: Monday, March 22,2004 8:50 AM To: Mulvihill, Leonie Cc: Ehring,Liz Subject: FW:CUP No.03-42 Leonie, could you please confirm this information. My recollection is that no condition was technically added as the code requires 6 months but you may want to look at the tape and discuss with Liz. Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney City of Huntington Beach ph. (714)536-5555 fax(714)374-1590 IMPORTANT NOTICE.- The preceding message maybe confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. Ifyou believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender thatyou have received the message in error, then destroy it. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Ehring,Liz Sent: Monday,March 22,2004 8:42 AM To: McGrath,Jennifer Cc: Jones,Dale; Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW:CUP No.03-42 Thanks Ron & Rebecca-we will have Jennifer verify that the timeframe is 6 months to confirm that it is within code to remove structure and equipment after disuse. Thanks, Jennifer Liz Ehring Assistant City Clerk x5405 -----Original Message----- From: Ross,Rebecca Sent: Monday, March 22,2004 8:16 AM To: Ehring,Liz Subject: FW:CUP No.03-42 Hi Liz, Look what we got!! When you have a chance, could we review? Thanks! RR -----Original Message----- From: Santos,Ron Sent: Monday, March 22,2004 8:14 AM To: Ross, Rebecca Subject: CUP No.03-42 << File: Findings &Conditons (CC final).doc>> Here are the revised CC findings and conditions of approval for Item D-1 (CC- March 15). 1 believe there was a third condition which is not included in the attachment-related to removal of the facility. I didn't get the established time. I thought the CC had required removal w/i 30 days, but the minutes sent by e-mail said 6 months - consistent w/Code. Please verify and add this third condition. Ron Santos Assistant Planner 8 Er--.s 1 y, PcAZ Council/Agency Meeting Held: C� Deferred/Continued to: QaA4�� ;W Appro ed Con i ion Iy Approved ❑ Denied Cit C erk's natu e Council Meeting Date: March 15, 2004 Department ID Number: PL04-03 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator"-P a PREPARED'BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning rz M T SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 cf� x'- (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility). Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by City Council Member Connie Boardman, of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use -Permit No. 03-42. This application represents a request to permit a wireless communications facility (WCF), co- located with an existing Southern California Edison utility tower. The facility consists of antennas attached to the existing tower at a maximum height of 43 feet, and a 185 square- foot, 10-foot seven-inch tall equipment enclosure located at grade below the tower. The Planning Commission approved the project and is recommending approval along with staff (Recommended Action —A), based on findings that the proposed project is compatible with the existing utility infrastructure land use on the project site, complies with City policies to encourage co-location of telecommunication facilities on existing structures, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the Commission found the project to be consistent with a General Plan policy to encourage revenue-generating facilities, where appropriate, in the design and programming of parks. Funding Source: Not applicable. �\ REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-03 Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to permit the Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)" Planning Commission Action on January 27, 2004: A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42, WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, DINGWALL, LIVENGOOD, SHOMAKER NOES: RAY, SCANDURA ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: THOMAS MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s1: The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 with findings for denial." 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: AApplicant: Suzanne Gatti —AFL Telecommunications for Cingular Wireless Appellant: City Council Member Connie Boardman Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach, c/o Real Estate Services Division Project Location: Langenbeck Park, 19241 Magnolia Street (west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) PL04-03 -2- February 25,2004 2:35 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-03 Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 represents a request for the following: To permit a wireless communications facility (WCF), pursuant to Section 230.96 — Wireless Communications Facilities, of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The facility consists of three antenna arrays and a two foot diameter dish, attached to the existing SCE tower at a maximum height of 43 feet, and a 10 foot-7 inch tall, 185 square- foot equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower. Each antenna array consists of four antennas, approximately four-feet six-inches in length, affixed to a 12-foot long mounting bracket. The proposed antennas would be painted gray to match the existing utility tower. The proposed equipment enclosure would be constructed of unpainted split-face block, with a pitched, tile roof. The WCF is proposed in Langenbeck Park, which is owned by the City and maintained as an active public park, in addition to serving as a utility right-of-way for Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE leases the right-of-way from the City and is intending to license the use of their support tower to Cingular Wireless, the proposed wireless telecommunications service provider. Langenbeck Park is linear in shape, 200 feet wide and flanked by single-family residential to the north and south (fronting on Luss Drive and Crescent Drive respectively). The existing SCE utility towers are sited in paired intervals for the length of the right-of-way, which extends from approximately one-third of a mile west of Magnolia Street east to Ward Street, approximately one-quarter of a mile south of Garfield Avenue. The WCF is proposed to be co-located on the northern most tower of a pair of towers located approximately 800.feet west of the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way; 55 feet south of the park's northern property line and 125 feet north of the southern property line. The WCF, which would serve as utility infrastructure for wireless telephone communications, would be unmanned and serviced by a technician at the site approximately once a month. B. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted the ordinance regulating wireless communication facilities (HBZSO Sec. 230.96) in September 2002. The ordinance provides for WCF's in residential zones, subject to conditional use permit approval and review by the Design Review Board. The ordinance further provides for WCF's in the public right-of-way, including installation on existing utility poles, conduits and other facilities of a public utility. C. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The Design Review Board reviewed first draft plans for the proposed project on October 9, 2003. The DRB continued the item to November 13, 2003, with the recommendation that additional architectural treatment be incorporated into the design of the equipment enclosure, including the use of tile roofing. On November 13, 2003, the DRB recommended approval of the applicant's revised plans, which included tile roofing and the use of decorative tiles on the fagade of the equipment building. PL04-03 -3- February 25,2004 2:35 PM • REQUEST E T F O R ACTION •MEETING DATE: March 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-03 D. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Administrator considered the conditional use permit request at a public hearing on November 19, 2003. The item was continued from the October 22, 2003, Zoning Administrator meeting, at the request of the applicant, in order to allow for final review of revised plans by the Design Review Board. Testimony in opposition to the request was received from three residents representing two properties in the surrounding neighborhood, along with testimony in support from the applicant. In addition, a petition in opposition signed by nine individuals (representing five properties in the vicinity, inclusive of those represented by the three speakers) was submitted. Prior to the hearing, two letters authored by residents who also signed the petition were submitted in opposition. The petition and letters are provided as an attachment to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 4). The submitted letters expressed concerns that include the loss of park use, visual impacts, safety, review under the California Environmental Quality Act, potential health hazards and impacts to property values. Staff recommended approval of the request based on the following: ■ The proposed facility is a necessary component of telecommunications infrastructure; ■ The project is consistent with the City's policy to co-locate WCF's with existing structures and provisions of the City's wireless communications facilities ordinance; ■ The project is expected to have minimal visual, park use or other impacts. ■ The Design Review Board recommended approval of the design, colors and materials. The Zoning Administrator denied the request based on findings that the proposed use would have detrimental impacts to the surrounding neighborhood due to the close proximity of the facility to existing single-family dwellings, the anticipated impact on the active use of the park and the obstruction of views from adjacent residential properties. E. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On January 27, 2004, the applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action was presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant spoke in support of the request and one resident of the surrounding neighborhood spoke in opposition to the request. No other public testimony was received at the hearing. Prior to the hearing two letters in opposition and one letter from the applicant were submitted as late communication. (Attachment No. 5) The Planning Commission approved the request with conditions of approval requiring installation of security lighting (if deemed necessary by the Police and Planning Departments) and restricting the hours which the facility may be serviced to between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except for emergencies. The condition for security lighting was intended to address concerns expressed by residents that the proposed facility will attract and serve as screening for delinquent night-time use of the park. The restriction on facility maintenance hours was intended to minimize noise impacts associated with service activities and vehicles. These conditions, though not a part of the staff recommendation, were not opposed by staff or the applicant. PL04-03 -4- February 25,2004 2:35 PM • REQUEST E T F O R ACTION 0 MEETING DATE: March 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-03 Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, the Police Department reviewed the proposed project and offered the following recommendations: ■ Only the base of the structure, up to three from the ground, should be lighted. ■ Lighting should be shielded to prevent illumination of adjacent residential properties. The intent of the recommended lighting is to deter loitering and undesirable activity while minimizing impacts to adjacent neighbors. The Planning Department concurs with the Police Department recommendation. F. APPEAL: On February 6, 2003, City Council Member Boardman filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project. The appeal letter (Attachment No. 2) cited the following reasons as a basis for the appeal: 1. The proposed equipment enclosure will negatively impact and interfere with views. 2. The condition of approval requiring security lighting will negatively impact surrounding residential land uses. G. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Land Use Compatibility The proposed project is deemed compatible with surrounding land uses, based on the fact that the project proposed is on property that the City has designated as a utility right-of-way, and which supports existing utility infrastructure. Moreover, the proposed WCF would be co- located with an existing utility tower in such a manner as to minimize the perception of its presence. The use will not generate noise, glare from lighting, traffic or other impacts that are incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The applicant has minimized the impacts of the proposed facility by co-locating the proposed antennas on the existing utility tower, in lieu of proposing a new support tower; by painting the proposed antennas to match the tower; and by screening associated equipment with a small enclosure constructed of quality building materials. Moreover, the project minimizes impacts by locating the equipment building directly under the existing SCE tower in an area that has limited park use. It should be emphasized that the applicant is proposing to lease ground space within the utility right-of-way that the City has already leased and reserved for utility infrastructure purposes. In this light, the resulting loss of the 225 square-feet of underutilized space below the existing utility tower should be considered negligible. It should also be noted that, as described above, the proposed facility would be located no closer than 55 feet to the nearest residential property line, and at a height of 10-feet 7-inches to the peak of the roof, would have only a minimal impact on views from the adjacent residential properties or from within the park itself. Similarly, the impact on views of the antennas would be minimal, since, at a height of 43 feet, the sightline through the antennas, already obscured by the existing towers, would be only of the sky. PL04-03 .5- February 25,2004 2:35 PM • REQUEST FOR ACTION • MEETING DATE: March 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-03 The proposed facility is not expected to have a detrimental impact to the value of property in the vicinity, as asserted in the letters submitted in opposition to the project. The project does not introduce a new land use to the subject property or eliminate an amenity available to surrounding residents. The proposed facility consists of equipment and fixtures that are ancillary to an existing facility, and would occupy only space within the park that has already been designated and leased for utility infrastructure use. General Plan Conformance The Utilities Element of the General Plan states that the City should ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided for, and that the City should work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. The proposed WCF, along with the larger network to which it is a part and the networks of other service providers, are a necessary component of the City's telecommunications infrastructure. The proposed facility will provide for improved wireless communications service for City residents and visitors who subscribe to the applicant's network. The Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plan states that revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. The proposed facility will generate approximately $12,000 in annual lease revenue for the City by occupying an underutilized space within the park/utility right-of- way, which has already been reserved and leased for utility infrastructure purposes. Subleasing of. the ground space below the tower represents a land efficient means of generating revenue from park space, which minimizes the loss of usable park space. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act, which states that the construction and installation of small new equipment and facilities is exempt. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval (Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation) 2. Appeal Letter to City Council dated February 6, 2004. 3. Planning Commission Draft Minutes dated January 27, 2004 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 27, 2004 5. Planning Commission Late Communication (Letters in Support/Opposition) 6. PowerPoint Presentation Slides RCA Author: RS/HF PL04-03 -6- February 25,2004 2:35 PM ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and structure and associated equipment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 185 sq. ft. chain link fence equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will not generate noise, traffic, demand for additional parking or other impacts detrimental to surrounding property. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located on and adjacent to existing Southern California Edison transmission towers, on an existing SCE right-of-way. The design of the facility, which features antennas painted to match the tower to which it is attached, will ensure the compatibility of the proposed facility with surrounding uses. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance including the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.94—Wireless Communications Facilities. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL (Residential Low- Density) on the subject property, pursuant to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 230.96, which serves to implement the General Plan. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: L.U. 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. U.D. 2.2: Minimize the visual impacts of oil production facilities and other utilities where they encroach upon view corridors or are visually incompatible with their surrounding uses. U. 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided. U. 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. location of antennas with an existing transmission tower, and the use of decorative masonry and a tiled roof to screen equipment cabinets, will minimize the project's visual impacts. The proposed facility will generate lease revenue for the City which may be used to fund park acquisition, maintenance, recreations programs and facilities and other City services. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The proposed wireless communications facility may be serviced only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except as necessary for emergency purposes. 3. Prior to submittal for building permits, the Police and Planning Departments shall review the proposed project plans and determine what, if any, motion-activated security lighting shall be installed at the proposed facility. If security lighting is determined to be necessary, the applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating that any lighting to be installed will be designed and shielded to avoid illumination and glare impacts on surrounding residential properties. The type, location and intensity of proposed lighting shall be noted on the plans submitted for building permits. Required lighting shall be installed prior to final of building permits and activation of the facility. INDEMNICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. ATTACHMENT 2 CITY IF CITY OF HUNTINGTON d1eACPf'_AD], 'U. CA CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICAT 61 6 -6 P 12: 11 TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Connie Boardman, Council Member SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (LANGENBECK PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY) DATE: February 5, 2004 At their January 27, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility—Cingular). It is a request to install a wireless communications facility consisting of antennas attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower and a 185 square-foot equipment enclosure located at the base of the tower. The site is within Langenbeck Park, located on the west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue. I am hereby appealing.the Planning Commission's approval for the following reasons: 1. The proposed equipment enclosure will negatively impact and interfere with views. 