The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About31A - 1710-1730 E. 17TH ST. REQUEST FOR / COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: JULY 19, 2004 TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-29 TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY -..,I 'p a.dJ&L CITY MANAGER APPROVED D As Recommended D As Amended D Ordinance on 1st Reading D Ordinance on 2nd Reading D Implementing Resolution D Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO --- FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the staff report approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission approved and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Environmental Review No. 2002-381, and adopted a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29 as conditioned at its June 28, 2004 meeting by a vote of 7:0. The project allows a 50-foot wireless communication facility located at 1710-1730 East Seventeenth Street. The Planning Commission made a change to the recommended conditions of approval to require the two live Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis) trees to be between 20 to 25 feet in height. The remaining of the recommended conditions of approval is outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) . FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. 4~?':í~ing Executive Director Planning & Building Agency AN:rb an\plancomm\cup03-29.062B04.cc 31A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JUNE 28, 2004 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-29 TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY APPROVED 0 As Recommended 0 As Amended 0 Set Public Hearing For DENIED 0 Applicant's Request 0 Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Prepared by Ann Hsin-An Ni ~nning Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-381. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. conditioned. 2003-29 as DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Cingular Wireless is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29 to allow a 50-foot high wireless communication facility at 1710 East Seventeenth Street. The proposed wireless communication facility will be stealthed to have the appearance of a pine tree. Section 41- 198.3 (b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires a conditional use permit for major wireless communication facilities. Property Description The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC) and is located within the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district (Exhibit 1). Surrounding land uses include multi-tenant commercial centers to the north, west and east; and a mixture of single- family and multi-family dwelling units to the south (Exhibit 2). The subject property is 6.3-acres in size and is situated on the south side of Seventeenth Street between Mabury Street and Cabrillo Park Dri ve. The property is rectangular in shape and currently contains 21,150 square feet of retail, office and food uses. There are a total of 405 parking spaces provided on site (Exhibits 3 and 4) . EXHIBIT A 31A-2 onditional Use June 28, 2004 Page 2 Permit No. 2003-29 Project Description Cingular Wireless proposes to construct a 50-foot high cellular monopole facility and a IS-foot by 15-foot equipment enclosure behind an existing retail building at 1710 East Seventeenth Street. The proposed stealth monopole will be constructed in the form of a pine tree. The top of the antennas will be 45 feet in height with the top of the pine tree at 50 feet (Exhibit 5). A six-foot high solid block wall is proposed to be installed around the equipment area. A new landscape planter is proposed with two new Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis) trees to the west of the proposed monopine. Additionally, a new trash enclosure will be constructed immediately west of the equipment enclosure. Analysis of the Issues Pursuant to Section 41-198.4 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), site