2. The condition of approval requiring security lighting will negatively impact surrounding residential land uses. c: City Council Planning Commission Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Ron Santos, Assistant Planner CB:RS:rI ATTACHMENT 3 0 0 DRAFT B-2. PUBLIC HEARING TO BE OPENED: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (LANGENBECK PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY): Applicant/Appellant: AFL Telecommunications Request: To install a wireless communications facility consisting of three antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 feet, and a 185 square foot, 10 foot, 7 inches tall equipment enclosure located at grade below the tower. Location: 19241 Magnolia Street (west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) Project Planner: Ron Santos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 with recommended findings and conditions of approval." Commissioner Thomas excused herself from action on the item due to a conflict of interest. Ron Santos, Assistant Planner, identified late communication and made a presentation to the Commission. Questions/comments included: ■ Staff provided an explanation on the five-property petition of signatures. ■ Discussion of past park lighting provided by adjacent homeowners, and the possibility of proximity-triggered floodlights. ■ Discussion of how the proposed building would shield vandalism attempts from plain view. ■ Discussion on the types of tower devices in place that prohibit people from climbing them. ■ Request for studies that provide information on the harmful effects of combined power and radio transmission. Staff stated that federal law precludes local government from regulating wireless communication facilities based on environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. ■ Discussion regarding underground equipment vaults. Staff and the applicant agreed that the concept is generally cost prohibitive. ■ Discussion regarding the number of homes fronting the park, and the number of those individuals opposed to the request. ■ Discussion of park and building square footage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: David Licata, Crescent Drive, asked if the public would be offered a chance to rebut possible statements made by staff, the applicant or the Commission. The Commission replied negatively and therefore Mr. Licata requested to speak after the applicant. Suzanne Gatti, applicant, Cingular Wireless, spoke in support of the item and responded to questions and/or comments made by the Commission related to vandalism and tower climbing. She questioned the accuracy of information reported by those who oppose the project, and stated that the Zoning Administrator's denial was not legitimate, claiming that the findings provided no evidence to support a denial. She also discussed a similar facility at a nearby location that was previously approved by the City. David Licata, Crescent Drive, spoke in opposition to the item, urging the Commission to locate the structure on commercial property, not residential parkland. He discussed a similar existing facility that abuts Magnolia Street and does not impact the parks view or use. He voiced concerns regarding vehicle access, sleep disruption, and the proposed building height of 11 feet, calling it a shelter for vagrants. He stated that the location was wrong for pedestrians and animals that enjoy the park. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission made the followina disclosures: Commissioners Scandura, Ray and Davis visited the site and surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Scandura complimented the staff report. He identified Huntington Beach as a "park poor" city and stated that placing industrial equipment on parkland property is incompatible. He suggested finding a more suitable location and objects to revenue being generated for uses other than recreational. He also stated that vehicular access to the facility is necessary. Commissioner Davis stated that the applicant chose the location for a reason, and reminded the audience that most homeowners enjoy cell phones. He stated that he is not offended by the structure, that the ratio of parkland area is not disturbing, and that the proposed building is similar to other park structures, i.e., park restrooms and equipment houses. Staff stated that California Edison easement areas co-mingle with parks and reminded the Commission that the request involves an addition to an existing tower facility. Staff also stated that three like antennas exist in the immediate area, and that the use is allowed in all zoning classifications. Staff also noted that the City provides parkland at a ratio of 5 acres per 1000 people—the goal is established in the General Plan. Commissioner Dingwall asked about disguising antennas and ordinance regulations. Staff discussed language within the ordinance that allows for design variations. Commissioner Dingwall suggested providing safety personnel at night to enhance public safety in the region. He also recommended adding a condition that requires proximity (motion sensor) lighting and stated that he would not be opposed to an underground vault. Commissioner Livengood asked about repair access vehicles and what road they would use. Staff explained that the existing paved road near the southern property line would be used for access and parking. Commissioner Ray asked why the north tower was being modified, and not the south? The applicant explained that radio technicians recommended the north tower for technical purposes and enhanced transmission. The applicant also noted that the City generally prefers co-location on existing lattice towers to construction of new support towers. Commissioner Davis stated that he was opposed to proximity lighting, and that the proposed building is consistent with other like uses. • i A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 WITH RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Commissioner Dingwall stated that no one has ever been known to disable proximity lighting. Commissioner Davis commented that he would not support proximity lighting, especially without neighborhood notification. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO AMEND COMMISSIONER DAVIS' MOTION BY ADDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO INCLUDE PROXIMITY LIGHTING. Discussion ensued on proximity lighting and the Commission asked Mr. Licata to approach the podium and provide comments. Mr. Licata voiced concerns about a 15 ft. high light source blinking on and off during the night. Suzanne Gatti stated that Cingular would not be opposed to the added condition of approval for security lighting. Staff recommended that the Police Department provide direction on appropriate security lighting that would enhance safety conditions, but not be a nuisance to neighboring residents. Commissioner Scandura stated that vehicular access hours needed to be addressed because no restrictions exist within the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Shomaker stated that she does not support proximity lighting. Suzanne Gatti stated that Cingular requests 24-hour access to the facility, informing the Commission that as the leaseholder, the City can govern access time outside of an emergency. THE MOTION WAS RESTATED BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO AMEND COMMISSIONER DAVIS' MOTION BY ADDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO INCLUDE PROXIMITY LIGHTING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ray, Dingwall NOES: Scandura, Davis, Shomaker, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Thomas MOTION FAILS COMMISSIONER DAVIS RESTATED HIS ORIGINAL MOTION, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 WITH RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Shomaker, Livengood NOES: Scandura, Ray, Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Thomas MOTION FAILS A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER RAY TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO A DATED UNCERTAIN, HAVING STAFF CONSIDER ANOTHER PROJECT LOCATION. Staff explained that recommending a new location would require a new application and public notification. Discussion ensued on majority vote rule, and whether or not the request was automatically deemed denied according to the Planning Commission By Laws. Commissioner Dingwall considered an alternate motion that included conditions related to repair vehicle access hours and proximity lighting. Commission Scandura read from the By Laws, confirming that an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present must be reached to approve a request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 WITH RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, INCLUDING REPAIR VEHICLE ACCESS HOURS AND SECURITY LIGHTING AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. Commissioner Scandura restated his opposition to incompatible land use. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Davis, Shomaker, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: Scandura, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Thomas MOTION PASSES ATTACHMENT 4 s � �� City of Huntington Beach Planning Department ..STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH -:�.:; ': `��, TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ron Santos, Assistant Planner�� DATE: January 27, 2004 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility) APPLICANT/ APPLLANT: Suzanne Gatti—AFL Telecommunications for Cingular Wireless 167 Technology Way, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, c/o Real Estate Services Division LOCATION: Langenbeck Park, 19241 Magnolia Street(west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Conditional Use Permit.No. 03-42 request: To permit a wireless communications facility(WCF) co-located with an existing SCE utility tower. Staffs-Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 based upon the following: - The WCF will augment and enhance telecommunications infrastructure in the city. - Visual and park use impacts will be minimized. - The WCF will not generate noise, traffic, demand for parking or other impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 with recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 with findings" B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 and direct staff accordingly." t LR *Ar OR ;�fj 0 ro 0 N z 0 cn Z Or MENEM Am, -40 -0 M MENEM G) ■■■►� q > 0 Z Z 03 p m > C) son Ile 4�h 1 F/44 A PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42, filed pursuant Section 230.96 of the ZSO, is a request to permit a wireless communications facility(WCF) consisting of three antenna arrays and a two foot diameter dish, attached to an existing Southern California Edison utility tower at a height of 43 feet, and a 10 foot-7 inch tall, 185 square-foot equipment enclosure located at grade,below"the tower. Each antenna array consists of four antennas, approximately four-feet six-inches in length, affixed to a 12-foot long mounting bracket. The proposed antennas would be painted gray to match the existing utility tower. The proposed equipment enclosure would be constructed of unpainted split-face block, with a pitched, tile roof. The WCF is proposed in Langenbeck Park, which is owned by the City and maintained as an active public park, in addition to serving as a utility right-of-way for Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission lines and support towers. SCE leases the right-of-way from the City and is intending to license the use of their support tower to Cingular Wireless, the proposed wireless telecommunications service provider. Langenbeck Park is linear in shape, 200 feet wide and flanked by single-family residential to the north and south (fronting on Luss Drive and Crescent Drive respectively). The existing SCE utility towers are sited in paired intervals for the length of the right-of-way, which extends from approximately one-third of a mile west of Magnolia Street east to Ward Street, approximately one-quarter of a mile south of Garfield Avenue. The WCF is proposed to be co-located on the northern most tower of a pair of towers located approximately 800 feet west of the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way; 55 feet south of the park's northern property line and 125 feet north of the southern property line. The WCF, which would serve as utility infrastructure for wireless telephone communications, would be unmanned and serviced by a technician at the site approximately once a month. Background: The City Council adopted the ordinance regulating wireless communication facilities (14BZSO Sec. 230.96) in September 2002, following review of the proposed ordinance by the Planning Commission. The ordinance provides for WCF's in residential zones, subject to conditional use permit approval and review by the Design Review Board. The ordinance further provides for WCF's in the public right-of- way, including installation on existing utility poles, conduits and other facilities of a public utility. Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator considered the conditional use permit request at a public hearing on November 19, 2003. The item was continued from the October 22, 2003, Zoning Administrator meeting, at the request of the applicant, in order to allow for final review of revised plans by the Design Review Board. Testimony in opposition to the request was received from three residents representing two properties in the surrounding neighborhood, along with testimony in support from the applicant. In addition, a petition in opposition signed by nine individuals (representing five properties in the vicinity, inclusive of those represented by the three speakers) was submitted. Prior to the hearing, two letters authored by residents who also signed the petition were submitted in opposition. The petition and letters are provided as Attachment No. 7 . The submitted letters expressed concerns that include the loss of park use, visual impacts, safety, review under the California Environmental Quality Act, potential health hazards and impacts to property values. PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -3- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) Staff recommended approval of the request based on the following: ■ The proposed facility is a necessary component of telecommunications infrastructure; ■ . The project is consistent with the City's policy to co-locate WCF's with existing structures and provisions of the City's wireless communications facilities ordinance; ■ 'The project is expected to have minimal visual,park use or other impacts. ■ The Design Review Board recommended approval of the design, colors and materials. The Zoning Administrator denied the request based on findings that the proposed use would have detrimental impacts to the surrounding neighborhood due to the close proximity of the facility to existing single-family dwellings, the anticipated impact on the active use of the park and the obstruction of views from adjacent residential properties. Appeal: The Zoning Administrator's denial was appealed by the applicant for reasons cited in the appeal letter dated November 26, 2003 (Attachment No. 6). The applicant asserts that the proposed facility will not be detrimental to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood, based on the following: ■ The proposed facility is similar to existing facilities, located in close proximity to residential zones; which have not had a detrimental impact. ■ The proposed facility will not impact active park use, since the facility would utilize only the property directly underneath the existing SCE tower. ■ The proposed facility is compatible with surrounding uses since it is integrated with the design of the existing utility tower and the surrounding homes. ■ The proposed WCF will not significantly interfere with views since the antennas will be mounted at a height of 43 feet and the shelter will not exceed 11 feet in height or 225 sq. ft. in area. ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ''ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: Public Residential Low-Density Public Park/SCE Utility right-of-way North and South of Residential Low-Density Residential Low-Density Single-family Subject Property — 7 units/acre residential East and West Public Residential Low-Density Public Park/SCE Utility right-of-way PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 4- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Public. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the following General Plan policies: Land Use Element L.U. 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. Urban Design Element U.D. 2.2: Minimize the visual impacts of oil production facilities and other utilities where they encroach upon view corridors or are visually incompatible with their surrounding uses. Utilities Element U. 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided. U. 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. Recreation and CommuniU Services Element RCS 8.1.4: Revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed co-location of antennas with an existing transmission tower, and the use of decorative masonry and a tiled roof to screen equipment cabinets, will minimize the project's visual impacts. The proposed facility will also generate needed revenue for the City. Zoning Compliance: The proposed project complies with the requirements of HBZSO Chapter 230.96 — Wireless Communications Facilities. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance.- The Urban Design Guidelines do not contain specific guidelines for wireless communication facilities. However, the proposed project is consistent with general guidelines contained throughout which call for use of quality building materials, full roof treatments and respect for the scale of surrounding development. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3,New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which identifies the construction of small structures and the installation of equipment and facilities in small structures as exempt from the provisions of CEQA. PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -5- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. -Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board reviewed first draft plans for the proposed project on October 9, 2003. The DRB continued the item to November 13, 2003, with the recommendation that additional architectural treatment be incorporated into the design of the equipment enclosure, including the use of tile roofing. On November 13, 2003, the DRB recommended approval of the applicant's revised plans, which included tile roofing and the use of decorative tiles on the fagade of the equipment building. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Real Estate Services Division provided a letter authorizing processing of the application and is currently negotiating lease terms and conditions with the wireless service provider(Cingular Wireless) and SCE. Preliminary agreements call for the City to receive $12,000 annually in lease payments from Cingular Wireless. SCE would also receive $12,000 annually. The Community Services Department has reviewed the project plans and recommends approval of the application as proposed. The Public Works Department recommends a condition of approval that would require the applicant to construct a paved or semi-paved (e.g., turf block) access road between the existing park service road and the subject SCE tower. Planning and Community Services Department staff does not support this condition, as it would result in the loss of turf that supports active park use. In lieu of such a condition, service technicians would be expected to park their service vehicle on the existing paved road and walk (approximately 75 feet) to the proposed facility. Neither the applicant's request nor the City's pending lease agreement calls for use of any non-paved surfaces within the park by service vehicles. Public NotiFcation: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on January 15, 2004, and notices were sent to property owners of record and multi-family residential tenants within a 300-foot radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), the applicant, and interested parties. As of January 22, 2004, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received, except that provided at and prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing and previously identified in this report. PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -6- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): October 3, 2003 November 25, 2003 The project was heard by the Zoning Administrator on November 19, 2003, which complies with the State of California Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws relative to mandatory processing times. ANALYSIS: Land Use Compatibility The proposed project is deemed compatible with surrounding land uses, based on the fact that the project proposed is on property that the City has designated as a utility right-of-way, and which supports existing utility infrastructure. Moreover, the proposed WCF would be co-located with an existing utility tower in such a manner as to minimize the perception of its presence. The use will not generate noise, glare from lighting, traffic or other impacts that are incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The applicant has minimized the impacts of the proposed facility by co-locating the proposed antennas on the existing utility tower, in lieu of proposing a new support tower; by painting the proposed antennas to match the tower; and by screening associated equipment with a small enclosure constructed of quality building materials. Moreover, the project minimizes impacts by locating the equipment building directly under the existing SCE tower in an area that has limited park use. It should be emphasized that the applicant is proposing to lease ground space within the utility right-of-way that the City has already leased and reserved for utility infrastructure purposes. In this light, the resulting loss of the 225 square-feet of underutilized space below the existing utility tower should be considered negligible. It should also be noted that, as described above, the proposed facility would be located no closer than 55 feet to the nearest residential property line, and at a height of 10-feet 7-inches to the peak of the roof, would have only a minimal impact on views from the adjacent residential properties or from within the park itself. Similarly, the impact on views of the antennas would be minimal, since, at a height between 39 and 43 feet, the sightline through the antennas, already obscured by the existing towers, would be only of the sky. The proposed facility is not expected to have a detrimental impact to the value of property in the vicinity, as asserted in the letters submitted in opposition to the project. The project does not introduce a new land use to the subject property or eliminate an amenity available to surrounding residents. The proposed facility consists of equipment and fixtures that are ancillary to an existing facility, and would occupy only space within the park that has already been designated and leased for utility infrastructure use. General Plan Conformance The Utilities Element of the General Plan states that the City should ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided for, and that the City should work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. .The proposed WCF, along with the larger network to which it is a part and the networks of other service providers, are a necessary component of the City's telecommunications infrastructure. The proposed facility will provide for improved wireless communications service for City residents and visitors who subscribe to the applicant's network. PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -7- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) • i The Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plan states that revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. As noted above, the proposed facility will generate approximately $12,000 in annual lease revenue for the City by occupying an underutilized space within the park/utility right-of-way, which has already been reserved and leased for utility infrastructure purposes. Subleasing of the ground space below the tower represents a land efficient means of generating revenue from park space, which minimizes the loss of usable park space. Basis for Appeal The applicant's appeal letter notes that the City has previously approved similar WCFs in close proximity to residential zones, including most notably two WCFs co-located with SCE towers located in the park/utility right-of-way directly east of the proposed project site, across Magnolia Street. Those facilities also consist of antennas attached to existing towers and associated equipment located at the base of the towers, on property functioning both as park space and utility right-of-way. A significant distinction however is that the equipment of the two existing facilities is screened by slatted, vinyl-coated chain-link fencing, whereas the proposed project would screen equipment with an architecturally compatible masonry building. The proposed equipment building,which features split face block and tile roofing, represents a substantial improvement in design over the previously approved WCFs located approximately 1,000 feet east. Staff concurs with the assertions made in the applicant's appeal letter,believes the proposed WCF will have a less than significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood and recommends approval of the. appeal and the project as proposed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Approval—Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations received and dated November 3, 2003 3. Project Narrative received and dated August 15, 2003 4. Site Photographs 5. Minutes of Zoning Administrator Meeting dated November 19, 2003 6. Appeal letter dated November 26, 2003 7. Letters in Opposition and/or Support SH:HF:RS:rl PC Staff Report— 1/27/04 -8- (04sr05 CUP 03-42 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. I SUGGESTED FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and structure and associated equipment. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 10 ft.-7 in. tall, 185 sq. ft. equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will not generate noise, traffic, demand for additional parking or other impacts detrimental to surrounding property. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located on and adjacent to existing Southern California Edison transmission towers, on an existing SCE right-of-way. The design of the facility, which features antennas painted to match the tower to which it is attached, and an equipment shelter constructed of decorative masonry with a tiled roof, will ensure the compatibility of the proposed facility with surrounding uses. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance including the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.94—Wireless Communications Facilities. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL(Residential Low-Density) on the subject property, pursuant to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 230.96, which serves to implement the General Plan. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: L.U. 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. U.D. 2.2: Minimize the visual impacts of oil production facilities and other utilities where they encroach upon view corridors or are visually incompatible with their surrounding uses. U. 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunications and electrical systems are provided. (04sr05) Attachment No. 1.1 U. 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. RCS 8.1.4: Revenue generating facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate in the future design and programming of parks. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed co-location of antennas with an existing transmission tower, and the use of decorative masonry and a tiled roof to screen equipment cabinets, will minimize the project's visual impacts. The proposed facility will generate lease revenue for the City which may be used to fund park acquisition, maintenance, recreations programs and facilities and other City services. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout. INDEMNICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner,and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action.or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (04sr05) Attachment No. 1.2 'REV. DAMST, REVISION EE4RPfIW OBAISM Z%wG q= pg FOR REVIEWJ'V' cingula SITE 3 ME DEVt OR IE tT, WIRELESS ® AR.TeW=.xvftd= ar nrn x+o� VICINITY MAP NTs S C E G Aqq R F I E L D STE BUILDER, � I I CINGULAR WIRELESS IRVINE OFFICE, SO._ 1 3 2—® 1 - P 1 Xcingui LESS i °Tmw'a-ia--�"f°c!a'o°.�All rc�ca�"ve. ] WIRElE55 T...n¢amcwur]r a aTT o.n r,••v wrc ra eGawroi ar stuns Ruv, o:n nio�`'`c' mm i nWw w Oar art mlo'wv[:'a ri .00NR•NN 2-06 SURE�Im IRlUOE.U net:-Bali iwM mw[wia I[wmsi'w.•o,"I, 4 m 1N1pN'inoeu tu°rro.l¢r GatuTr o Tu°MTNawnON ruw arcwTnN 6 sul Q6IXEER, arvra awT a,a a�R.uaw wo o ICJ —.-- im°u c¢[ ® D!nmm urm.wm.urere]5 ritua�ewunws rKam ra+denw ca nmr uEFr wro ec]crxr w. �uNL w. �,.y,e O rauwTe .r.• .ar eru m r.•..>a+u a.... ]Tnacr a mar ® ,�J lanol m. �.. �� mean ariTu"`i ri,F+.) Tru�s�irra-�nYi oa:n wa;D,n,me-s.en smm ms rw 9 s>ur Der. ,cv_ wawwe ua —T�e— cym r¢cwvuNUTrax mur*mrt aRat'ec ® ARTdeDOmroIAeBUmm • rmLGOO.TOM 0 lR kaT —•. —1f— Cld tl6 Na[ DRIVING DIRECTIONS0rruncea . _ . AFSLeWN9rm•1• o PROJECT a tea.a:r na°'a1>4,+•°-mor:DESCRIPTION r.om°wu ;a, M SYMBOLS, LINETYPES AND HATCH PATTERNS ,K •� ��� PLAN VERIFICATION aco acowm �. ®„ ,®, m+r".c,aR awu Warr K<fvn.,m ooarwG omae,Qe m Iunavoawrmu �No G•mrrwu a Tr+c m]ne wm lNw.t•]RnuT¢T lVnR aon mmO1Re n rarx am rwia•uu sruu ea rmrav®.rm oer.um m ue rm acmmu a wurac v.wr maaer.xor]eer°u u tun a. n�'i �LLIGANT/LESSEE ,w�`�f°.owre�a w'-i w CCO1ii'�'.wTiwri FOL'`r�wr'.oc rrtmmow t"tu n¢wnc«e°acrorl�c rw sw�e. d""a �a laan�owr]sRc•m "'T� °!""a"°E"""`"`"°' GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES 4t°]T CORmYa a TI!l4yCIaG OaOLs. tut amwr � iwm;a nrslbsa! w'�i •abm .WJIGfM•M5M]TR.rrva Gloa 5.ucVEu- a ore]vcn rJ• G°Li MDa+IY W[NONLDa 2VW n°O (nt)p-Ie•• ' (mG TrttL]>/>a) GInE NIPA-ar AfrrNm an MfY'L.1� wTG GWct° IR 1m.1 G).l]raCTb1 2wp. a.aow GLL,F[WM]n0.nMG Gwe rL1rmPG Gme []I OiflG.ts.lNn Gi06 1.N4TIRIAL E1.6TmL fap6 lArAIOAR W Cmdrt M•VCII® °�r�TINTPl9(IXR-) 0.DIN>G.O° L1f.DbURE, OSmeWN nM1LMUL rODa 4 G1TIf NTr CRmWCO lfl.]flc. APPLICANT'S RE RESENTATIVE zoarrF CODE COMPLIANCE Rf, ai aua raramw »rnmTSln A`a4G1°wv` «xxrnuc>ww town. nG"a! Om4�� M12 ra mcalG RKa6 (+A,a„-.� I"n°N•IKT. .� @� 'a �®nw acre K�'uu�lrt�on. ar maao¢v f mi ,' SURVEYOR: APPROVALS . 1'r311 ra la ma• tlnlD a!F PUMmI. aNArOY 4TTI (! ma[ M1 rWR11! T Cf.OrP m�'� �!GINlrM1TK•C. P4 04'RI Iac rpa V COI61C1 Rm5 31R rAFrt Grab.611R!n '�. � rmeR IRv¢,u rosM SITE a1fQ PROPERTY INFORMATION mca.rw,ss-�mo rw rlw.rl,-n° T-I °""'.r""aT"°",'r>�'^'T'aa yicRus ma mare ® er:ena uranfq•ra R.>a r.TTmo � SCE GARFIELD 0. w wam °O�� mr'°'crwaOova,a rose Ls-I 00O'° Z-1 era fr.+ SC-132-01-PI �� ana m�'aa•rwi orNm. uOm...°wm•coisa• Z-'1 enwrecm]iTc rl.ar SITE IDDRES$, e Dana s tutu+ R:o.a au.om CIVIL ENGINEER ww,oa sm w T`u q„°OVCo "TC'"'C STRUCTURAL ENGINEER LAGEN 5=?MM •`:"':.L n�¢sicw sum mm� WlIKr. nol wncmTa .n rrrtet.[ss mxo Z-3 ¢cv rmn MMKTON BEA,04,CA 926�8 I 1� tNt onma n rawc. (cu)m-wxl Ins i�xe rmn.�a eac ORANSE CaJNiY It Lr+it ®� W. 1RRFI➢•!t GaiKT• ]GIY.rt ....., . .,,:riy lama % ®n•rWae.m mu]xrla. Grt ar wNr•wio•ac.G+ Qi,.:=i«:�i;:'-R,T 9tEE7 mI.E� e cane..-rwr,, m lo.rr. -ssu cxj m rswm FmssRn. a R69rntNnM. ad]m ?}('iJ ri' (l:di',! TITLE SHEET "`�"' rnaia air w` ramolm mro>acrm,Trn, rm f•01Tr�m Om4Y1CT TTri• T¢m?aaMfJTOn FKRRY of�t"T'� aabrrs M •FaR4/ N•rQf,[Y°lOI.RiTD1ta. f ITT 1]IWrMPIm 1Nn Mrf FOR . -,� M•art.T4l aamc.rfm ORAYIIlY.OIFOI L• Op !y', �L. .G:m rle RTMRaa. c.br'i n W aim w6 •mi'� uauimn rNM mj. 4Trtw6 r u'r.V OFRED Or, MPROVED BY, D4T6 +� 1Q+clTuoe. m W T✓ A'Ynr 68 ONPa/lA •sx. StrFEi r11ItBER. ABBREVIATIONS PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT DIRECTORY 514EET INDEX I OF 5 T-I REV, DATE/By: REKSION DESMMM _ _ LESSOR'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION ® orrmm EREIu11NART 91Bt1TTAL L�P1 F��.l CJ A9P ME W FAQ NL800 1RrmRULoiJUMnt4�»6a m R)xw¢ m xars m xw¢ m xaa: m cux ee.�r�saw� mamW.tiEA(11,tw.wn .tBNai,SLAlE 6 90 WREV AK � C -b a But = --�------ -- me. ZONING:RL '^ -I, ME DEVB.OPHENT, gib% e•a•. ------- ----g'°'"" APN: 153-581-01 -s PARCEL 3 =oz -- -- ---�------- I^U ®AFL Tolocommunicatmns J r� 1 gC7 Nmvon<Smieea `i::�am. d xe•'�x'soxl r•d0 ne-,a1 \Ina xa ali w„�IIJ!C_�!C � `"as � �wx•a m.aa i mx� I w.as I w� I I m xR14�1E I SRE LLDER: Xcingular WIRELESS m x,..•a,:.. I 41p. '""CRESCENT DRIVEOO "^�mnr� BOUNDARY DETAdI wl.,M naet m,os w xam� +ra,[:,•.w • V i ENDNEEx: I '[ �/. LEGAL DESCRrnCN8 m,•,a m,x.,a GRAPHIC SCA18 AFL Telocommunicatlons u u u _ AnWb� �aNam o� I a rar 1 SmMra y mo�mr LEASE DEW L —� CUNST M, •c—..o- \ ,—al o,. RL°i�aPrL G N `�owa !/ m i,.r g nwa PR9nax rf tiovL [OgmuxKS :.. ,�•••� x LARIVOE e,xmnl jai r�'m,`r'a eaaw"ra nr.r,.x wr.uwwr Laxonot nr ,� nmw.en.n xur � � ocvAnaN �MArpR ett v�v w ,v. �••m•arm rr•re•m vn .m'avnnr • i"rnwa _-----�•_----------•als-_--?y. --__ ?�t'brtiacv�- -----ae_------ _- ULE]GIIRE, lk - ::1: +m S• rpn¢Eix�[Im m timin m x M ue w y m•ry R) �, , KJY If xU nrD ,Pv rem d •f'Muvl VICBJITY MAP-NIT-S. o '°"• `'!i'• }�' '� ravMa •.1.• BENCHMARK as .emam� ,:+.:y p m,+mr. - �:-.•'fin.u� lk `4=t.. 'r•• �6yi p .aJ••.o.• ..�..m -— _ °P'm°n°•m�•mer�oeda.: ___"---_-_be-----t�.-.---�_----at•�---__----_--b�_--_--_- mvs.w 917E It6P I III6/-}1-�—(\IDIIL/ Dm,nw.r Wamn •� ':Y SfTE 1W1E, m.m ,.•.xY.,. 5GE GAREIELD • DATE .n.:•l�._ .� � �•yD -�.--------'�"---^,•^ m nn �mnmm• SITE ADDRE9} m/� ltn w+ rR> Y "TINGTON BEACH,CA V648 ,e}•t•.Df/ SURVEYOR'S NOTES ORANGE Camff 'i'i:r nt—atP�l•a Hai rxavm Al",a2 nn pl lr ELEVATION-N.T.S a maaean.rNr tAstWtR Ul onNR rmn SHFET PTIE, war xrau rArrt•eo•r rlrt RnE lmo•r•xol wr.nttr _ n[tr.e N¢A xAK xer lFOl raarRn "" M m,•mNn aw•r xo"'c•'{'. FA C0 6=n A BW 0.aaR In vm 517E SURVEY " — m w.w rxa am—p DRANd6 m ou..L ::•`:. TY NOTES ---�---- llTlll alEo(ED BT, Arrlwtm PATE smEma o®xm aµNlm our uL uw>a uc 9xNK a la&leG1,0eR a R TIE RC9YdSm11Y a E9 E9 WlA�S 2F 1 .,°ao al'VAL'rm AxR o[KrocN nut arAa oa•axaxm twloo ra hurt,u II et' .,oNi a rf'�rurmRare x'm'i[s®ma mt®x WEEP NR�Fw �_� I I I I PRCUE�BMATroN 2 OF 5 LS-I 1 j� REV. DATEMY, REV15M DESCWPTOb ® a % 5 iONIND-Aj UB FOR REVIEW I I I I I I AIE DEVaDPI TENT, I I ® OFLTebcanmirkdo o I N—k S.n— "'=.o. E.nil+u-oD I - SfTE'WOER• I Xcingular 1 '•�� ` ?i ¢� WIRELESS j � t!•rr s v � s i% imi`yOQC �. JTU'l9cx[Is911 9RIVE swE Itw j w9wG G 92 12-9E92 1+Ale�ImeA"`�`ta�` � � ENGINFER� arc Y..ucm S tV tim rwcc rc)pc.mow: d ARTwoom m uft5c nB —�-rc)wlnluR DncrRTA< f ` Lr)c L T k AFEW k I p �., s.1cac n:aen-gym' z adESULTANT, AifRFD Y.4 wINIT WI— O (nATI!fD') C rt t wuTT 1.9 iy•`"sr� �;i�I n 7 1 I 1 k-• I l I I I I I 131013 ;r v '1 ". l Iol ! ! ucDlsuRE, � / rOpl EpL GR ES�G E`T DRIVE N O)G SmowR ��®b j �. B)mnmuxa J ..V f 4 .'r..4 TNWfm mr0 rtrP.) SITE NFP j �'E5GE GARFIELD I N ! SC-192-M-PI SITE AODREss, EAGEW OUX PARK WM MaTON BEACH,CA V64 I ! ORANGE COUNTY I i 5 i SITE PLAN k j GRAPHIC SCALE i DRuox4 M •6 I _ `R® I O&CRED BY. APPRpVED DTI DATE, FEET j ,9VA4 m OWvB) SHEET NWWR: SITE PLAN ram.Eoo I 3 OF 5 Z-I REv, narEnsn REasnR oisoe�nai: ol ® oe7o�lm FOR R M nB FOR EVIFif ra6bYo t4 O�GIaR Kmm ME DEVELOFM M, T—R(M.R 91 Y41VI1 W FL•NTIOR YpLtw PIWTEm In4TM p 6le]IC to ® AFLTOIBBWnnI1RftftlB bVSD7(f)f]IJtM 1060 ms m cucs9a eaxa uT9 ee99Rr9 (imwm9ao!lama!ua NgwaL Sm1lMt mom:.roan m-::m Tp1q 9m•v DG Yu•BtG SITE BUILDER, s e Xcingu ar uc.ra.l rxieeul \\L�-•l- -- � :""-,t f m!>oa(oe®o:`1�9w:"rTm mm�s WIRELESS Te m�lfL ,--- =� • � • • ssa InrnELsax BIovE suer[Poo mmin.K WTe fin.o a) :^..S•'• -� •• _.� RYW[,f:A 97677-0697 .1rr� Y '•j^ AFLTNBmrtmwldmBale (!/wMar era iyl:q_` AF E 4 nim.Ma asa� to•: a ne�m aeaun lemur Sxmorosi d7.:. Tara il>ron9 Wcn gym..)fe�m --mr )m>rmm eamu!iam79e I ,.6?, !.pM T f08UL7ANT, , , e�)Fn Ye PNK'IQK/NITI9M pG •9V / /' WP6m ua9! Mil WU lwlluY d:w!t�fS.0 Ml R NI)TKWl6TA! UOFNSURE: 110]IQ•m ei•MO! /' Mmnrt on:eom9 w.n es9vosm ua i 0 5RE Rya mo vac Mna 'ORE SGE GARFIELD N 5C-152-01-PI S TE ADDRESS LACiEM O=PARK HUNT WON BEACH.CA 14W M"E COUNTY s' W E SWEET TrrLE, (ENLARGED 51TE PLAN .7 i� m w rRa9aM:osa ,``�'�~Y,1 ',� � oGu[O Bra afPRWED Bra WTE• EET 3YK Ei5 ObffJ67 SUM MMR: 1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN ,e q OF 5 Z-2 I j�. ol DATE/BY, REMSM oFwwrini ® u®ma=m 0, FOR REmEN m zwM ME OE ao1 fi, f9 lMraml°I TPW K7 muwr 9a mml ® AFL TetefAfII1PIYIICBtltel8 NdMmkBrnYza ivy� r�PM m-an SITE emom • Xcingul WIRELESS DO UCHMM MW SM fJW MANE.G 22612-M2 UK'HEM ® AFLTelefwm uftellfms Aft W,d® 1`nsm m sm m . fimvkrl �Pm w-mr �fnb mbo Y t 3y nvmm fq wuA.0 1m� u C NSWAM, Y r�urmEu+marmafE7 t p F.enm aer ro rum p Tw w urtRew —a- M.Mm w m y yy LwHt"E, 2 2 t 0 N �m amla rEmm rL p �P`�� u'.wlEw wnRn snn mw norx ,er" m1nNlf Bmm 11114 S4 nlNDlra SITE PT0. ! Rrm rwml am 'BYTE NAtff- SCE GARFIELD nrrNc ma,POI.Tm �.,:,, tw w r°mrc•an: is o romc wa 5G-132-01-P2 SITE LADEN BEM PARK 14RTfINGTf7N BFA07<CA 9264 ORANOE COUNTY .n N'.. BNEET TITLE, Kiv ELEVATIONS auE[KEv- aFFRa1Eo BT, OATS r= 038 Mum SWEET mralb WEST ELEVATION °® 11 5OUTN ELEVATION °®w 2 5 OF 5 z 77) i CONDITIONAL USE PEFUMIT PROJECT DESCRIPTION APN: 153-581-01 INTRODUCTION Cingular Wireless ("Cingular') is a registered public utility company, licensed and regulated by the Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to provide Personal Communications Services in California. Pursuant to its license agreement, Cingular is in the process of expanding its communication services in the City of Huntington Beach to comply with its FCC license requirements. Cingular has retained the services of AFL Telecommunications to facilitate the land use entitlement process (See enclosed letter authorizing AFL Telecommunications to act on behalf of Cingular Wireless). Applicant Information Applicant: Cingular Wireless, Agent for Applicant: Suzanne Gatti Mark Rivera AFL Telecommunications 3345Michelson Drive 167 Technology Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Irvine,CA 92612 949-230-3775 Suzanne.gatti@alcoa.com Application Request Cingular is requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, to allow the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility pursuant to Section 230.96 (C) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and a certificate of CEQA compliance in the form of a Negative Declaration. The proposed wireless facility will consist of mounting three (3) sectors of antennas, four (4) antennas per sector at approximately 42' and one (1) two (2) foot diameter microwave dish at approximately 34' on an existing 136' Southern California Edison lattice tower. The antennas will be painted gray to match the existing tower,which will obscure their visibility. The radio support equipment will be enclosed in a pre-fabricated telecommunication equipment shelter and will be located at the base of the tower. When operable, this unmanned facility will be visited by a field technician approximately once a month to make minor adjustments in order to maintain network maximization. The site is accessible 7/24 in the event of equipment failure or emergency. Radio monitoring equipment is onsite to alert switching stations of such failures. APN: 153-581-01 1 r p _ Conditional Use Permit r'�..