improvements are required for major wireless facilities. Site 'mprovements include landscaping around the base of the facility, nstallation of decorative fencing, and construction of a solid wall adjacent to residential uses. The proposed facility is a stealth design in the form of a pine tree, which will be placed within a new enclosure behind an existing commercial building. The accessory equipment will be located within the same enclosure with a six-foot high solid concrete block wall to the south and west. An existing building wall to the north and east will complete the enclosure. Additionally, two 36- inch box Canary Island Pine trees are proposed to be planted in an adjacent landscape planter (Exhibit 6). The parking area of the subject property was recently repaved and restriped, with the building in relatively good condition. Since excess parking is available at the project site, no additional improvements to provide one parking/loading space or repainting the building will be required for this project. At the November 24, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to identify alternative locations and stealth design besides the proposed flagpole. After reviewing the site for other compatible designs, a monopine was recommended to be placed behind an existing building to minimize the aesthetic intrusion on the surrounding community. Canary Island Pine trees are found in the vicinity, with two ew 36-inch box Canary Island Pine trees proposed to be planted in an adj acent planter which will provide the greatest amount of screening. 31 A-3 Conditional Use June 28, 2004 Page 3 Permit No. 2003-29 Staff has initially worked with the applicant to lower the flagpole antenna from the proposed 60-foot height in order to maintain neighborhood compatibility and to be more consistent with the scale of the shopping center. The applicant agreed to lower the height and has also proposed to switch to a monopine design. While staff supports the switch to the monopine design, there is an outstanding concern with the appearance of the current proposal. As illustrated in Exhibits 5 and 6, the "tree" appears to have been topped and thus it may not serve to properly camouflage the installation. Accordingly, staff has added a condition of approval requiring the plans to be revised to allow the 60 foot overall height, with corresponding changes to the elevation to ensure that the tree will appear more realistic. Overall, we believe these changes include a better location that is more appropriately screened and a better stealth approach to camouflage the facility in that the monopine design, together with the additional Canary Island Pines, will blend better into the neighborhood. Based upon the above analysis and the project's compatibility with the City's General Plan and applicable development standards, approval is recommended of Condi t ional Use Permi t NO.2 0 03 - 29 per the findings and conditions (Exhibits 7 and 8). CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-381 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 9). ~ Ann Hsin-An Ni Associate Planner Vince Fregoso, Senior Planne AN:JM an\plancomm\cup03-29.062804.pc 31A-4 ~~ -i- --- lJiJ~ -.- --...1-- 148"'; IT J -;__~I c;-~-ç ~1_/~:: r"'~-'-l !T-I==':'I--~J--,-.J_-I :.-=.-=. (-,~-' ~"' 11_-JIR4-P¡RD (I t!..._JI r~ '--;:\[ - ;;1-- --~~- -J~ ~ C. -.J~=.~ ~ _I Rl-PRD ¡ 1- r ¡" ...:;--..:' ~-I ~ ¡ I l~rl-=-lr!..1 j¡ 1 t~!L R1 ~ R1 R1 R1 1 1~_11 11 Ill_I I S--' 1 -A1 R1 R1 i Rl i A1 ., R1 A1 R1 * AT/IlR1^V , -' Al . ~'ST ST. A1 R1 0 R1 C4 ~15' ----.R1-L-'ro C5 , '~. ,< I~ --f 17TH ST, .,.r~ . . C5 C5 ..,' " ;' ;~ C5 'w:l, :','n R4 R1 , R, -------ð!.42' C5 ~ ' r:j--_:~-r :'R4-PRrI .'"' 1 r-r ! 11-='=(1 : (I~~ 1;_1 R4 R4 -, i!>i60-R1- , ~; 7200 !~ ,,;. q.. ~ ã: 6O-R1-72oo A1 C5 C5~ AV/IlO AV. 60-R1-7200 ~, ~ CATALINA-'---- ^' - iR R1 R3 R1 SO-52 R3 R1 'C5 ~~ > R1 " R1 ^' ,. - ,. ~ ¡ C1, C1 R4-PRD ~ Z ¡: '" " >- P -1S5i'- P P > ~ W w IE III R1 < c < . 