�5'k EP T 10 _ • s have a detrimental impact on the general welfare, or property values in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan; The primary land use on the subject property will not be altered as a result of the proposed wireless communications facility because the proposed use involves an ancillary activity that will be located on an existing Edison lattice tower. Therefore, the proposed facility will not negatively impact the General Plan, including: the distribution and density of the population; the circulation plan; or the health, safety, and welfare of the City. Rather, increased wireless coverage throughout the City of Huntington Beach will improve the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. 3. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Wireless telecommunication facilities located within 300 feet of a residential zone are allowed upon approval of a conditional use permit. Conclusion The location and the design of the proposed project make it a suitable location for a wireless communication facility. With an increasing demand for cellular service, not only in day-to-day communications but also in emergency situations, the facility would serve to enhance the safety and welfare of the area by providing a wireless communications system that is more dependable and effective. APN: 153-581-01 3 Conditional Use Permit • Page 1 of 1 • 7 , i ji mr mm ti ¢W J 4 y� r ��,, N �+.r w.+.0��,�.at.,..$'aF 6� .a+?- 3 b F Y.�"C�. arc,*r t '•�y,x`� �rt ! _ ,t'�`�w.,h�^ '.`.s r.�a'r"at' ss�+S t 1sF- ���Y"� 2 �-r d ev,�'C73#`x h..h c v �'t ai,x s`� 'Fi•�+z y fr��s�e 5; a<'y aFy � � -�.r..Y '+. Y s�� - .-�-� r}fir�F�`T;....•�:\t i 7'g�:a �_ .� ,�_._ M��S k.r� fir' E, t �..Y,.cra -_ry Y a �.-=r-�- t x,..r-H- z -:. 4•�W � - .� .1 ) $\ 6 !�i-_.1 ! -.1 ��1 -..- i y-1 X 1 E {�J T�t'S•�I.! jY -.(- •, <4 nt .. A a Y �x xx''y t • 7'r 4 ;'" �. s--.�..,.;�,i ......,^•i�i�h ti r�� .eg1 z - tR 5' _-b t � j E t E Ai r is file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settin"gs\gattisg\L,ocal%20Settings\Temporarv%20lnternet... 8/20/2003 J Po 2 ... s <' ah, rb � 2w4N,g; at4 ; F a fip ` i pt rfra ,/- +4�yr- �,i H`tJr 3 ! Fa aDR r w jt £ 4a e n yoeq� { I Et 'YA JJ'1rk .;r �r �i Si •l e. of"hi;' ¢ tug .. ` "•5'�rV+"1" s{�' M1,,ys�rm54 sWffll F % y '•,:. .• t f I 9 r -k r'e AF� r'��'Y�,#, e�i.'�; ���� ''�.v .:..,aa•'"'t'"r F."�Rz� t SI em ow '— 7,� ( �.. x r. 4 �• ��' yx�;'��d ye „fit t :� sti•/'^°'` {. I:¢:;,' �� 's(:. .."•:.: c 1 F F:&e 41 le :�'.Ya' t;.M.4 a<sY'N r,�Y l W R'� Y YF +uSNk dti F a'a �'"�. � xY r �i��x t$r•• �3K�"�`5�,,y�,�.�' r F�i`aa} 9'li`d *�'a 'rx "1 #if��2'�' �'"' p. s t c'k : 1 +....�•, t � s^ iad7��r�[s„'��t�b'�`1Nixhm7OA r x {s;x ,Ca' .Yk"a 3 t } 3' '` P d ayy,�'A'^Prr u�,.�s���f`:'+YS i r'��•,� r� '� }� i �� 0-1 IL �..-'Y r 1�'/ �r Y r 'ry �� ' r ,^� t .r! 547�� •a.5�5.y�'1F�T!��e �.vy. `�'���j��r Xr; a i a.L ,%;✓ f.•• �01� +' <� n.� I ', � � 7+- �; ^,�A�3��5yb�r�j�f�.� ��d�� y7II" s'grq' `b' �' ,,�•"�y �� >^`� t=-�=1 � 'lr I " '•. + .r=, F—/ • .�2 ''i5�i '� a ,f,£"} Ny zfy ti'w. -iR1 +f�...at'•:: 1:17:a iS:,n. c,. �'1£' t f g7g. _t tea' V"' �� a > s e �".rz.� ``s>• l S.;^f K vR �{ rr.�.xt��.n+r d tr+C+, ra)°r 7 r�r,�.9,y{ ,n'a„' e,P 1=4 f x f „r�:,r }'e., +}t:': n-§t lr}gT, �.yQt' J '1nN '•.tF'° d�,��+tfi•:r, ��.'° �r",� V �rt yyk °�T•`�ir• ! �� i +� ar91 -.,r. j^ ru �; �yay A [i r ii 1 �j0•'r!„"� v1{q,.3"b ,'r4,E� {aaz —�, /'/ , �' t J '1 t,r r il�k�,�✓Y'��''bip� �'�'�'f r� ! ,Y` 3� ISI.:', f' � f y h^''FF J Y _ ( N � 1 j �nih;�`� 4 F%p•r�� y �'•�,.s,wy' <; # { 'u r f l ay'•F'b�,Lfl� 'f t3s t"= 'Fi ?�3',E d' ,i rl�rt'7. A OW }}zayy Q f g "" '•" <� Y J „ r E '.y•,'- -t.:J.rY $ m1 f'.Wri 'rsS,,, P,c tY} "�"rd "' r. £ r t' ^.• �e a�i` 7 J1�^ni' � �� _.P` }r•r t; � "ntK'!t7 yy . r� £� .r' ?r t �i� �� 1.[��,[+�p `�•e:F `'�:, f$+m`f+'!� `��!J r ;f s i � r. ,'r• - Y���r�tY r ''ai,,,+vl.���2{xr`.{•{"S t7 ' � ;.£. .t� �� �� �' `Y�,�wrkr j p�•uv '�°,`,�,w �S 'r�' a* .y,' t.a t 4 ti kY x _ :f• St ; � X�¢{ �4 e •>`v'•�r5 b• '', ,,.,, 7i.. !! 9 g.�• `` 42,�t'�.. xr� :+�a ^ K% f a ice.? X � +h,r "Wr st + •f� +p �1.,z +� y. ��"•`,rS-% •.� r'w. -+A�� � 3 € W^vr e J`wo d r T fjf f `fit x ..1 sF � �'r� ��. t_M1 _ ' �{..J �4 vx�'r`Y'a„} vy1 �•'I ,� w,DVS irk=`'}yFZFk'• , Y,u } 011e,It t ,�.''' r" r .Y•N ;, >v.e F. �.x Yr•; Sj �'t sr'�''H`�%;iyrn-��x�'3 L r a��''^t 'Y� .y'..�.i�F��# C'�� ,.� 'nc..? .,�'• � r ����y�i'r31 � 2�; r ��Lr ��;`+ � ,� f+Fy�+�s�set f �.i: xx 7�,y�•g � a. �-�rl ""� 'z}a" vi`uStttylr r, ✓ J e'S. t '�cN"' y J` °• 6)`¢✓r i, Y tg� `��xy�,A1,y�E; �$!( � f wr } yi $a dam;, • I Gj4, � ;J A'.� W'. ', } .n �� $ Y k � �.4 i�, p� � SFr ty''t'Y�.� IA �`,�'ki d• p t r 'if,:.L ! +rc`,f 'Q c r t`+'r +` r t4 'q °•g hi �,"�r��yy a f ,�,rs !�"i� '�� �� W rr._k�'! ;,y.9�`t h!�,�, Y • a ,tre t , {'q„Jm fi ��" }s� /4*fr .•t� Ie' MZ Ci! ..! '• COS ..s1 � :•,itr r..� �Sr�t ���7�.�'. � 1 �fir'�.� (. r l ',y� .as. �15rg!}fexY 7�1�j1�ftc�,'�vr�f�y,! .� rr ,. .4 � t.-fL 1 d •�'�i.��i',•Y�: � +iy>"�f 4 �,7,x '�ri <7f•'�f ��i f q } r• 4X�' i a' �': '✓.£ �3'f 1� 's.,�G} r f ,.} 4 ��', ie> x 'ie T k1 �'.' �n ,r1M•Gx y4 vr+ �t`� "1 s ��y "i'.��r i t r�Y�'�?�d� Fy ffy gy 'R?i u �} �°�}�"{:x"•�rx��,h ® �,i`a� �Ps 6 1'ir''r4�,^'!�'ti N y" 4A ;•Ft?' +' eft.,. u,�rq �, f, }+xi'{'zP tP=4 'k� .. ,. r r• L t;.. '�+ � 1�1 �, �„'� ,i'sp'• �('1� _.. iE�`r sit§'�. ht<1 �F.(g���r �f' N. ''rA A,' • $�4 jx,Pt q�u� �{����1�:✓.'!� { �J ��`• y r. �rws roJi'i��'�,+� � .Rx �� ...�,� � wA.G(} �i�tl���F'��21�� ��4r� s®� rr �r;;) s }, s�,T� ,�M1����'�z�� � r .. } �a irs'`i�M1W£�ar�'i`'•k�` s r kH 'w"lr Y' 1. �j 1+f�iF�(ir>:.f,,.. 'k��•it�t,jat %t �• $ :'„ i�x5 0 r ANA a'a'{ba,tS�tW' .'�'vrr�,;� v,�+,���,r ,i &fy� 4'��J�','.�a '� '; �'ht pP...+ t�Ytt•�{�a h�.,1M1u�ffta. fT. �G�r,i��y��.! "::! M,?. " � {Ki` �`??t�r���tr.9;i�t<t���:k"�Y•',��, „`'f 't '`'$s�CF�"Po:,'#. r J 4 �5iex >39 r r . •�g� e1..t��€� ��h�yrr%�,�f{.ry� ` t' '. �"y"i�,m3 �m�c 'Y' iC� -'r t� j';h''� '` 4� °T. Y�TY Sd•�4 ',�y�l�i��j ypt`.,��.N�. R ! a dk;t' f r r ai x�a.;�,,,;++nn�.�'?• /�•i...�A.:�• ��-.c�y�� '+,...:4�tf[F '+yi �ii�f��.u`l'.a�`�k.K r'.f G }>. (iv sy2r i.,. c 1 r 1 i ., J�°++.+5, tK•3Ax1')ff N��^'i1 d �'. 0w Y r 4v r 2 pg# yy�r f a °rr"4�'Y r�i+1 }'i�r�� l r;! 1$'hJ u,�i� R felt �,'j9i'H,y 4'w ('•, �r.a}' �t oyw�{,to .a�'�cP+. d.'�1 :r'rax - Z`µ, 09 ' i�' y xrl '..d`,ze-v.. i'Si! #jFa `'y�u.,as' 3yi`r e `•�.!�3J t'' to mg,�.�t'kl�'n"�'�ivd �a� J�a�� � �"`kj, `+F'�,��`i ,lk'•'t ��t �� 6 pr)e ay, �• JN r 'fir 44 T: 1 ;� 4 1�C •„•e Yh mod. y 7+ l} crw1d r r•c r S u ,. 1 f fix.!`2n `}�bl?�J:'Ei Y�>r dr c 4 )�"'l,., ;?r, �l ra >,$ itrr a�$ � "�. .• , gm 4�� is°t f, as a l s r cr�SSSs t Y:d53 r,rSS a'Ff w 1•GJ�) 3 {3; i S i.m'� {,3 W� `` T,Y'1,'� h �t,ra� Xr ii$r7• �>:y,,, r r b � S r�•,�-r�'�e i�� iY. �• `•: f�F"r';f tirY J'7 You. k M.: tit�l.` � 9 �acrr'.y'�� =3'�"•y'��•X 1 �'�1 h- ,,..�� 'J{.d' e,. + v tit"• Y l t rl tr tf!'yi'$F 7('f1l �7a �y + "f+• ����,�4! � F +�.�s 1 '4r a C �'Y --`` .,, !k r ti �., �i,,,L�`".t,4� qq' ,5,-7<,:Y.� •hv��i �t3 s'Nit; e��HLx:L 'a J. • l„rrj+:u x : •n•. .� "%� J?sJk.�j.,,r#` J b r is •.•-" =r w ro 4>;s ,,,2 y t•i � C S��C<(T�.'Fri7'i"£ r,��t�3 x��rr<� xr�� tst a. � 7s', v^i �s .�Y. i �i�:� r .f•�� � ' y� e;'xJ �5 5�4„yrtrrr'�F^!� r (! a„(.- uj t��ale�r� ., "^-c.sgs:_•�.,,�, ..`p9r y, v 7P,��t}�rF�tlrr'�imxy r+,� h'.4�� �4 q rfY1R; ����,;S�t}`'.�:. �SAa��t�Ns �"�"rh�eb:r, ,�, �� r'�+�'"$•�';5.37 4'� �''4, , ``,17Ik,Yd'S�F^,y ,' .' "�.^ev+�'� r:y,c .I�.�`Ib:. Fhy�95'.,�`+' .t;w'{`'� � � � y •t `� r 1,x",:. � �. ,. J �, �,.->sS da 'Fg1�'r� '` ^.",fin S y y,. t��v'j ti, I.-..I �r�� 7���"<1tr,5 € iMy .. �7 d �C1�P �� �rY fir•."-tic �y �4.�'•..• � �Y�rF�g1 )�"r'.'-,���'•� .Y:s �s�nn��•17 �, a 4 I do e'R Qb �`.+�.is +r�'q,F,so "4 �:: ; ,-.t ,'_ktu �5-v„ R {,t�,,i_d J�-•,wrf`{ 3 � � ,.Y i � L�J ® ter y�y`-t>f � �T "rJ^� s ,� •;� `s a pp �- r � �� ro w t. Y ,� .•i�^1 � `i`-s",;;..-7�,ut.:. :�?�<q 1'Se f Je°•°s� �'i3C�'7a .•. kt3L �j`�f \� ,:� I (� r.i ,r 1 ))! N y ). '%• f fy�'�y}3 'k,..v } _ `n - 7 (''`'`�7 '�. x i� ....��{3 a d4. k r i v t r' • hd, i r �y(; l,ll' F t:-.. '�ywya'e;+uri M. x {,.. a,;,`"' ' (�..fit'' _.;;•.r:Yu Ic�l!. aJr F.i"' r.t r ij' qq� t.F '`.; •♦ i, s�; tt4sy�''LT:sg P=� fix aCn,Mm-..y�'i n Y,4 d�.�• ��.. i ; •♦•j lt\ ��4 �� � \aJ b at5• ;t•^.G �•51 f, ,.r ;� + t o. 1 If'y. `', �1�;5�t(Y+.�w�;�r,: k �s` .1k � P+` ,(�y' � � •, ♦ I� ',IiLJ",. � .-.fir �ik r�`LY�'' {.'j. m�,�.^.�,'si^�rY �11� ;�i�§3"A `}. � ice. t '`\flit � •rt_�' 7��y g1?;•.y ',.t ':.c ,fli4,''` ! lf .S. :f ;. ,:.2>r++r.;.,{w�.2:,,_ 'L.aM..: ;,am.•r." i'S1 wwri� %'A 't'!i�j'.+t.r,,� .' i i94'L. i ;4 ;�•\ �`?3��, i t`••' ("�.t 11� / + r,T'a14'�}' �q � .:1 1 if ,,•♦ ` Sx:.!•sty �.l c'.. 4'z s L' MA. fir,. rrrY xw t{�t t.� _ �'c' f ,y •� 'M �.�+'4,C` ��"�a� P'"tmY�i � .� ,( � ,ii'��,� ,,,A,,,,, ti `•�i• ��z ?y{� .•+r Fer ln� J�+ r,Ja'=!JO (x} h•�n t, rr .1,.' �'�. �' �� r- U� a�'�J +;'l' ® i .4}{3 yJY� "teKf(�S'.e "ta. a s 4m�, 1 ti' .�,'• t`k, 'W;'�'`� ,': . ti, fr t ti �i �efd3•��$ !''�rry t�t;�frF..rl�=� y� n .. � aM1?. �.•;( -:.,.tt�r..•.... .'. �;`;j1 �8 x�i,�w�SSe,,�C.Y n^'+�k:,���,+� _€...L }j p-�y�r! aC�t.:: 7 { �fy..+ � !•�v,$i�,3':«' ((ry1;�7J �,. >"�i,'t,m°6"y sf��r°`.:a�a�`�''�t'knr tom.� { 3 rt a1> ryl:�t 'fir,.•'{ � ''. Y`, �i"f •,��is"§. ����'4 0 }� r :. ��Y tt�� '.� .sr- •!' � r—i a.t �dY 3 'y ,, { R;�,( 1 I, t1 •, e ,+r f M f �,•r�;un H L.1;{r, ,,$i'�'ra>,�,,r&,�i' lb{ :'!� , �� i �'� to .•� W t!t'�t'','r�'4� • s ++•;�j� I.v::'"r ® � �"� t� ,pt + e? -' sa=-ti'a_xics�.... . -5`" y ��,,X� ' .^ #s: ''i tar •s i �' ',.Yv.x W��+F''T' w'�,,!?,.. N f+t �i"i m'�' m, a � ..4-'ut� S'."re ([ 3� "4t�.e..,ate ik �•J.'7.' v} .,;�?A}" ..u1.. _ c r+4 rlm�� r �+{ t ..�C 4 9 r�..'yry o>n i� �•i� , � � �,:!i�a �.Rca�� 1 y,�J; + fi t '�5 JTt� �--1 ,`r!ci-eydN T}' #°{ t.• ?.. 7 .rs1 'tL^FtY?. f '-7 S,• ati':.f-CS ti.sq F� 4 ts'.""" 9 ,y�,d'AF'r� f .taut�l,{1±..'t ,�,e...e.SE',by( z• n A 3 hd' 1A,1♦,'jµ,'Ou.:,:.i,.":a f{{ �+0. a `. « "£' r f `' r ( • v •t J;,'tMt 3 b§t7fy� t;i t of 3' Fs rt. a r i i.Y a>2 t 5' ... f ia ''•a.rr"Lwk,:e kbjr(�C'M`p' ,Ln trt;�1y, {{' 1 rx^ '�, •" .r. b 1Rc X R Yi ,._tiY'i 1 ,«as °tT n•�rt isx £t(.'rt`i d:t".°,jrn. + >F !`i� Y }•p a t st a $$y e�. x, 'e:�'.i:,. ., }_•}dt 1s a �'7�'R{`�..a'w,J,yv '� � 1=4 fY f Yt .{Ytt4 r ,. vrjs v`t3 ° LeTM �t �+�� " k ki'S sxsy f3g4^G.f ,� { �a71 sr a,,E(- °z�, J) DJ y sn y4 s�'�S. t�'J"t"n,,t,'�� ���""}� {Y'�,�='hx" �C •err+ LL''o•F u?T �° .• =7 '4n' {� "i�7•'''',t%S,uS'l r^� ti'r Il x"`i (3Z'k+'Jai J,as�r`'%��t' wh xy'"�Ia r 9 p kl?f° ��,Fy, + J J$•'�� 6 ti:t'%3����,/��L"j>4 t'q�c.� 1 �!/1 15, is'fi�+'Z''�iu° a "K•'{r 1"�fP � � '1. ^,�:' ...._ � ♦ I ��>,� -lu„�'r.'� �,,�': iY3,: i lax { SF;]F k4"����t¢'rUid "',' 1 Z '7!', .r�.,• L_, ,{2 `ytP�.'r 3' ,M r rwr�as l a ttx rl •J7' t "vA�Jr'Y i� � z� { �• r,>w 'rr�,,,Y :�4'1" xk �; rki ,p -ON '�`ar,�` ?s;Ys liuJaSi `s ' t: �� �Z'. r� �s lxyrts v r 3 �� tY +ear r�� �_� frS3P*ri•�d'u 1ti ca�•ri f��. 1.'!ti'f��5 r f j x; aSt'#""t<<3.''�' 'I`'t+C'9 w: w, A •.y ��. 'y�e,. ,L S•'�t�,sr • ��i��'} r. iL�c r+aµ'hd'+.'tc�' - .�.�"r r wG Y � j �" •>� �.r �> �k�,iA'Yy,S �;` s� ��•^ 4�,n��a ter-iseG••P'! S+ x �c., ��� "'8•► y�3 crd b^� n ku 3 n 3t "� N e 5.. 4e�''' S r a: $ �X��r w si ilk .�rf", ( ��Z'na�'�gk ;nft• fn � � $ ffi/ '.1. •a r a a p .. ''"r8'�i' ''.,i3y2 zx r�.. jv 5 'a'`'^1'•t'}}],7''Y'Sf.t�r' c F 'jc ,."Ji" .. r�� r.,��z C7 �.�t'!'r �'a ma's! ., 'f d?' r.�• �„� ,.ex ' 1,' ,�"'rog �,#4`'•n,' ie, L xr tyf r W, [f .r'•° +! d` �i',�}jni, �s xy- �.�� fY"p7 f��2�'s otre •epi �s� � ��'rit �i.*li•t d�S'R + v a;f:I,�4"15 w�a ie�t•{/•� . ?,� 4Fx E :. { vF! Lam.. ,.,yT i'yry'di 1 „a.. k. 1r VIM '( .st��rvry"'' i lc�.h•". �r i � +�r�;r (�'.E �M �� K� 2 � •� h 'p kl +°h 5Z ["`} }sere ur° iS° �T'a {{t�." 'Z"t" c.i fJ a`1 lr itR ,1 y Mny4��.'S(A # +, sD ("1 lt�! y' �yyY 2 err , K:: J, y4RRuu$ &Y`'�i f p'y,"p' kas�Mr ,Y �• ..' ' I .k a'F$.YwTt . 9 r,._ ..j .�#' .1 @•: e,,pr7 '1 l •., +• 7 'ax i Ni Jr Js;h '�;i+J £ +�y n,,:o, �]F at ,sK X y ��.. �, Sa,^. Tf �+'..T� 'ie�! r � �Yi _ x �.•`t*• k'•.'�,1 ,.s f•.'vk 't v ;� a��' t t�3 Y r� t � ,,.•:, ,ply �,��` e I ���,��'��}.�t� � .. r r '� y. ��'�f •f✓ �T, rk r' "a f' � :1� "`7s� `,'�` �c �. �; r., ^R k� ter�,,,, • l—� f:S'r.! s`� A fly u"� � is i� Y �•.r? \', ASS.. S � '•.fir.: ' � , _"'r �,,. ns�� '1,:•n•.�'ta�N IT— r rk r •4t4 �' `� i 5 ,3 1�. 1 'P,+ 1 r+� f+d '>• .f i.y1yr { mayJ c 4µ 'r r. tPf 5rr L.� KKR r�yl Li +'e,#ki�$ s t.�ri1, F f 1. ,, 714; [ r.h.. �JA .•T t^r ad' a f, t _ c Y(� "1 ; h' �, FS.S&az k ;'' 1 s�i}, ir rr �:p 5..,`ai,>' .t51 xh' �` t 'e i1#+a,.�' w ;,7fs �• ,, e:•' 1. ..t` T'fltr4t +� 'R, \ 1 � '�•f�i.�§L� � f}.,• '• �+Ll��t" � 4t i'. �•:: `! �.•�� 'x-.;, a.v« sit, '3'�`R 4 $` �• '••!� 'ta. t trz'r'7 A.•�1,. "f 1,11+r�� e= n�y�t1. '�' t 47 dy: # °(. . t t �. r s• (�s ? it ARM`," yea r.+, ..� ° l• S! �%s �y�, ., a e:.n: 1 ,`'r.,t, .i,e !s• - x..�g f if z s t 1 w,w 3 t _ t ! f� '�: r r , e�.1 a ! { n+�-+ KA v •i'F� a: 4' �sLm ��s '•rn'�.", t y •c},�r[u 1w`� r�,° k N t+ t, if h fy` Tf4 r-- kn x3'. i 4>,''ak^ t.r;}'s _^ , ,s¢ l t Ft, :r A rz"arkrt `1 s °r#j yz��3pF sl=j�( t`x tn. . 7;i• (c. ® .rs sa+[�j� *c5'ts 0£ ar •,t�� �.. r (J '*:^'b7"�.L ' 3?,Yif '3 �YF`• * 't ! ,St', rT- *�s a r n=+�+rp T` !1' '� 3,`:" l-� 3 :.a`�+k '�, r J Yty t�.* 5 •3.IR.f,7 >E YIV '� -a �}�'y, +:'�A�n'ns _,a 4, RR �,c �y1 3 }r, d#t�' 't0. fy«.F -r+.}� W, '1 _r'i,.,.•.�, �zw•�J`"6 4 }'s ' f s e �Ui..:t.•':1 �1 ar� h, 'tom,-T�� i ',:_ _/��( St i•�. 1 t� �`:�T`rr.'���f X"r•oS�fii4�{ `ft 1���•r�� 4 '�5•Y .. /�} 'lavS, o+ J �' •` c9� \ 1 0r4'?' s: .�. •4•s. •9r' "�. h '� ct °'h''¢ s (, r•'' * "� +i yys7 r• r•=• i. lb �, # 1 .xe ,I�yC vi !,�x ���9y.., v4...k,Za i J ry "'V y r r+w:I H[ 'aru. '"7c,7� �F�' 9��}'ssivs,Y '. i .•f ,+;� rr' a '�. (. Iva a r$ d,� tS ``.cs�f r" �.•em3 sRL.p;Y� +II�k r a r '�, (� Sey.r '�'_^a S1•,�'r '� J� v S. r y1t e°�'„Y•.� n?�YG.i3.1G9}�y-i�„i-a dy�y �1�„��� •his'.. r�,:k:.s ti �'��,.t�•��'� �•k7' r�,A'tt r�.� -t�9�''sl�k:." �Tr� t ,e.�svy'fsw in tE. -1c,,_Ka.,. ��,b4 ( vS}. 1..i.'.`7s k 4G r''S.' .•'i"~ rar`ryrk`�,,w A.. C y� tc `+ �}e o r•. >,M 'sr•� ti1 R m.^ l f,.., f'rJ^v .� ii��+ r.:.a£'Lr '�y' •°'` � '.fN)Y w"�y h 41u�P3' Y.i !'y1��^. iY^!� � tf� d �'.���� r[?: �/ 'Y ( j{;,,r� L.�c,� �:� ti' 'fig ft� � �,/.�S y`,d.. � R���`y�ua. ¢Y lr 2 i } :.! fa�u`.'• (V. P' (f, _ '''{ "! •:F�§G,� M� .' s / H Y .IYs iy ti-a T r tbJro" k;�•[ r' '.• � �-Yt�i'�F!. v r-r1 :��Yc}'Cxr�tikt i 1� i � x ,�/.." §s ? it' r :.a••i r r,.'X'��3 sw� ��T�y t Eiiy,a w. r :{� ok $ fi flit rr � t✓ t '4.ks'. rf 1�ary��3YYy }�d r 4K rHf��'p'��+'f{. •� a..n,yR. is s '� �� �.�e �,� ran � �, 1 f agi9}' 'f,�t"G1g'.a f}G 9i ra y"� rcY� r,{ e .' ('.^s."i ,X r.s•+' t, $ e„1-0 i 14- a i �.1 pR' `�ii'"Ur*'� N>��x + +��r� ��.S� � ,b"i��r ' t.Yta�,r�'�t _ _�_. _?si:>:,.:a:: ... :+�s�'� � z u } � .fA' tsl, ,�/�yyt• : ..,: IRS, 4r srf Nr q w } T 7 P{ Jt� fi t'' r r tt{�5 Rre ..+► t {v'rt x,i 4� .r Z' �•a� a n ..AA N {�71rt 1. II;A' �'�? ��-:�^f s'x�..�"� 1+,g'- .,fir., :.'�, Y; RR?.,:P i�t.„j.• I'•tn p.r A'�?', jr MINUTES _ HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19. 2003 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Ron Santos, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: NONE ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE ITEM 1: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (SCE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY— CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 22, 2003 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN) APPLICANT: Suzanne Gatti, AFL Telecommunications, 167 Technology Way, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 10 ft.-7 in. tall, 185 sq. ft. equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower. LOCATION: 19241 Magnolia Street (SCE right-of-way, west of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff stated that the request was continued from the October 22, 2003, meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the plans for the equipment shelter as recommended by the Design Review Board. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff advised that the Public Works Department recommended that the applicant be required to install a driveway of turf block or other approved surface leading from the park service road to the proposed facility; however, this requirement is <:,i .. 7�'z�'s=i•' C f F�a ..f' not supported by the Planning Department or Community Services Department due to the impact 'on park use. Staff stated that two letters in opposition to the proposed project were received as well as one inquiry into the nature of the proposed project. No other written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, reviewed project plans of the proposed facility and photographs of the subject property and neighboring residences. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Doug Jackson, 8832 Luss Drive, neighboring property owner, presented a letter, which was signed by neighboring property owners, opposing the proposed project. Mr. Jackson stated numerous concerns including use of the structure by undesirables during the nighttime hours, reduction in the. re-sale.value of their homes, health hazard from the combined radio frequency and high voltage, and impact upon their view. Mr. Jackson stated that the proposed project should not be governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because of the uniqueness of the situation. He asked when the AES power plant was to be removed. Bernadette Jackson, 8832 Luss Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Ms. Jackson presented photographs of the subject facility as viewed from her residence. Ms. Broeren engaged in general discussions concerning the distance from the neighboring parcel and aesthetic concerns regarding the proposed facility. Gale Licata, 8841 Crescent Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed project expressing the same concerns as the previous speakers. A gentleman in the audience asked if an enviromnental study has been conducted in relation to the proposed project. Suzanne Gatti, AFL Telecommunications, 167 Technology Way, Irvine, applicant, addressed the aforementioned concerns and spoke on behalf of the proposed project. Ms. Gatti urged the Zoning Administrator's approval stating that the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and is regulated by the FCC. She stated that alternative sites have been considered and discussed with Mr. Jackson. Ms. Gatti referenced the Telecommunications Act concerning radio frequency transmissions stating that no state or local government can regulate wireless facilities on the basis of environmental impacts of radio frequency emission. She stated that concerning the effect of a combination of frequencies it becomes a very gray area because the jurisdiction is split between the California Public Utilities Commission and the FCC. ZA Minutes 11/19/03 2 (03=1119) THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren addressed the aforementioned concerns as presented by the members of the public. She stated that the Zoning Administrator has acted upon a number of wireless communications facilities; however, because of the proximity to homes, the standard for attractiveness has-been raised. She stated that the City doesn't normally get much opposition to these types of facilities because the SCE tower is existing, and the applicant is requesting the addition of three antenna arrays. Ms. Broeren further addressed the location, height, visibility, and compatibility of the proposed facility as related to the neighboring residences. She stated that the location of the antenna creates a localized impact and that, while the City cannot regulate the radio frequency emissions, the City can regulate the location from a compatibility standpoint to ensure that the adjacent property owners are not detrimentally impacted. Ms. Broeren stated.that she was going to deny the request. She stated that the applicant has done a commendable job in terms of improving the aesthetics of the utility structure; however, the location is too close to homes, is in an active park and, even though the subject site is underneath a tower, it will reduce the City park space. Ms. Broeren asked staff to modify the findings for denial as reflected below. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 WAS DENIED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED FINDINGS. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and associated equipment. ZA Minutes 11/19/03 3 (03=1119) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 10 ft.-7 in. tall, 185 sq. ft. equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due to the close proximity of the proposed facility to single-family dwellings and impact on the active park use. 2. The conditional use permit will not be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located in close proximity to existing homes in an active recreational park and will result in obstruction of views. ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-48 (THE PET ZONE) APPLICANT: Denise Atkinson, 16999 Bluewater Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 PROPERTY OWNER: Edinger Associates, c/o AMC Management, 1600 Dove Street #140, Newport Beach, CA 92660 REQUEST: To establish a dog daycare and kennel facility in an existing 5,040 sq. ft. corrunercial suite. LOCATION: 7466 Edinger Avenue (south side of Edinger Avenue, east of Gothard Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the suggested findings and subject to the suggested conditions as outlined in the executive summary. One telephone call was received from one of the center's business owners concerning dogs leaving messes outdoors as they enter and exit the subject site. Staff stated that the foregoing concern was brought to the applicant's attention in addition to the fact that any violations of suggested Condition No. 2 would result in action from Code Enforcement and may result in revocation of the use. No other written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Denise Atkinson, 16989 Bluewater Lane, applicant, stated that she had no comments at this time. ZA Minutes 11/19/03 4 (03=1119) THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, confirmed that the applicant is aware of suggested Condition No. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-48 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the operation of existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that previously existing. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-48: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-48 to establish a dog daycare and kennel facility in an existing 5,040 sq. ft. conunercial suite will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed use will contribute to the viability of the commercial center by attracting customers and generating lease revenue, thus improving the value of property in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will not generate noise, traffic, demand for parking or other impacts at levels inconsistent with the commercial zoning applicable to the property. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed commercial establishment will be operated in an existing commercial shopping center, adjacent to other commercial uses of similar nature and intensity. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-48 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed service establishment is permitted in the CG base district, subject to conditional use permit approval, pursuant to Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance— CO, CG, and CVDist7lcts: Land Use C077t7•01s. No new construction is proposed. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-FP2 (Commercial General —Flood Plain 2) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: ZAMinutes 11/19/03 5 (03zm1119) LU 10.1.1: Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local residents, serve the surrounding region, serve visitors to the City and capitalize on Huntington Beach's recreational resources. ED 2.4.3: Encourage the expansion of the range of goods and services provided in Huntington Beach to accommodate the needs of all.residents in Huntington Beach and the market area The proposed business will contribute to the diversity of service-commercial uses oriented to the needs of local residents and the surrounding community in the City. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-48: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 17, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. All activities associated with the proposed use shall be conducted entirely indoors. 3. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:25 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 AT 1:30 PM. Ma Beth roeren Zoning Administrator :rmk r ZA Minutes 11/19/03 6 (03zm1119) mum AFL Telecommunications 167 Technology Drive Irvine,CA 92618 Tel: 1 949 265 4200 Fax: 1 949 265 4201 November 26, 2003 Mr. Ron Santos City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision regarding CUP No. 03-42 Dear Huntington Beach Planning Department: Cingular Wireless respectfiilly requests to appeal the decision of the zoning administrator with regard to CUP No. 03-42, which was acted upon on November 19, 2003. The address for Cingular Wireless is 3345 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612. The address of Cingular's representative is AFL Telecommunications, 167 Technology Drive, Irvine, CA 92618. Cingular Wireless is requesting an appeal from the zoning administrator's decision because the proposed project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due to the close proximity of the proposed facility to single family dwellings and impact on the active park use. The proposed facility is similar to existing facilities that are similar in proximity to residential zones that have not been deemed detrimental to the general welfare. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the contention that the proposed facility will be detrimental to the value of property or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will not impact the active park use, as the proposed facility would only utilize the property directly underneath the existing SCE transmission tower. That property, which is situated under the existing transmission tower, is not actively used by the public as the surrounding park land is. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses as the facility is integrated with the design of the existing transmission tower(antennas) and the surrounding homes (shelter). The views of the surrounding homes will not be obstructed as the antennas will be mounted at approximately 43' and the height of the surrounding homes does not exceed 35'. The shelter will only be M square feet and no more than 11' high. Therefore the views from the surrounding properties will not be fully obstructed. Sincerely, Suzanne Gatti AFL Telecommunications Senior Land Use Planner 310.200.2151 November 11,2003 • D'oGg.us and Bernadette Jackson 8832 Luss Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 714 964-0661 Ron Santos—Project Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Dear Mr. Santos, We were recently notified of Conditional Use Permit 03-42 pertaining to the proposed SCE right-of-way wireless communications facility and find that we have misgivings about the project and its effects.Our property lies on the north side of the SCE right-of-way,a mere 56 feet from the north SCE tower,the site of the proposed facility. The SCE right-of-way is maintained by the City as a park,namely Langenbeck Park,a highly-used neighborhood park.The surrounding residents and park users have a reasonable expectation that a city park will continue to look like a park.The proposed wireless equipment will spoil the park setting,just as the existing wireless equipment does on the east side of Magnolia Street. Those facilities look like something you would expect to see in a military installation,not a park. In fact,"unsightly"is the descriptive term used in the FCC's National Wireless Facilities Siting Policies document in referring to the facilities.The proposed equipment enclosure and antenna arrays will be in clear view from our home and our neighbors' homes.Also,any cooling fans or air conditioners will be within earshot of our bedroom window. When we moved here,we accepted the SCE towers,as their presence made the park'.s existence possible in the first place. We expected some occasional SCE activity to maintain their power distribution equipment but nothing more.The proposed wireless equipment is not related to power distribution;the SCE towers are merely convenient locations for Cingular's equipment.In selecting the present location,Cingular is disregarding the welfare of the affected neighborhood. Any structure in the park tends to be a magnet for park-curfew violators that congregate and get drunk or high and make noise at all hours of the night.This was the case with the SCE towers until we installed a dusk-to-dawn light on our back patio that discourages such activity. The screening and resultant hiding place provided by the proposed equipment enclosure will surely re-introduce the problem. The permit application contains a safety analysis by Dtech Communications that is incomplete.It only addresses transmitted radio-frequency(RF)power levels at ground level in front of an antenna.It does not cover second-story living areas or rooftops which must be accessed occasionally for home maintenance. Those elevations are closer to being directly in the main beams of the transmitters where the power levels will be much higher. The SCE towers support high-voltage power-transmission lines so our home is already subjected to high levels of low-frequency(LF)electromagnetic radiation.The proposed transmitters will cause our home to be exposed to high levels of combined RF and LF radiation. While studies have been conducted to determine exposure limits for each type of radiation separately,it is doubtful any studies have been conducted regarding the additive effects of simultaneous,multiple types of radiation. Since they both are forms of electromagnetic radiation,the possible biological effects of their combination must be considered. They cannot simply be considered separately.The FCC does not have regulatory authority with respect to power-line electromagnetic fields.Therefore,this special condition is not covered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its provisions cannot be used as a basis for disregarding this potential health hazard.I(Douglas)work at home and my exposure will be 24 hours a day,so my concern is very real.The situation is similar for some of our neighbors. The FCC document Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radlofrequency Electromagnetic Fields states:"In general,while the possibility of`non-thermal' biological effects may exist,'whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known.Further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any,to human health."Regardless of whether a real health hazard exists or not,the presence of the antenna arrays will be a source of uncertainty and worry for the nearby residents. The negative psychological effects of fear and anxiety can be as damaging as aphysical hazard. -i`y ol HL,nt,nYry„ wP2,h ;, ?lam^11c7 _ NOV 13 2003 «y The communications facility will have a significant financial impact on the neighborhood.The facility will be perceived as a health hazard and an eyesore that will lower property value and also make the property more difficult to sell. Most potential home-buyers considering one of these properties will be scared away. They will not research the safety issues;they will just look elsewhere.The seller will be forced to set the selling price substantially lower than that of a comparable property in another neighborhood. In the present real-estate market,a ten-percent reduction in our home's value could mean a loss of$40,000 or more. This project is not a case of sacrificing the welfare of a neighborhood for the common good of a greater community.Conversely,it is sacrificing the welfare of a neighborhood for the self-interest of a private,for- profit enterprise. It is not as if Cingular is bringing telephones to a third-world nation. They are just another carrier in an already crowded wireless market.The City must place the welfare of its residents ahead of the bottom line of a corporation.The City also has an obligation to protect its precious public green spaces. We ask that you and the Zoning Administrator consider this project as if it were proposed for your own neighborhoods and indeed if this type of facility is suitable for any residential neighborhood. We submit that the facility is unsuitable for a residential neighborhood and ask that the permit not be granted. Sincerely, zi;.`�':�:;a{1 F�1.,6:6�le�J•r F.�� : Qy 'l`v;Y»!N �a O� November 18,2003. Tits and Marilyn Ryan 8852 Luss Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 714 968-1255 Mr. Ron Santos Project Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Conditional Use Permit 03-42 Dear Mr. Santos, We were recently notified of Conditional Use Permit 03-42 pertaining to the proposed SCE right-of-way wireless communications facility and have some concerns with the project and its effects as summarized below. We own property on the north side of the SCE right-of-way near the north SCE tower where the new facilities are to be sited. First,we believe it is inadvisable to locate additional communication facilities in Langenbeck Park,or any city park for that matter. Langenbeck Park is a valuable neighborhood park whose use is already limited by the existing electrical transmission towers and lines. We fully accept that the transmission towers are a necessary aspect of the park's environment,but colocating additional unrelated communication facilities will degrade the park setting. The proposed wireless facility would put industrial equipment on the ground in the park,which will incrementally limit use of the park and degrade the visual environment for both park users and nearby residents. We know that the City has been struggling with high demand for existing park acreage and facilities as the City builds-out. It seems counterproductive to use valuable parkland for this purpose when other commercial and industrial locations could be used. Second,we are concerned about the safety of such a facility within close proximity to residential uses.The permit application contains a safety.analysis by Dtech Communications that is incomplete.It only addresses transmitted radio-frequency(RF)power levels at ground level in front of an antenna.It does not cover second-story living areas or rooftops which must be accessed occasionally for home maintenance.Those elevations are closer to being directly in the main beams of the transmitters where the power levels will be much higher. When combined with the levels of low-frequency electromagnetic radiation(LF)associated with the existing power transmission lines,our homes could be exposed to high levels of combined RF and LF radiation. While studies have been conducted to determine exposure limits for each type of radiation separately,we are concerned that the combined effect could be cumulatively considerable. Does the Applicant have statistical or scientific evidence to assure us that the additive effects of simultaneous, multiple types of radiation are less than significant? In looking through the State of California,Department of Health Services,California Electromagnetic Fields(EMF)Program Final Report, "An Evaluation of Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields(EMFs)From Power Lines,Internal Wiring,Electrical Occupations, and Appliances",2002,we could not see specific consideration for the combined effects of RF and EMF sources. However,the report did indicate that various types of electrical phenomenon are present in the vicinity of power lines,in home wiring,and appliances. These include EMFs with different frequencies and orientation. Some researchers thought that these associated high or low frequency stray currents could have as much to do with studied effects than the actual power line sources of EMFs. It went on to state that,"The uncertainty about what aspect of the mixture might need to be mitigated will present a challenge to decision-makers". The report made no recommendations about possible combined effects. Finally;we understand that a CEQA Categorical Exemption is proposed. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 provides exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption.Part(c)indicates that a Categorical Exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. We believe that the potential impact due to the combined or cumulative effects from LF and RF radiation exposure is such an unusual circumstance,and that a Categorical Exemption is improper. Mr.Ron Santos November 18,2003 Page 2 In conclusion,we believe that the facility is unsuitable for a park setting within a residential neighborhood and that additional information is needed to assure residents that the proposed facility can be operated without significant impact on public health and welfare. Thanks very much for considering our comments. Sincerely, Thomas C.Ryan We,the undersigned, live in the area affected by the proposed SCE right-of=way wireless communications facility described in the application for Conditional Use Permit 03-42 in the City of Huntington Beach.We agree with the concerns expressed by Douglas and Bernadette Jackson in a.letter addressed to Ron Santos of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. We submit that the facility is unsuitable for a residential neighborhood and ask that the permit not be granted. 212 2- Di� 1 =ram p _I 1.• e� ��i' l Less IDA. k.�. Sr _.'//-yl, C---X�il L/�c-� �ltY-��� Cj/'t'SC`. (%r►.f I' C'/ '�i='`�� -- •,��, ���G'- (.�(ASS 0,.E�'. %� /.�- �:��GiGf ;z�r•"� .;=„fir? ,.,.,,,.:.�_+_ • -..� ,.._.- ATTACHMENT 5 January 22, 2004 Douglas Jackson 8832 Luss Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714 964-0661 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Dear Commissioner, At the previous Zoning Administrator Hearing for Conditional Use Permit 03-42, my wife and I submitted a letter stating our concerns, along with signatures of neighbors that share our concerns. We also submitted three photos: a view of the proposed site from our bedroom window; a view of the proposed site from our dining room; and a view of an existing site. I ask you to please look at the photos and try to imagine such a facility being located this close to your home. The photos and letter were added to the application file. Since you will be given a copy of the aforementioned letter, I will not repeat its points here. I do, however, have a few additional points. The SCE towers have barbs on the lower portion to prevent anyone from climbing them. They are very effective; I have witnessed many attempts by teenagers to get past them and they were never successful. The conduits that are needed for the proposed antenna arrays may provide a means for getting past the barbs,possibly resulting in a death or injury from electrocution or falling. I recently spoke to a man doing safety-related contract work for SCE who has done extensive work involving wireless facilities. He informed me that many facilities use an underground vault for the equipment instead of an above-ground enclosure. Only an air duct for cooling is above ground. To my knowledge, Cingular has never proposed such an alternative to the equipment enclosure structure. I feel that Cingular should be able to find a suitable alternative site and have suggested some possible ones to Cingular's representative. There is a considerable amount of commercial property around the intersection of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue,the target area for the site. There is one wireless facility there already. There are other SCE towers within a few hundred yards, adjacent to Garfield Avenue,that are located on land that is used for agriculture and is not accessible by the public. I hope you will see that this is not an appropriate site for a wireless facility. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, _ 1 David and Gale Licata 8841 Crescent Drive Huntington Beach, California 92646 (714) 962-2626 0 FAX (714 962-4645 January 26. 2004 Project Manager, Ron Santos City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communication_ Facility) Dear Mr. Santos: We are writing to voice our opposition to granting conditional use permit No. 03-42, to install a wireless communications facility in the middle of Langenbeck Park. The Southern California Edison tower which is the proposed host of the antenna and a quipment enclosure is directly behind our home at 8841 Crescent Dr. This tower is clearly visible from our kitchen, family room, and two upper story bedrooms. We oppose the request from AFL Telecommunications to install three antenna arrays a-iid equipment enclosure at this site for the following reasons: 1. The equipment storage unit will be an obstruction and an eyesore in an otherwise 6.mr area located in the interior of a public park. 2. While the existing utility power tower is already an attractive nuisance, we believe that the installation of this proposed facility will be an even greater nuisance, will block a ch;ar view of the park, and will make it possible for unsavory characters to find a hiding place wi`hin the park. 3. Servicing the installation will require regular visits by a commercial vehicle inside tl;e park, and immediately adjacent to our home and other residences. This will cause unneed d noise, and the danger of traffic in an area that has previously been quiet and safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and children of all ages. 4. Many, groups use the area near the proposed building for soccer and rugby practice; baseball- practice, walking and training dogs, volleyball, and other activities. Placing a building in the center will obstruct all these activities of the park. We do not object at all to locating the transmitter and equipment facility in the commercial center which is just a few dozen feet to the northeast of the proposed location. With the availability of a commercial development so near the site, we see no justification whatever for the complete ,t �. ,'Pj-• �/�, A '�' 2; "�' of M1 fi. - f ';� . •`� 'fM . \: z3"'�, ,. f sr�;h; e. 7�.. r `Aw�` fir"•r F 71, NZ fi �Ry.I. ar +:t e �r '4A 4 '�k+i'�r�`• i f x_ � _n; a a`�h* Y . 'R MPSe� v RAN e x:-r { .- 1� s _j � f kS' � ,.•� .:p'x �ti{,��� x:. �y R ��e � ,:.� a t ,o-•-t*• `ry^ - �,�„ � /,1'.. .. 14i�d': "'-"S7i•..�71fY�:s .a.,.� r�Y►i'a..o,'�a �' i:''�.. >`...'. r• •. y m.;�- �a- 'C :.k•. j'fi...tI°'ks; a. r* R :-fis d..� :�: 90w �e.< �.+a.+ �-,. � `� $-..`n::., ,r_* ••� s • ",�,� i` f,�Xy. « ,!E a i �_'.1 ,1 - y 3•� ��� � n ' :[. '(5^: a x r - 3e,��]�y`, •Ss� «a +rm'9. y• t7^xr r{ ..1 tg ,,� 1. f. ^::� ;� f+`• �q','•r. fFA E ' $X; it i i �}•.? .w,� k + , •.� .a3 r - �4. 6`e^�t -: 4f' =Ea c.,_ Y T. t a4,;,.'1 »q .-. uA 9 r ?'..( -, ., -♦.q..u'7s "A.'7, h. _ 4::C -r. Y. .t.. f.. . ..._ 5' n .�.ra:. ...., ?�@, 3-:x ,-z;;�'.. ..4•., r.- .. :#t, '•.c aY M'"i_.::.'f.E. t � �,.'f. ..3 .'t•;'', .,...,'.r. n� H;• .y ;".• n ,.,..�� +.v.- , -+',.; �i :=i 't�. 'i- r.A 4� w [ g �e.'F- `2 x.� :4� 5'3:,Arm;• -4 + .�: •> ,._ a.. t! =..t ..,. �:F- r -fit, - �3`"<" r ,y, � + e' ,� ,F'i �. Opposition to Permit No 03-42 Page 2 disruption of so many homes by the proposed building. The residents surrounding Langenbeck Park are being singled out for what no other park or residential area in the city has— a commercial installation right in the center of our park. We strongly object, and we hope that the Planning Commission will uphold the fair and sensible decision of the Zoning Commission and domy the conditional use permit. Thank you for your consideration and for your decision in favor of maintaining a safe aad quiet neighborhood park. Sincerely, a ' ata Gale L. Licata i �i�►�I, AFC, Telecommunications January 26, 2004 Suzanne Gatti Land Use Planner AFL Telecommunications 167 Technology Drive Irvine, CA 92618 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA RE: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42. Dear Planning Commission: On November 19, 2003, the Zoning Administrator, Mary Beth Broeren, erroneously denied Cingular Wireless' request to permit a wireless communication facility consisting of three antenna arrays and a two-foot diameter microwave dish to be attached to an existing Southern California Edison utility tower. The findings that the Zoning Administrator relied on in denying Cingular Wireless' were not supported by substantial evidence, which is the standard required by law. "Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be...supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 USC § 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv). The United States Supreme Court has defined substantial evidence as, relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Universal Camera v. NLRB, 340 US 474 (1951). Pagel of 3 /% r The findings-that the Zoning Administrator relied on in denying the permit were: 1)"...will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due to the close proximity of the proposed facility to single-family dwellings and impact on the active park use." and 2) "...will not be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located in close proximity to existing homes in an active recreational park and will result in obstruction of views." (i) close proximity of the proposed facility to single-family dwellings (see Attachments C, D & E) The proposed facility is approximately 52.1 feet from the closest residential district (Residential Low-Density). Directly to the east of the proposed facility, is an existing wireless communications facility on a Southern California Edison tower. The existing facility also abuts a Residential Low-Density zoning district to the north. The existing facility is approximately 53.2 feet from the closest residential district, also Residential Low-Density. The proposed wireless communication facility is only (13) thirteen inches closer to a Residential Low- Density zoning district than the existing wireless communication facility. The thirteen-inch difference is negligible Therefore; there is no substantial evidence to support the Zoning Administrator's findings that the proximity of the proposed wireless communication facility to single family dwellings will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. (ii) impact on the active park use (see Attachment B) Southern California Edison's easement, running the length of Lagenbeck Park, was reserved for utility purposes. The agreement between Southern California Edison and the City of Huntington Beach concerning the use of the easement provides, Southern California Edison is the owner of an easement and right-of-way for electrical transmission and communications purposes which encumbers all or a part of the Property pursuant to a certain grant of easement to SCE, dated October 14, 1955...Nothing in this Agreement shall limit, modify or degrade SCE's rights under the Easement. Communications Site License Agreement, Section B In granting the easement to SCE, the City of Huntington Beach reserved, at a minimum, all of the land below the tower for electrical transmission and communication purposes, not for park purposes. The proposed wireless communication facility consists of locating the equipment necessary to run the Page 2 of 3 • • facility directly beneath the tower in an enclosure that was designed specifically to blend in with the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed wireless communication facility does not contravene the grant of easement form the City of Huntington Beach to Southern California Edison. If the proposed wireless communications facility is denied because the location of the shelter is deemed to have an impact on the park, then the City will be in violation of its agreement with Southern California Edison. (iii) obstruction of views The existing Southern California Edison lattice towers currently obstruct the views, from the surrounding homes. The impact from the proposed project is negligible. Additionally, the land under the Southern California Edison towers has been reserved solely for electrical transmission and communication purposes, not as open space. Therefore,the proposed facility will not impact a protected view-shed. The evidence that the Zoning Administrator relied on in denying Cinguar Wireless' permit to install a wireless communication facility on an existing Southern California Edison tower cannot be substantiated, as it is unfounded. Therefore,pursuant to, 47 USC § 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv), the Zoning Administrator's denial must be overturned. Sincerely, luu -- uzanne Gatti Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A: Notice of Action, CUP No. 03-42 Exhibit B: An excerpt from Communications Site License Agreement between City of Huntington Beach and Southern California Edison Exhibit C: Pictures of Existing wireless communications facility, abutting RL zoned district Exhibit D: Pictures of Proposed wireless communications facility, abutting RL zoned district Exhibit E: Zoning Map—with location of similar existing facility and proposed facility. I I i M the-, ZONING ADr`v11N1S'-`Rk.A1. O.R. Lei TV OF If' --rINGTON BEACfie CALIFO - 'Lt P.0. B 0.11i 190 I...A LIFORN 1 241 92648 (714) 5,36-5271 NOTICE OF ACTION November 20, 200') PETITION DOCUMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42 (SCE RIGHT-OF- WAY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY— CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 22, 2003 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN) APPLICANT: Suzanne Gatti, AFL Telecommunications, 167 Technology Way, Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 10 ft.-7 in. tall, 185 sq. ft. equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower. LOCATION: 19241 Magnolia Street (SCE right-of-way, west of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Dear Applicant: Your application was acted upon by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Huntington Beach on November 19, 2003, and your request was denied. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Zoning Administrator is final unless an appeal is filed to the Planning Commission by you or by an interested party. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Three Dollars ($1263.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and One Thousand Five Hundred Forty Dollars ($1540.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. The appeal shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Zoning Administrator's action. The last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee for the above noted application is December 1, 2003. Exhibs+ A Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 Page 2 You are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because-the project consists of the installation of a small new facility and associated equipment. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 to install a wireless communications facility, consisting of three (3) antenna arrays attached to an existing Southern California Edison tower at a height of 43 ft. and a 10 ft.-7 in. tall, 185 sq. ft. equipment enclosure located at grade, below the tower, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due to the close proximity of the proposed facility to single-family dwellings and impact on the active park use. 2. The conditional use permit will not be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed facility will be located in close proximity to existing homes in an active recreational park and will result in obstruction of views. I hereby certify that Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 was denied by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on November 19, 2003, upon the foregoing citations. Very truly yours, Mary Beth Broeren Zoning Administrator MBB:RS:rmk xc: Property Owner COMMUNICATIONS SITE LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS COMMUNICATIONS SITE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is ?ntp-red Into this day of , 200_, by and among City of Huntington Beach, ("Licensor"), Southern California Edison Company, a California corporation ("SCE"), and Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC, a Nevada limited ?_ability company, d/b/a Cingular Wireless ("Carrier") (collectively, the "Parties") with reference to the facts set forth below: RECITALS A. Licensor is the owner of that certain property located in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"). B. SCE is the owner of an easement and right of way for electrical transmission and communication purposes which encumbers all or a part of the Property pursuant to a certain grant of easement to SCE, dated October 14, 1955, and recorded on December 9, 1955, in Book 3310, page 59, its Instrument No. 152376 and a Final Order of Condemnation dated February 26, 1960 and recorded on March 15, 1960 in Book 5146, Page 138 as Instrument No. 45713 of official records in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, State of California, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits B-1 and B-2 ("Easement"). Nothing in this Agreement shall limit, modify or degrade SCE's rights under the Easement. C. SCE has constructed, among other facilities, electric transmission towers and/or poles within the Easement ("Electric Facilities"). D. Carrier is a provider of communication services which require the transmission and reception of radio communication signals on various frequencies. E. Carrier desires to install communication equipment on the Electric Facilities and on the surface of the Easement in furtherance of the provision of communication services ("Carrier's Equipment"). F. SCE and Carrier have entered into that certain Master Agreement dated October 11, 2001, and have or intend to enter into that certain Standard Agreement No. dated (collectively referred to herein as tl;e "Master Agreement"), the terms of which govern Carrier's installation of Carrier's Equipment on the Electric Facilities and on the surface of the Eas%-ment. Solely as between Carrier and SCE, in the event of any conflict b=wten the terms or conditions of the Master Agreement and this Agreement, this Master Agreement shall govern. Lit.ense Aueement Cingular- Huntington Bch.doc I EYNU � B EXISTING M - LESS FACILITY — RTH TOWER ) ABUTS HYDE PARK — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 53 . 2 feet - directly North j' r E �S -i a ti �r North Elevation WIPE F t F tiY � E x �.. � •c �d�f S South Elevation Exh �b'� C EXISTING WO ? LESS FACILITY — (� RTH TOWER ) ABUTS HYDE PARK — RI ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 53 . 2 feet - directly North m'vr'fi `,a" y'S � y. t`�.v�""i� t'r-r �Y�� +i'9�'�'.. 'R '5- .�' - �`.s � e"�J•xx^�.. 3LE IMP _ ElJ- dd e East Elevation y West Elevation EXISTING VO 2LESS FACILITY — RTH TOWER ) ABUTS HYDE PARK — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 53 . 2 feet - directly North .Y 3 4 t r i -r Looking north from tower " I i Looking south from tower EXISTING WO —, LESS FACILITY — ( RTH TOWER ) ABUTS HYDE PARK — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest RI Zone : 53 . 2 feet - directly North k���� at�����en s�$z �y_+�[y *F,�?�§�i�'•���-�'�i��E�y 'yxyt+��-.>� F L-�j AI sR�'`'- '* `may'- �nr -. K 1 ` 8 a C Looking east from tower N• s " Looking west from tower • w�ft'ET k gh � �-1' F .•F,fy � ��tyt t��` wer,',/'�tf�- ��f �, �•��J `�t�' ° Pq - r�►'YBtA �.. p GGGll' ` i. 7 _•"tea ., �a�t� ��1®� 8 ® �_Ea�DA• �0'�E'1�/' x.., s < 'c�."ry5x"''�'4-�a-�? ��� • � �.r���j,•�}'.$'fi �A\` 'A. �:, ; r � ��s,,�,t�tsfs�k��v,, ��•. ��. 5:",i �`�# i' 1 � _ • �f;�) y _" , d ..-� �.. f "/,.�.�" i' V. J:m�...1� 1`'-` .Gw.'rc'c . r._.•i ,F .•:. r• • PROPOSED W* ELESS FACILITY — A RTH TOWER ) ABUTS LUSS DRIVE — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest RI Zone : 52 . 1 feet - directly North M to 1 SO�r5-" � i - t Mau mu ri 'f A : gY Sm East Elevation - -� a?,a �"-L, .-:� �� -� }., West Elevation PROPOSED VO ELESS FACILITY — (0 RTH TOWER ) ABUTS LUSS DRIVE — RI ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest RI Zone : 52 . 1 feet - directly North xu 36 M1 l -"`cx" ixkkxi,z "G,a +�c'C,f.A' :) -g '"$e•+�'z�'' r'� �Y 'r�iw ..d'. - Looking north from tower 7A t I Unf X M. s t \ f I ¢�k -m:.Ya_iiaeY s:--.- Wl Looking south from tower PROPOSED W. ELESS FACILITY — (O/ RTH TOWER ) ABUTS LUSS DRIVE — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest R1 Zone : 52 . 1 feet - directly North -UM � * ig s MIN ...... .5�.'''�c.r�zI-"��".k i•s �• z"i9« si"'� sy, R' ?P. as. Looking east from tower kw"k'! w v.� R. W. r ,y� j �S € c -����M-Mlffi FAY <t- ix, cam` c`x"'� �c,, •nr°`� i_u . Looking west from tower ATTACHMENT 6 Owl APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSONS APPROVAL OF : • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO , 03-42 I • (LANGENBECK PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY) # 19241 MAGNOLIA STREET Garfield Ave. _ er"�HIM.. �r�Ek 161 Lanark Cir. ry sd :I TW. of f $ro ...... okside Dr. VICINITY 1x ,�-� {,, yy Lau ti✓ der.Cir. JI lt u �f 4ri f�r/ 1M !7y {-0 �'✓,' ^�' M4 Y -�1. 1�.1 'w7�Nf lop MAP -�* !Franciscan. Cir. Elgin Cir _ F t } J4 Luss a ` t ,Y+.�t+�y �✓z:�9t"'�"u��13e"•vr4aa f'+t am4 r fi, ro+s� ,�-r� Wy` t�ut LL .^ +flf d 3 1 0 ............ CWk, rescen r . Ji u � ilk'. u '.f'' -{'�uncoraL Dr. ftli r rp�yKs� c 't�ln/'�� �4 Ky: aS. �„+ . yam° �r� �" ,,+�i '� �. �, � +t li r,! .�. ✓ �� ��u' :: C �t . J k: c Seaspray.Dr. Y .� 1` Y g r ry' W N �I t'i� i�Y 3R'77Aiikt n (�°d i�iY� � "'"• __` —_—.. rr Seahurst Dr. Maorpark:G 4 154hi f1+ T Baywood Drr y m.ta c N k 111 PI ,I"I '�✓�R'::'r y a�.JM Na I—=.1 ° .arW s,Y 4ts.,. ' 11 ¢a I,a t�ayl� �j,I:a.° �q < I t 4 t,yt, ', LI ., _ t Cli M& Dr. ® R ( 4 � 6C4� � t .U!•lA SY.�1`0� u�fi% �dJ usr.S �I�uua,1 pA,a � t JI,�S'.Wi• atiex Je �,a �,..s.a7a >o-�, $.�„A a 3'�.1aJ,�r�:TJ�nsi,�id:.'1, i i J S i PROJECT ,, DESCRIPTION , { WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS C f FACILITY CONSISTING OF . 0 3�- aTn to n-n a--a r ra �� s,- a tta c h ed to 3 y l existing SCE tower at height of 43 9 feet. • E u i ment enclosure 185 s.f. 11 ft. • a p t tall, at base of tower. i i i i ! I i i • ! � mom moum 13 ON" uu . u owns / mm7l. Ran 1�R/1M�d i ow Y7 I (yam 011lt 01 J b�tL mum < mow. lj13 13 1 i ! � 011E i { El �13iii j i I f i i !!I Bond M •MIN CRESCENT DRIVE i �tft1� I t N i 6 WN=YAM NO ! . FmT I SITE PLAN fv TRIO-am TOM AO Trer®ma 1oM f�s U 1p a M�It4i "OPINIONS a � . �� ..moo. i�TTILD �MEMS"Ou" MossovILMonst .. F a...a lMl,oM.s. i xr s wuM rat u►s moo w+ac Y WEST ELEVATION ELEVATION ea•'t. ,C?. 't "A:,r e, ,,,y^r ve a ^r�,..+m.+a"v'- ^qr:+,-rm,mra.N fW.rr.., w w^.+•+,;n'. .r,4e.+r »r+1P:a � ,—:{y� ,...., .,.n,'( <.. a.t. ...�,r ,z,. 7.^'{ r,- :';.�,•,^ ���,�i'_1«"iy''!n' Ili'. ,.4, L' 27'" ,.r .;. , �'„ •a ,r+F, } S,.r'• ., 'Rz., s w4. �' ;r ,,k t r4�i µ� �'' '@ ,r f . •N re,T f �•vf, 4. r} !,S4# „Y' "'i .'.'ib, r"1 ,f 1•' 'i'�. si' � '`V"' � ,t 4 �(..5n ,.$. ,,,,, r..c, ,. .J;.. `•t. A,: ,.'�.v. 't'k:... ^� �"... 7,. ...t� 's;. '.,R is. fi;r `��, r! ,:.r:. v }�J .Y .1':g. ,.tr T R+. Jf :•�'J,. ,, .},V ,.n rl ,J va ,".' !"€' k ,!, r� 3, r ',I,• f •k ,r' � _, .�,. .r';"�G a;a.a,..ma� .,.q.Via, .,z ':,t ,� r. '3 �'87 .r,�: sr�:�rr,r�'•.. � A.<r ,sr•«�3 .: uw,F, x. ,t :,n4 �+,. .M• ,. .�'•,: n s:, �y ,� « i,;., , v, ,. �. n �Ui r, t .. ,� yy�� �` �,':'� ••�� `'"t. :,� r�. C}}, '.:rt' '..>�'' 3}�fk. 5 y���� ., ,a ,. •,;, r .p+.n,r.d.; .,rS ,.t, ,•e H$:r'4`b.�.:G..,.a.. 'C\' r "i '^yy>,. �,,, ,ySR.:rt.naa9d '; � ,-. .. .. r.,. �� �,'�«:: f '•a:V 3�„G`+s•'r t ,.k:q t,,,,� fit', :'+A'. Y+ .';5 ... ,, .., ,. �W�� yt .. .. �" N Y ro h � ,.,. I t• "rit, '', r,/ �i. :'�. ,.,.�.... ,, ..: . ,.,, :,' ,� ta. >l a .`Q•o •9 ;,r, ,,e� ,.ur: '1'r t3,v t"sf n„ w ..�.0..:M„a,.. ,7, :„ , .m1-.,�� u. doe���;. , ,. ., .: .. .. . ,.. .... ,.�:: 4s f 2 r,a f•bf. r ,, „• ,. .q .iy.. 4",.. a.. ..i,t: } 5,. t ,, '� r 1;: w„ s,. 1�a..f. r'a,M1`T• ,, nn,.,Y .p.:t. , 4r1ix{r + '•h ''"4. ;n ,!nu us w. ., .... , S S �..., :v,+r: :. ''`` d av ,,r: k ,.,,. ,T ,. ,..� ..,s w5,:.. .-d ,. ,, ,. t��F :5'.�' r �F,. (` ,.�• ,p'' .,a, �A w, r�:;�°„ ,„ :: x. v ... :,H .:, ,�A:. i5. k �., }p� ,::.: h..,,. ..,.,..♦r.. ,."� n ..: .. � ': 9l.,. S!'a ,a•, Still �'�'.'. 4'' r4r�:. t,,4�a4,� a$ A n �""u•J `!"i�' 1J.a. n+.r.,. rir t-1 rN@,•r,' '/ ,q ...*t�«. r.l,� stl'., y '. y;�i; l .,{; ,:, 'a i'.sr :�..s a: iu:*Y?g Jaw• `ti"'' 4 ) ;a� v'v*{v;,h_�{ �, i i !a. I?i+t' `t-..,�t$v,. �',r J,+ "v.9,�<!K yv�?�:.r,.tt �q,�:,`c ?}�+;";M'v 2 �w'; ..rr 3..,�' 'v �"., �a .a, < a ,y,.,r�. �? a,?i�S•e� t, �,r a ,,F,,f: ". ", `.i;a' d �' h,a <:., i:,l fi'• d��l '-�, .A. +�" i $ ry,= 1 c. t �. 'AtE "Y 4 d:1 <i ��• 'w p 4 r a r,,I "i. i• m. tr..,. S. .,':�.r e' t2 r• •';r« ;`'$r,,! ,; i«..,,y t , rY's4 Y? "� :v. ;%., rs :,.k s? , 7 n ,t„�?�n ,um•?yi ., ,p'k.wl'' '.$.. ,, `ri�f dG' ))a �t ;.: :, ',...Y`, f S3 i::, 1:Y^; i." ,. '.,,. r., u., ii' ..l !ti!ffi. :M ,�, hk4t,,, ,R.. .,MCU {', ,1:�".'h .Y:.r,,. °C' )nV ".;S',�,,r, .{n.>,L �u1,M1��'a. t w, ,,'.,... '1+.. S „Vk� ,}�1.�: ,./. •t'4�, .1, q. � ,.9,Y. 7s�o-5. '�... •b.i ., � 9 ,17T. s"Y'. j afL{,:t.. '�. 4�£`r 1a � yr;yy fi•. 1, ,L n::� "}�.a., a � ,y ,f "�4+,1 k�"„ +rR ,:,, y',,r»,y, �` +,k7b�•`SsJ .lt u:< , �'.,•... J',.,• 'r: .. � .q "r..' ,:f# ,,..,r a . :..,1 tiA/ .fi,..,{' n,.g 'sA, n:r,":. n .F' ,z:A"^' �r �,.•s, v .,fa"yt,�a r• '.f. .' .. ..,.: 5, .,Y 7, +� ,F't(2ah.; m'$f ( t !.;r :..:.e-_ ',...:,,: k' r'S�af „ ,'. lu 2 ai R ',.,�,,..5N'- r:..' �'k�: 1 )�i''� .Y ,� •i J .1v .+ ..3a,�'�'tb ,: .. f, ,.l+",,5,,, k'Y➢.^u�'a ;E,s.l,., f „i, ..,�.a ,,t, ., w �� , ... �",r„h, l,r '�+. ,d f e', 3•<, 'aw:ra ;;:i: r+.h!,... :.. ri .H`ni Y.. 3 r r .< ,P}, �,,..d.,. `xG:rx:,S .. r, ,, , r I .. +. r x. ,, i("s�':r�5. r ^a d,s,n x..•.0 r .o:f 4•' t �� +�, a 3,„ ,, I E,a. ,)� ) ryy�h��r..v '� , NY a,::.:.,++t s' ,,..r .,Y, .r @rP. :....,, s.. •n fA, n��.�'i 'R.., ,.. ,.t� ..n?t?4; (,u,V t J..,r�r f a, ,, e, i � '.:f /. b ,.��,.•..a d.. a ..:^fry,�i � .,a N' 7 t't~r•+'''� .�,� ,! `✓ .rc'`7 a i'.. w-,. ,...,• z,,. :d , ,"r/, a:'..,w,.t, 1,,'�4k.3w:w',7 �' .a ". §,.4 :,,. ,�+ > n+. ,�f II}S 3k .:: e+, ^�A"a'.w. £ ..:,,...: "ar • .rt ,: �F,¢ ., A,mtn,:. .rx. W.a., .. ,' ,.., .� ::' ,.., ,e .�,,{^^hyr' 9 .,.,':, ,. #,p:r .�" I ':t+1 a t <. y,,.,,::. &. t� F�:. .��+A(•':,, th sh.", ,,,'�'r^v*onx•p §, '•,P k.Grun,"71. "&. $. 1 i N, ;qYv,.,� yyFtt ,�' � ,ty.,a±F.y'k?B. V�u+? ,.1' r r��uk;'},1 0+� '"t 1, ,v:'4{wi �T y rt.r..s. ',, :.,a ,. ,,,.,; r ra X:,q'�, �•u:, s ,a, .r 7� c "<a� •„1� .,. >.,r ; �' k :'�a 4 r'r,t at' a{�'a�°, e,t�Pa � �, '.' o,. ,r *;�,, r r �.•.J .�:,ti ..n '°r,rt `,�S .t,.d. { rt�. I. H'�tyy'�� "h c6.. .v rirn.fie.�, .,$'.� r, r .a.:: :: I,.:&�{'' 3ry':' FF, E ",.>.. .If 1.,.ro Y,..k:t,� x.,'•. ,. !,. .., ',: ,'h, ,.v ... , ,r..�.. 1 .F �.Yr #. �t,v�. x"; ..F.,.; ,. , i:: .f ., �u. S. N.,,u,..., kt, ,::' ., �. n.. ., ..r:h r,.. ,.,y,.1,�,,.. v':n 7.!4':. �*.4U:� 's"�*'... •. ��1 y. r r rz, 1) v+,�,. �s ! >.. r,•, ,mt,, ,� P, . .. , �r ,, .: ��, 5 ... t FF3 ,., �"<� C , � ""�;' �Nr ! �'"r x p',p S.Fx, i,.1.�. q,f:i d�,+ �r .°}. 1 A'.+..:ih.. Yv 7:{.. x. .} t• ,Y v,;§. '. N :,dti .,, av ,r r:o-��s•yk rr. .. 1. :�..,;.. " n: s. > 't a ' Yr'" f. .,. fi,.§n ,q::., N,.h§n.> c,1 P 3",. aa,:y u ,:.r S ,,,.. r.. u:..tu„�{r .::...,:,a. ,,. :.,A u, ., k.t. .I,'F' „F.A' ;... ,.$..: ie �+�r4 :.r x,� +a a. :u: �' �ly,:.:,•. ,yy� s` � 'Y r. �9, f„„d4 yc+, ,M 'r, f1� S ...?a a,h E}�, �till. ,,: " ,,rr'tn'3,"• f: a�, r , ,. 6 '"1d{+, n F,, �,.,�, >t�, .t.. r; � r` "� � ��„1< �, „y, W • .e,if i,6 1 4,r. t y- ,:2r. d ).a � duh :'w,. ,' ,,.P,,, ,�, �.p. ,.r a'.n.k a :..,1q.�t yty, ..;;, ?., al, :.+Kt+ �.., t `�.� ,: N''/.'4. r,': , 1 Pn, �.,; Ira ry'�:.^���'. Y.. 'n,). •',n r"«.rY,1. .ri:: t ,7'r SP G'',y.r, o a �'nJ / A n k.1,::, .. �',„ wk 7+,6 v,. a r�kr: ,. . : �1+: + .,qM 4 �.• ,n,c fd !x a 1 '''� r" .,+�. ?,'.l�,r: Q :4 Y s�'ut:: Y•, �, r.:,r,«1 t'�r', v �: v ;& ,d', s:y:: i. p$�r:ti t k. '�"' a : ,;:::.,:v,a ,:A:,r ., �a��4,, a. y�:u:,,,v 3 r,:«# , ,• „ .. , ,ya >h � , ,i a: ti J, �� "^7'k`F,:: �k:: ^n >r v w �,'�^: 2 ,Gt.(, '�•, $�:� (; 1 ,� ., r �•.• �: rµµ,ai"";"` ,r ,�.:':r. ,^r3'�. 4�'X':,P '. :,,.: .,, '.:' ; � .�i5+ta �. .�:t?r i>' ..0 '�, , `"a'' a {rs,,::s . �'• « ;::: :, !h , ,.: Yl�, T. . ,.,',;'rfiw!�„ '; .. .L f '+nh 'b: `�' ,,t. $, ., r: �,. `' :,u, :'' .�`.,, �i,..,r.:,. 'Mn ' °� a •! � �� ! ,1 d;(4 � i, A�,.�,. i'�.,ff l,,c,'P' �: :Gr aw t �:�,.,:�,r,. 'o t e. ,' 33 d% •I,s'.�;,t ,' ,.:,:• , "r. ��.,-W � �� '. i ^," , ':. ,d1 ::.,A 7;. .,:.,,.' u.' '., .., ',. :?1"7 } ,,.5".. `iFlh. 6 +,� �:"� "$?'++ Ip : , t „ m;: ,a1ik; a. :.'•r :$t�'1r N� w s�.k. r?,,:� err:Wr:'k:. : :i �i .', : } n�.o: b+ +�m ; +�'?e!�t '+, �' a „,:�,�� r�,w,i 3^i;;,< yf. .«., "d�,. �,�nr ,.:;.I�",a °�.� ;�x as. + '.;:rolrk a 'r':7:4''^ ! ,' 'r+r , , :. ,, � •',r'd" .ems «,,, fZA:r ,;k': 'a't v,;;i .. :.:a, .,4.. ,: � .la,* k:�,9�'✓,, Ft. „!N a P :�,�;. ,, :vrAw.�.,k.:• Yl.v „�. ':. ,4--t^c� M1i�r ,(4 ,}�.�j,"�NF•�,.ui:,. �.��,' a A, :'�2 '�:, r �.,j r�'a'.,wt k�!' n,,?F , ,2 ;a a",} ,,,. •fi,. , : ,, ,!I. •.. - ::. ,,;,r !� , r„ wt s ,u, �, A ti,r+ ;;:..a:; 4. .� ,: ;.i :N.: a4:r. t a.VN. A .\e.. ,''V Y ,., h +-h"4;r e A . .,{ , �')L, ,.yr,...I�i.�, .,,�+ f.., { d. S✓4p1?,'` J.a', ,t ,,.. p m r r .... �r1 ,14i., :a'1 w l ,+ :+r d. a ,... ,. v '� f a„r .�,„.J r ,..:... ,r., ,nr ., v;�, .•rt u' r"A r �i�`�»5Nr �':,.s gg: , 'y: .. ... d ,„ .,.,,, 1 d r 6 u {. ..,. ,, .., „ ,Se. ; ": , �' ir..a 'f. r,t� :h N,r t a t�l �+P. •�4.f 4 a,� "+a. Pw.a, t a;; .,w a� � ', 3� :V n,f.v�1pKa :{ �Ma4M�2'`V •b 's: '�� w,° ,�6 '�.%,+,a arvn!g, ti , YIa, r , Y: "?, ,:. , ,..,,.:,• i ,. :'. ... ,. ?: , L.. ,, .v",G v,a ;,.,; , .,,. ,i: ;, .,�. a ,b:: a... i,v t�:� � '�. .� ,u: ..a,.. 1k':.. 42 / a•, e'4 'r. h. k. :%�' :u „ .tua a '°�,,'": ,.'':• t An'i,. to �r�, �, „h,.., �. tk' W"'�•gg�� �,. :. ^r. tr,, Sr e„f. s ... �, I >a:,. t: rb.. i ,."h,� ':r,• d '.: a .� ;;, � ;;f ,S` M:.t .�� , a, a ,eo '�:F:x} � .$ ,.i i ti �:,. a•N�y' "'�n ,tat' d .� � d+a „�'s, , ..„,., A,. -...,,. i�W ...:,„rhrr..:, '..r ,.. ,. to !r -: ,:.� x ... . .v „v ,�'. §, ,:4�: ;A i �a• s ��yy� !{,. e s! Ra v I,n -r q., r .a .�'� .: r. !," ,1t1'a .1 r..,,_, .. �•: t,,. .,,,,,,..✓:. H.. ,.. 9?^. :, ::�, yrp. •' :.;.�`�, q:: Y i.";:3.. -' ',"., ," ,,k. :n4 .rM ,�. i ,,.y.: r ,n.-rb.:..V ..�•h�k ,t,,:v.. »+'�, ., ':.. r �v,: m£.. .5,.1,.. � ..e%!. .. .. .:. h.•;, 3e:y ta.Y1 ..a kr ,+7 yg; �r`�..:>,. ,..,nk ,.:?k,a t ,a.t Y� !r 'dn 'dw, �•..d• a1'• ,� .T' s,:W.x' i +a'• t,. ) ,4h .:, N�x, }k, ,,e, {ry a ,. r' ,'it . .:: '. , .re.,. r. r .F: ., .•,a •7�744a .. �; ,.°'?�1 yy n.. ,!� x: Y.., :' a' 7 ,5,a.✓.<7'.SS ? '�..,E".,i. 4 f hi.r r w. ,;,?+ rva, W7 6 t ,d :,fi'.M1N G. � f., Y Oil . � �:.t!�. 3, r,r,y SKr k� ar'a , dvYy�1 44� �,+.., r �. °+ ar:b � t: � „�'+ ri Y «,:�'" r ,,~`: 4 n✓a'��,xp,�,,�a x} : ,.r .;peke .,y,{�. :� n Ir }'.+; Pt. ,'4 ,. :J:,.;.r:' �"e' `�, ,.'awl .7,J .,�".'kv�'' ,'��+,,,, '!. r•rp'. :�ra,; r ,>�'{. •1: r�A rt. '�. s:;;. t,. a i�. 3'�r•. �,,. „� 'x'.: ;Y"„ „'h�"'. rf �, S�,A, r >i y`$v :s ¢ ��'�''`.t.4 va a. t;.�'P� P r';a�rP4 ,a+ f A n,« r �fr' .,ax�.. .c, y..,A1,« � r. ,G s ?(: .'cam •4,., +'"•+ � y , .. t i�4�yka r�•Y 4•�F�',.,�r.`T,�,,;}�N,xas :,. St'4:?ar r 4�f'. {r;'�. .: .. ,. ,r `.I,,,�w,' �rl �"ro ,"! .V��4�' 11 .J:4 n5r` 's` r,' }w,� k' ' 'rr.ti4 ,"f•, 1� i },..v .rl.y ,,+" "+ «, �'v..,iSryf'.. :�;:, A :a+.5 rx �, {/y&, ,;lF 'i!, Y: ,'� 9 z,. .,, r.r,ra''1. y. r_ s: z w ,'.,:. .. . .,t. r `�..,. �•!o �?' dC.,,..,wY ,a4.rj. a.. y! �k a�+ (� o f Fad.r, y„w :, ,}!.,,, y s :.k.,f $. ..'.... •{. ,F ,, ., ,.', , '!^':a " 'ct., V' ,,ry , ..":;4k' '�:,, $n��`•"d.:..N ra�'�„• r �f�e ��t �y ! >}.kFa'd .,.. Cr.,, � 7.,.,,.,k,. tt,,vr.•.,^. a''Gr. n,f°N, ,.,t�, ,,+I v ,fir/ ., ryAv,.+ .., !.;�' .:,x. 1;,.Y �.. �.l e ..k ` k' :, .r s' . :.-, , . t ,� ,. ,,, ,. .rw r,< „r w., : .. w:,� z r.t �• t. �'�, r" >xa �t�, a' a+> ;,�Fa "r�'t ,,, r.„ r�:,:f �1 :,, r x,,,.r.. 6, »+, d',tr ,, !..., y, :F;` ,, r,, "k ,, s,�•. „d, ,,,, d, �'� a �h�,s �� r R'';:r't a M.'�'1S":�::rliCa, .,t r.,... L '� r S.v;,....}^} N ;,, <.. .•. �y ... :. ,rl'J.+t"1r`:.1"`.F � .+',+. ', ,a, rt. M ,^a,,, ..w.�'. fi�� s��G r•,r. 'Sa'. 4,..av. S,. ,1+ ,xy aS k^,. ,r?�'•h �,�,x.� r� :�'r; .l+ }, p 5„t ..w k, � '� �-aJ`.,t`,rx c.,i ,#� :"4.'4's ,G.,'. ,R M1vF �' r`,�d..-,:#. . „7:NEx .a u, "i'. .., v, :•, +TtS,3?:,'.:5aY,:'� r r.�ti .:Q^.�r -$ .,:' .,e ,... r .. ,,;.A ••t 'h:'�&',"sz"s,. t�':.e r-'F..,%i! .,,ar".1+ ;'' „ 9 e. :c sN..c$4_� a ....,,. 4 .'SF,x9.,Yv. .. .{.., .., s:. _. � '., r , , ''?vv�:3.{{� �.,y� ,t�a. t �'..�• ra,.Y2a.',..+ r. a �"a. F AN:Y, 7�N` v{ L. a z' a b*"a� ,,�. p'. ,�.,^,..,dy Y.�":ix .ru ,<M i§, ,c:r4f- .:;nrw '.M:. „C:L +m . ,. ,«,. A,., Tt Sr �. <,: %� +n 1y ,, u: ( cP 4. x.. ;li.. r .,t4'. LyJ`•'",r1 Y)o,f.�2"'i.'. ,. ,tt .y,�,�., ,r:�"r.,�,r� ?Y,r,. r,r. tt '�y,r, < �h,%r,.'., a S :R .br„r2. ,�.. y' :,, ,:t,: M "y '•-l�f? .� . ";�•r.,".y,, �, .a„ ''�;r%,r I >,.,t .,y,. M1'. 1'y •4,,"l ey.. 3..i4�+`w :?}' (i�s 5 ;h '!i„ �^,} W k" „T,: :.0 t ,v`�•,�. ..)4 :6,:,y M1>, qJ np r Yf..Y, "$ "t • 4' a •tA x"a,N. 'f ht<,d'Y'+}, N :, r ,,M �'.:'.i,§' � }:�vti":' ,+ate. ,., r: �' :.. :: ::fir"t.`,tG, �' 4 •�: .•i 1`w >r� , r; p s'... a{4v .,. ,�s.,.1., .,,t�"'Y {. ,.,'a;x•� :,: � � 1 a s�. s '��5,,�Sfi�sAG;, .,,J�? �.rq^,. DQ;., ,.,,,# '.:��'<W. 'tr;'J Y,. 1.. ,,+,.Y: � :,..s`r;,., '.. v . ,;.:,'!• ;„i'."z� .,;'�"�V :'tl� �.°`Iv.r'' 'hv. :+i;� r d r':1 +,..+T d %',f .a v'$7+ .lF,.�,�, '.,°„iFh! S•FJ',.2't.ny) rr ,t,tk, ,ti.G h .V, t ..t ...,,r � '- ✓i�i, „+. 'hry` a S xr x y Iv,,.,,"r•`'j'•:"?' �' s^u'.' d yr• , �V9i pt,::,•r.W .d,.c�Lr :yr1 ;:�. :v .t;eA} ;,rfWk 7 .4 �{ ;. w.,�••/.;,h TP'f�^ 'T.+.•4:,'1'),.{•. a •ri '' .� i� ':':,�(T+,.aL" Cyr t8+ '� x,'C' - J J. r,'• • ,,a�. �"t ti,-„ r h ,. u,,"�,ut.,v � . ,.., n�'�s: m. ".. :. SC'^.�+W.i;.;, '.�3 ��;u a✓ t°b'•,.n"1.K• Y^ -•y 2� t,G ,.?fsR�.,,. .S '�'..'°ez sc,..?,t rw,.L,'YM1X• ;d .,i , '..rx Fn,. ,e,, 'fir ,;r. .ax: rt.,.rst ,.r �.s f? .N ,:'r., .r ^a,a :.i. i J', 4 a. .,,:r< f ? ' .:, :, .., ` � ,,.', -F 4r.,. y.. ,?, r ..,2t?.'^,''`E; .'. .A: ., 1,:.,:pr a,a,7}:2 .,;" ,�.,:P,„yo'r�� ,.,1r J"'G'=.4',•...r�a'� .:G.r�r,.',r1,S�"rstw .'.�t^. xx�r, K,e, '� �'t' ,b.,, 4:,r<Yr. Ys'„ ;W":,�r g;�,ae f� t'.n! '" ,"r t,ra Nr.,,.•,.. ... .,'6,. h/�. .ruy Y fK.Y«:.ox ..4.y:av,1. �, .., ,. .' a t.h, '�:[ 3'r".a^n ,��r 'a.. ,t � $ 7' ' !�. �,A. .§1� 2r,.!< f«1^y?n,...,. Gx i'r a;:t x"'' 'v,•.tpxx:'?', ,�y rc:xi ,3 ,?,',`C,+>,,r •v''^.'.t+3 �a�1�'�°5 Y .,gk;xt�€ r i,, r c ��' <."� �';:S �',,.+}�>'•j,�r..2 3i+:&:.7"?.. art.w. °IA tt.,,•u'ei Yak ' ri s,.r' t+ xr.w n'54..K .:_ n 'r ,e.',a, .. 'x�.r�9fiy'G :.xa•".? :T''•r,^61 'k '',i.::u.l , u 'v. '.�y a" ria,• ::,,'tr n r..y. u is�. .i ; S.i, 3 trr •'Y>; 3a.r.,��., 4.:iS. ,.< .{ ,.1' ,Na.IY't y ,:.�,.{,u ,.av :,4nt�;rFlu11...>^:x. ;K ,.Y. }+;. M1.:.a4'�.y',�.3'at.,e,.�.t .. %rt�vi n 1::^,... a,. ,c1at... ..:.rs f ... .�! +py ` ) a., ,v, i"'b : 7L':r'.Pk,• aa',,.pk, ':e� ,CY�i?;sk:f.. ;2 oa dr; �F >,5, :`. x as. t3,, s;..�. ,� g)L,e;.,y.. .'u A',i^r s�t.x � ,}4 s A�J,.�. .. y,.,.$: a �" L.�j tk;v, 3= 7 -{fin .. ..P .; r ...:, t a lE 4i`>*W :•,.,:t r't ,"� �} ,4 J�sr,tone' ++' :.• xi ' S ,t a•..a ,r a .3�+,.�a'nv ,� +f:A. ,F. '{' t V ,Y Ru.(.a.0 I;.: r f. 1. ,.f t• Y,%/'� "•51b <Ad• .^,t•f1 p rvd,. ".A: ip, n, La S;r,,,,"f7 '."r. .M..,,q �'l."$�,r , i h ''ta2 s :.�i r',WFF, v....: •r„ 'r"a'<t fi:, ay_ Ec" t;,,f,a1 tv, 'k r.;P' ,r.fix. T ,.�" ,f.rgx. `iw .2.'=".4.i, ti r::� � .a.. i iF;r. �',.;r''�':>}•` .•t�c. ..R`'''1'�tst?r'� .r•3a _'xr,u,v?^r�.+� >!,,,-.�,,.:•a�.:.. "r,vra+�, ., r� w. ,`t` :tr"nsra.�'r "rt�5 ,'.G: v.,y,.,, ,,.t.. y� r.s,. nrl' k .b ,3AY:•d. .S .�;':'Z+.� ;ti`` per. :i � ri r 3 r..;+'a ,, ,�'�FS', t'k�•tx'r r. �`+i'�r�+;>r tr' r.�, ',o�,t,p'''r1�r?+�,y4. •;p;i.n ;t,! n a.;as v,§. ✓s" }j +'a .q RIM .rW,. wC '. rv.. n: ISai 1 Yi ,,y "i:'$.'�,. -' r+r-C"L, f.,,s,.$r'i:: w«'.,1 •'k:" 2.•„ .+t, t .J •C.. r,r-,':.. a S'Y"ti:. R: ✓. F" ;N, v''5. ,:. r» 'c'k',1, r.sl �A',,;. ,L,w ' a, '�d '.,,, ,,. .�,.'i+fr7, v,-M"'•t ,s;i�'u 2 �1 r:�.. ,tl' ,1 ,'1 �'�' 5,:r? �t .'r�•t...3, �i't4 '': ,;�., ,a.. S 5a�t � «1 q ' Im k 'yy I�4 r �1,. d.d,� A �u, 1 l.,wU s.`a:, ... ., .:. 'q�•' .;k`. ,., •':{::,, •a° +4;r, a Y'F:,'. �,• fr:',)Cy ,,.�'3y�'a+�. 'j2}11ti,^',,k 9;....'�Ci,"7 wt'��,n': a i.}tf•,�rr,SeA"S P,r,.tiA •S:�ra ��rtt3"",, s f�„`'� ,n.• 'v x';:t w� x, '4�i:•'+. ,a:y,.,.lk.':r5. ttFi�'r..,'Se Y}.;y,1:Y 3 q51,. a' Y t ;rs r,:.,�~r rF,.s:aS-., t,,e. a ktt'fin,4.r ..ya ta. ,e( s i ..1'( $r:,. . :.,,...f tt `'..J ,"d' t..v >"�,,t sr tr r` `. 'r- rd Y,3 n.0 Gov ,r., ki .aY 3yFtt ,}Y �yN .?si, '.:'. �• r ?f'' t'r ,:''aM y; ,a.r 1 h.'ti +' 4 '.rl:•r'3•n �`. q S .i;C'a; ,,t,{" t k.'`�x' } + .rr. 3. Y+�`r.4'pk""b1 ,,. ^ ! ,�ati�,^n•^ :.aWn;N ^''-""�'"k. Ja'' ^lr,< ^r 'S a'.iYk">AE '}.:�^'d� ''.C q;^{!•',J,r ,..a! '7 ,« 'i.,,,rp , p.,.; w,,.3�.. 1 a 'p, tt ,;J. +Gwe Y ,, rE s.,a, ,ir. �; •N � .. ty .f E oY" ,S 3 ,•k. f WrsS t 'vyi: d 'C �i.,K Mah. ;h,.;,;{tr +wk' p*,, rri M.E°h: s•$S. �;,, ifY t, c.S it tw,Y Ss,a r `t1 ;'' s' 'r<, t� ,"�,w.s v a, } r $ N r°a t{^ 3,r.:<;.y F aA > a}['h 4^" i S' t• kp,;s" aTd a f S A", �'. +"+: •�, #>< ,h �/4. /±r'71:�„i ti+,,�d.G�i, �"k'as',: v�j r�''6ri'',.. W }} i �1,+.V ;k! lAt :R' 1 , r,n ,F ,.-;',.i t).Y �..:9.f�:4. A.�.L''ry��W> dr•{, ':n...y. ..v: {r :�..� 1 �'W.:Y'L ✓�.:. SY'X M1'��'hS k�C.4 .u}1{J.,:Y=by{4}' V 4:,'•7i. � .� t S ,: , , . .>.,G� � ¢,; p ',.... fA 3h4�.�'fi«aY tff ,;>..,!..5 ! �:,p:N r',,"a�' ry c, «rywp N1 a; tv r �:� ,p, r"y�P,,, �.li ,a�.u✓, at YS''�''•a of�n'�9 r:. vc}V r `s ''t t 5 ,•% . :t J; r$r t ,}'NEt ;§t'!t,L 9§, x ro',., •u r,3 y' 6 S S �.,'a1.'9w.n,`µ Y t1 :,�"' `d. ' }. l8 k, i,(i.•�`"t r ! k" g '1 51 'P' Zms 4" 7`r ,xi,: +�{,w.".}R�'n'•ua'f��+, 'C v1i'�,' :w,pfJv,'�"t , 'h.S r lF'i"1e`.3, sS. '...,4h,"a kt �+at d. !'• ,t,r tk,, ,a, y, fi) ,S :,f�: ,"'` Pr,ast+ya .c,�.«:,�r.;'• .arx fix.,`:S t,' e vui. ".x1;4'ir l ,., f ,:x•.' ., un• , I�a. „xt NM1y+rMJhxkW�'a.,.,,,. 5 t u a' '+;ry'M,(. e" •�'.Fry.;� ,fa ,k.T c -, �1';rfu y( �n�«r'�„ s y,.. ,, #{,ni:wr a� u.. N ,.::�;;. :; ,�.{1. ..:..p}. 5, x3 r. ,.ti.ae�. ns f W M t w y t J•t'..:-s:, y...v «;{ .. I,t'. ............ A r .,r; �i1''tfi'�M', ,x'. w f•t'},.•4a {i3,{,dub. sop+" s uu, .i, h ,,•'.. ., '<"�'.: nV,: �r ,�..h�:.. Mia�` e,.,k. `� r;gYt•fi+fir rR 3 r n �,:'.,� x e } •;:'. a5;v,+ r r s r ',.1 1 i. !» y„ .7vne�,5 /agv s �'r.,.r,w twa 4 t; e ,!v:Ja,. >"t y ;y-& v ,r'G" ,P :;}i, .✓n + 7 .a a ;>'•t, t { r4'4:' e 3•C 1 ,�S f:+, e n '1 5't„ t � i t.. s :c.,, �R 4";•�,:., f „+s.n, rCY� •:'',i, P.�>'a,rt:.; r u t.,,,...,: } ':' t. b�':; + "�4. '.^� �.i w°;,.s,� r3�-5 {t,m„ :ii,� <r e„+l�a': a fv a• ,%° � '�• �5: 4� 4 i' 3 :. 2 S ".�t ;L';:'. ylr)1 :,',h?' ,,,, A,$• ,r5`'•,„.,.p..*,YW^,w, rr17t ",t:',Y wsi,� §ts" vY 'i.reR'i;+a 'Rt'. +a-x¢^Nw:. ,ka,.,dt,t'I?$' u4+ U,4}'..v, ar ir: r f.,. ::.. dtHd%3ir,+rP! u fdt',aGy I',.(.J:•ys F,r .� x ,t �' ',�.+h,>aw 'W" ,"p6'fi�'�'7rF�Wdx {+iv'IH': '�y t rw'�n':-�d+ t 19+�a�rr:.:tr� � t:,,wY n :•:,�.F^•ay�1,��a,4;i• 2 Y:.X .wN't,� p,7yr,;a ri0�* ,,,; •&'sal •! 'Y "'ruY'+ '4.2Y"'?x f }!!§ rrr3Py tt a yr s. 4+r.trY .+taa�,,,,y3 �.," '..,! .��,�t ntr���n r�f Ittl Y�+�}�Gjl'rr,i ,�,L�«vpp�ur �}�, 1 W! $1�+ k � }t"� Yf 42 yrn�iP 77Y +Pt r P"F'pAyy .ayq,*Y ,3i r KxN, "C,: a J, ' ,ex Y "' wnwr .. ... •... �5 -� C'a� t n � ,r R` ✓" sG�>�t� !M, ",��� 4'a$k,,,w. b r � �a" � ''��'�G �i�a§.i.'��'+•: u,�:, r,� a":u ?i�?r..:icl,Wag.•,q� ry gyx �} a ✓, ,� .t r #"� ti `may ;ii' Y r '�.j�.,',`'l}Y•'"�a. +1:Wa'Qi,,'leiY`t',`" t� ... .. � ,4.'�. ..'. v,. +, r' ,.a,+�+'dv....�.-� '�'/:':.w"''�kw w.fYL'".Wa.A,�r •a.;i� �+rr Y� '"`°.�` - PROPOSED WIELESS FACILITY - ( ATH TOWER ) ABUTS LUSS DRIVE — R1 ZONING DISTRICT Distance to closest RI Zone : 52 . 1 feet - directly North Looking east from tower Looking west from tower ADJWENT COMMERCIAL ZONE ABUTS LINDSAY LANE — C4 ZONING DISTRICT Located northeast from proposed project Looking east towards Magnolia Looking west towards subject tower and residences A �r Vk , t 000, V00p, iX AFL Telecommunications r-.3_ March 9, 2004 —' 3 Z O <�` The City Council City of Huntington Beach _ _ 2000 Main Street J= D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 J Re: CUP#03-42 ("Permit"): Request to Uphold Planning Commission Permit Approval Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: Introduction I am writing on behalf of Cingular Wireless to request that the City Council uphold the extensive work effort of both the City Planning staff and Planning Commission in approving the Conditional Use Permit issued to Cingular Wireless on January 27, 2004. Cingular Wireless has worked closely with the City's staff and Planning Commission to site and design this wireless communications facility to minimize aesthetic intrusion, and to implement the planning allowances specifically provided for in the City's Codes. While the final Report of your Planning staff was not available prior to the preparation and submission of this letter, I have enclosed a copy of the Planning staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 27, 2004. This report reflects the extensive and well-considered land use deliberations undertaken by your Planning staff and Planning Commission. While Cingular Wireless recognizes that this pending appeal presents an opportunity for rehearing, it is hoped that the City Council will consider the extensive work efforts of the City departments and Planning Commission in providing siting and design input throughout this lengthy land use process. Kindly consider these responses to the concerns previously raised and addressed by your Planning staff and the Planning Commission after public hearing: Pagel of 4 1. The Proposed Wireless Facility is in Full Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach's Wireless Siting Ordinance. As identified in the Planning staff Report of January 27, 2004, Cingular Wireless' proposed facility complies in all respects, with the City's ordinance for deployment of wireless facilities. In this particular instance, other similar wireless facilities are constructed and in operation beneath Southern California Edison("SCE")towers in this general park area. As such, Cingular Wireless is not creating a"new wireless use" in this area,but rather placing its facilities in an area proximate to other similar wireless facilities that have been approved for installation along this SCE easement. This installation allows Cingular Wireless to provide service without adding a new monopole tower or similar structure elsewhere in the City. While it has been expressed that the facility will use "needed"park space, Cingular Wireless respectfully submits that the public does not regularly use the ground space immediately beneath the SCE transmission tower for recreational purposes. As such, the use of 265 square feet will not materially affect the community's ability to use the park. Additionally, the distance of this facility from residences at this location is virtually identical to the distance separation of an existing approved wireless facility. Although the citizens are concerned about the impact of the proposed facility on the view shed, the proposed wireless facility will not impact a preserved view shed. The easement granted to SCE has been reserved for utility purposes, which the proposed project is—a utility purpose. Although the citizens may have been availed of a completely unobstructed view shed, the preservation of a completely unobstructed view shed was not contemplated in the grant of easement to SCE. Furthermore,the ` impact of the equipment shelter on the view shed is negligible, as it will not exceed 10.5 feet in height. 2. The Wireless Facility Design is in Full Compliance with the Land Use Designations in the City's General Plan Land Use Map. As noted in the Planning staff report, the wireless facility is consistent with specific multiple General Plan policies, including, the Land Use Element(L.U. 2); the Urban Design Element (U.D. 2.2); the Utilities Element (U. 5.1 and 5.1.1); and the Recreation and Community Services Element(R.C.S. 8.1.4). 3. The Wireless Facility Design is a Significant Improvement Over Existing Wireless Facilities Deployed in this SCE Easement. Page 2 of 4 With the helpful guidance of your staff, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission the original ground equipment design has been refined to achieve a ground equipment element design that is architecturally integrated into the surrounding environment. By all accounts, the redesign represents a significant aesthetic design improvement over the similar existing wireless facilities approved by the City for utility use in the general area. 4. Condition for Lighting of Wireless Facility. Cingular Wireless is amenable to a reasonable lighting condition that may please the Cif Council, at the base of the wireless facility. The City's Police Department consultant, Starling Thomas Concepts, provided a written recommendation to add a light to deter potential loitering at the base of the tower with a cut-off lighting switch to limit any negative impact to adjacent neighbors. Cingular Wireless recognizes that the issue of lighting is the subject of proper regulation by the City Council, and is prepared to either (i) eliminate the lighting condition (if this is the City Council's preference), or(ii) install the base lighting with a modified condition which allows the Cityt require Cingular Wireless to remove the base lighting at Cingular Wireless' expense after one year, if the City determines that the liahtina has negative impacts on the adjacent neighbors. In short, Cingular Wireless is flexible and wants to accommodate the City Council's determination of how best to implement the lighting condition, which was recommended by the Police Department consultant, and subsequently adopted by the Planning Commission. 5. Anti-Graffiti Condition. While not specifically addressed before the Planning Commission, Cingular Wireless is also amenable to the creation of an"anti-graffiti condition"which will obligate Cingular Wireless to promptly remove graffiti, which may appear from time to time on its ground equipment promptly after receipt of written notice from the City to do so.l This additional voluntary condition to the Permit may provide additional comfort to the community that Cingular Wireless will maintain the approved ground facilities in good condition and repair, and free of graffiti. It is noted that the City's Standard Permit Conditions include a requirement that all ground-mounted facilities shall be covered with"anti-graffiti coating". Page 3 of 4 Conclusion The Permit approved by your Planning Commission resulted from months of careful and thoughtful planning work after receiving input from the general public at public hearing. Cingular Wireless requests the support of the City Council in issuing the Permit after the company has fully complied with the City's Codes, particularly,proper compliance with the siting provisions of the City's wireless facilities Ordinance. It is respectfully requested that the City Council uphold the Permit issued by the Planning Commission on January 27, 2004. For your convenience, in addition to the staff report I have enclosed photos of an existing similar facility, the proposed facility, an adjacent commercial lot, and the tower leg barbs. Very truly yours, Suzanne Gatti Land Use Planner Page 4 of 4 t . David and Gale Licata 8841 Crescent Drive Huntington Beach, California 92646 (714) 962-2626 0 FAX (714) 9624645 March 10, 2004 Huntington Beach Council Members o City of Huntington Beach -' 2000 Main Street :t. Huntington Beach CA 92648 -� M -TJ '. Re: Condition Use Permit No. 03-42 Langenbeack Park Wireless Communications Facilityp 00 _ Dear Council Members: o �' We are writing to voice our opposition to granting conditional use permit No. 03-42, tomst_al1_;e .. wireless communications facility in the middle of the residential Langenbeck Park. The Southern Califonia Edison tower which is the proposed host of the antenna and equipment enclosure is located directly behind our home at 8841 Crescent Dr. This tower is clearly visible from our kitchen, family room, and two upper story bedrooms. We believe this site is inappropriate for a commercial structure for the following reasons: 1. Safety - The facility would be serviced by a technician at least once a month, requiring a vehicle to enter the park on the paved walkway. Access to the tower, located in the center of the greenbelt, is along the paved walkway on the south side of the park. The park and walkway are w ed , regularly and frequently by children,joggers, dog-walkers & sport teams, placing them inl ' - potential harm. The Planning Commission added limitations to the hours during which the unit'could be serviced, 7:OOam to 5:00 pm, unless an emergency is determined. However, this is simply unenforceable. The WCF operators can deem any situation as an "emergency", allowing access to the unit on any day and at any time. Our observations of similar facility also suggest that visits to the WCF are much more frequent than the monthly service call indicated in CUP 03-42. We believe weekly attention to the unit will be required. 2. Additional Noise - The service unit will have two electric fans cooling the equipment inside the enclosure.-- The noise generated from the fans is substantial and will have a negative impact on tho':e:who._:;, now enjoy a tranquil park setting. It also will be a constant annoyance to the surroundirg: residences, especially during quiet evening hours. The towers are located in the narrow 0orti6n of the park. flanked by residential homes to the north and south. This space creates an echo chamber. effect amplifying the noise within the area. 3. Obstruction of Park setting - The proposed service unit is approximately180 sq. R (12' x 15% which is the size of an S average bedroom. A structure of the proposed size will greatly obstruct the view from within the park that the public now enjoys. It also creates a hiding place for vagrants and an additional temptation to kids in the park. i 4. Security Light - We believe the security light will be a nuisance rather than a deterrent of unlawful behavior. The addition of proximity lights proposed by the Planning Commission will.be,visible from bedrooms . of the homes in the immediate area. The blinking of lights throughout the night-could-cause a disruption of sleep for residents. 5. Answers to Planning Commission Assertions: The Planning Commission asserts that the existence of a similar facility just east of Magnolia is justification for citing a WCF in Langenbeck Park. However, the existing WCF location shows exactly the reason the proposed siting is so flawed. There is a WCF at the margin of Hyde`-Park:L, This facility is no more than 15 feet from Magnolia. Access is directly from the main street; and allows us to observe the frequency of service visits. CUP 03-42 proposes an interior to+ration with access only by driving some distance into the park. The Planning Commission asserts that the proposed decor will assure that the industrial'WCF will be compatible with structures around the park. This is absurd. There are.no small-.houses located anywhere within the park. All houses also front to a street and border the park. No house'`lies within the park.. We would urge you to visit the proposed location to get a better view of the surrounding area. Similar WCF structures are located at the margin of the park only a few feet from a maor'street, ie. abutting Magnolia to the east and at Edison Community Center abutting Hamilton to the`north. These locations are much more sensible and do not pose obstructions or safety concerns'to,tlie.`` public. t' We hope that you will support Connie Boardman's request for appeal thereby denying the issuance of CUP 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communications Facility.) Thank you for your time and concerns to this matter. Sincerely, V. David ica Gale L. Licata t: i C! , i _iizJ1 CITY OF HUNTII4GTON BEACH. CA 1004 MAR 12 A 0: 5 2 March 11, 2004 City of Huntington Beach City Council Members 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 RE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-42 (Langenbeck Park Wireless Communication Facility) Dear Honorable City Council Members: We are writing this letter on behalf of our family, friends, and everyone else who use the Langenbeck Park. The area in question for this.permit is directly behind our home. Our backyard has a gate that opens into the park adjacent to this proposed communication facility. Our children and friends use this area of the park daily for recreation. We use this area to play baseball, soccer, Frisbee, bocce ball, croquet, and especially to relax and enjoy the peace and tranquility of the Huntington Beach climate. Approval of this facility has us very concerned for several reasons. Our primary concern is for our children' safety, and for others who use this public park. Building this facility right in the middle of the park will block our vision of our children at play; from protecting them against unknown strangers and unfamiliar dogs that are also regularly in the park. At any given time of the day someone is walking their dog or kids are playing in the park. This facility will greatly reduce visibility within this area of the park. We also fear that this structure will be used as a cover for illicit activities. Occasionally vagrants are seen lounging in the park. We also sometimes find bottles, candy wrappers, trash, and other items leftover from teenagers and others who congregate around the existing Edison towers. We worry that this proposed facility would greatly increase this type of mayhem in our park and behind our house. Another fear we have about this facility is the noise that will disrupt the peace and serenity in the park and within our nearby backyard. We have been informed that the proposed building will have two air conditioners located on our side of the facility. We love to barbeque and entertain in our backyard, and also regularly relax and picnic in the park. The whirling and humming of air conditioners would interfere with the pleasant surroundings that was the primary incentive for us purchasing our home 6 years ago. Furthermore,the property value of our residence would be greatly affected. koS VN 3 �J'1 Building a commercial facility of this type does not belong right in the middle of a widely used recreational park. This facility could be suitably located nearby at the Edison towers inside of the nursery center north of Garfield, or in the parking lot of any of the nearby commercial shopping centers. We strongly encourage you to reconsider the previous City approval of this communication facility in our park. This park should remain a park for recreational use and not a park for commercial use. We ask that you protect our family and the other citizens of Huntington Beach who use this public park for recreation. Please help us keep our park as safe and as tranquil as it is today. Sincerely, The Smith Family 8812 Luss Drive Huntington Beach Ca, 92646 �tJ Tina Smith Stephanie Smith Mother Daughter, 10-Yrs Old Derek Smith yle imeith Father Son, 7-Yrs Old w c � March 13, 2004 • DougPasJackson Bernadette Jackson 8832 Luss Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714 964-0661 City Council City of Huntington Beach Dear Council Members, We have submitted letters and photos at the previous public hearings of Conditional Use Permit 03-42 that express our concerns with the proposed wireless facility. We would like to submit these additional points for your consideration. Power transmission right-of-ways are used extensively as public parks and greenbelts because of their natural compatibility. The lattice towers do not block the view and park users can walk,jog, or kick a soccer ball through them. Children playing in our park are drawn to the towers, often playing under and around them, even incorporating them into their game as a goal. A solid structure is not compatible with small parks and greenbelts, especially when it is located in the middle as the proposed facility would be. It blocks the view, prevents the aforementioned uses, and interrupts the continuity of the green space. The proposed facility will not be transparent and nearly invisible as depicted in the simulation shown in the permit application. At the previous Planning Commission hearing,the possibility of using an underground vault was raised. The project planner stated that a vault would be cost prohibitive. One would think a company the size of Cingular should be willing to go the extra mile to minimize the negative impact they have on a neighborhood. The proposed facility's purpose is to improve Cingular's existing coverage,not bring new service to the area. Cingular's recent acquisition of AT&T Wireless will likely enable them to solve their coverage problem with the AT&T sites and equipment that will become available to them. If this facility is allowed, it will be virtually impossible to prevent the adjacent tower from being used the same way. The facility's negative impact on the park and its use will almost certainly be doubled in the future. Please help us preserve our park and neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, _ un MC:)r. M -p D N U1 n D mar Sk6,ml- 'ed by Douylctschd Berh4deff-e-ackrok 5I6NATuRE5 COLLCCTCL) 1514TuKNy , MA2CH 131 Zooms{ We, the undersigned, are regular users of Langenbeck Park and ask the City of Huntington Beach to deny the request for Conditional Use Permit 03-42 which would allow a wireless communications facility to be installed on and beneath an existing Southern California Edison tower. Signature Address LOB �W/1 /7 -t 06 �2 0 - �l AIR TI�J� Connie Brockway, City Clerk (n� City of Huntington Beach n �a`� -'�; Office of the City Clerk 7 P.O. Box 190 .. ❑ Insuffic ;;;,-' lent Address ,,n �., Huntington Beach CA 926 8 ; V$Attempted Unknown .=,- / ❑ o Such fJuei)k� r c r_, C C.) i:.T. r.: .r.J :J•�. •J•�. •J /V 86. APN: 153-582-03 SINGT YIN C.&IRENE PENG oyB e--- 1 D� 3792 CRESCENT DR iQ +�0"ro''ro F9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2202 •. URN RETURN . -, Fo T0 �f=.i !i'` ' r:_ NTY LEGAL NOTICE =;PU , IJ1II1i1In1I1J III m111ll111 ill I►1'I,I1111111 fill il L J �- � � Connie Brockway, City Clerk ,I p City of Huntington Beach T, t Office of the City Clerk �. P.O. Box 190 } Huntington Beach CA 92648 e .J 3. APl\r: 153-132-05 INGjO�, PHILIP D.&JULIE A.DOHRN1AN �p�c A�::ro��►f B/G 19271 MCLAREN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2753 RETURN � FRETURF, ,U r_ OONTY LEGAL NOTICE - "#J. BIND--,: r r ;: � , ; ;; ; , ; :: ;;; : r ; iEtlttttitS:SStttSttSttStlit:,;,tiSStltt�It=.tltSttSSttt=.iltS: Connie Brockway, City.Clerk City of Huntington Beach <—T Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190. su fticien , , c,� F•,tern . . Huntington Beach, CA 02648 [7 ��o Wed�fnk�0l1, ;,� � y n H noon:�� o t r � uclt �rir[i�r � � 3 17. APN: 153-582-43 C T.&N'ANCY NGUYEN' IN6tp / `�D 8781 SEASPRAY DR �p�c `Mw.w�.►,o B� V( J riU'vTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-2619 ME MRE TURN �- ;� � TO hDCZ. =_- �1 Tn LEGAL NOTICE^ ! ! lJ ! !! s td:111