0 ~ ~ 1~' ~4 m'--~==- ¡;;-:.~~ O"~~: ' R4 ,I M1 R3 R3 II: ! -_.~-_-----L-~-- -"""- ; ~ ~ P P A1 -B C-SM C1 C1.MD C2 C3 Co.A C- C5 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM. COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTVILLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CA GC M1 M2 MO 0 P PCD PAD ~ P A1 A2 A3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE ~ULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBUABANAPARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN A4 AE SO SP A CUP 03-29 CINGULAR WIRELESS 1710-1730 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET ~ rfl{' l' = 1000 FEET p L A N N N G 0 L A N u EXHIBIT 1 31A-5 B 0 N ~ ~ =500 FEET G A G c y E N SHOPPING ) CENTER l FURNITURE I R~~i:'r- I FAST FOOD I BANK ) OFFICE \. BUILDING SEVENTEENTH ST. 0 B ¡SUJ :::,a: FFICE MEDICAL 02 UILDING BUILDING :;¡U> - PKG. APARTMENT UNITS 'GLE FA ILY; ESIDf VTlAL ¡..:, en' t':," SHOPPING, '. CENTER BANK a: c OFFICE BUILDING U¡ <!>U¡ gæ a: ~g U¡<J <: ';('ARK/NG .. . '.'. , .',', '.' . '" ',',: "'I' :', ,', ;::"',' SUBJECT S,ITE. " . ~ .'", .': I' .: "", , \ ~"..,?' " .' .' ' . . ,', . . ~ J ',' ,:. . ,', '. . , é"",,~:. ,:,:.',' :' .," -".'. ",' ;... '". ':" ...~ ,:~ ' . .;.. . ' . . . ~ " . S,H rip P¡'N ;¡. 'c; ¡;;N"rì: R . . ",.:,," ' "'. , ' '.~ . ~ a: ~ 0 ..J ..J æ en et () OFFICE BUILDING PA KING SIN > a: ::) en, et .", :¡¡ "" , , " ',' .".",. ',' .' . ~' ; . iI'," ,,' , , .' .' '. . I'." ",,:':'~': ,;;',\..:. , . . '. ,:' . ~~~~<. ,~.,.t ~ ~"'~ ,'" . , ;. .' '" , ,;' " ,,~ '. :;' ~ ' .,,,:.. '" , , FIFTEENTH ST. SINGLE AMIL RESID NTIAL CONDOS CON DOS SI GLE fi MILY SIDE TlAL A CUP 03-29 CINGULAR WIRELESS 1710-1730 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET A <iN p L A N N N G A N D B U L D N G A G E N C Y EXHIBIT 2 31 A-6 '''10 ',,",OO'..lo'O/1Ir/tl:l<lßJlDHllm ¡~ - - -----,- - - - I 1 I 1 I 1 I ~I' :z: -" ~, ~ ~I "', ¿J z ~ 9Z6 WINHO,U1W:) '3NIM:1I 00 I 31tflS '3m~O NOS'~H~I" Sto££ M-"I"~' ..I.I.-UrOI- -- 1ItI_--'iQ:' ~ ;18 lIt¡¡~ 0 ~;;; % I -.. ~ 1 .A' Vö"'::Ii A. ........... IE §~ ¡ ~ i =c::¡...::: -=-==~~~ 10 to- _lO-a..% , " - 0 ":M4,~,"""'II""I'" l' ~ 0 0 V""èI r 17 ïg !i~ ìi~ ¡ <J S"S313}jIM !.NI:J'Jllf"'-.J,nlJ IIVr':J313.l NI JB\nÔU!8>': &=1M'."'""''' zffi - ~'J71 JlINd07711J~- --- 1 1 I --+ ~ 1 I I' . .1 g ¡î iii, , e~i ¡¡ R:5I § ¡diP ! ~ ~~d 000 " ---- .. - - .L"}:J21.LS J.21ÔÖY,,---3- - - -- f.t-.., '.,1-," 1(( ¡ ¡ ~ ~ ~ ¡ ~ ; ¡ j ¡ II I g .J:~ pl~~ t!~ldÎJ~~ ~ii!i~~~~~ g & g gee g e g a n ji II i it i;; I i ~ i ~ V E e z 5 "-- W l- v; .. ! :: .. ., . .. .. ... - - ~ ~ p ~ i'Wi . ~ I' <. ": "10 . I i!! ~": ~ ~il~i~1 ~~~~i .I'i'-~ ¡IS =111 ti ¡¡ ¡ !!! ~ !l1!J~ d .- t!! I g <! . ~.I!¡¡ :H U ~ <J ¡H9~6 'i'INHOJIlV:I '3NIMII OO~ 311nS ']AIHO NOS13H:)11'I Çvfí' or...-.nløl~' I",;«{oc' -- -~ IISI'II"S'__IAZI === i:S~ IIM='::;~~"""= I'too -.- !~ 0 ~ '......opony,......laJO' I ~~r i~!~ ,(¡! .:!i S';313~IM JBlnÔUp >.: f}NI;)!:JfJr)~.lnc) 1'\10;,1313.1 NI &=IM'~'O""" IJHO,,,,,_*.lI/ll/ZO'lDUO'WJ.m ~ ~ i! ~~ ~ Z ..- ~!;= : 2 <1: ; §i ~ ~ I I ~ ~~ ¡g i ....... ~t zEB 0 ~ ; ~ ~ // (/ /# .;/ '\ \, t"" ~. ,~ \-',,' '\", " ~~ v~ \. \ \~ \..\- " i Ii I ; ii I i s~ ã j I i !i ;¡: ~ ~ : I ¡i'l ~I..E i ! !~ ~ ; I ~ f ;:: j~~~~~~!~!!~~ i ! ~ . !'! = !:! y /1 z "5 0. « w '" « f- Z w :;; 0. :::> 0 w . " . fie I <; W ~~~~~ii!1 I"".; Iii ! is I'! " I ~ ~~> . ð h ¡¡~~ ¡ <J<J<J Ii . g, I ,. ". ~! ~~ . i, ~ I ~ h. Îiîll¡ 1:1 ¡r I ~ ! ¡ ~Ig I :1 ~ I I ! g3~ g gl g g g ~ 0000000 lI~fO 'Ilol OO:i: - "/If/tO 'Q11J.01d J.SYI z: 19Z& 't'INHOJn":I '3NIAHI 00 l 311ns '3^I~O NOS13H:l11'4 Strt'£ ~ i!~ ~ ~ -15 2S ¡;¡!i;{ " IE~! ï~ IK:I.-nf!'''='' ........u "......"" -~ 1I!õf"ll"li "- 1liii' ml ===i!:;:I~ ..or..:.:::~~ ~I- '",,_1__D....:Z: I => - 0 0 2 'a's8apa8Q'f8lllOll,w1llll' I 0 0 ':7'~ r !~!g i~ 5:5 S~313H1M JBlnBu!8 ~ [¡NI~~nnc:a.no INro3-.3.l NI &=IM'~'~".~ gr ""I ~ Ii !.~! . p ~I~ ~M ~ ;!iI U'J _..iI I I e ~g " ., I I I ~e ~, ~ 8 8! " ,ä I n Î~ Se ~ :1 ! ~.. .0-.11 ~- " ., .0-," .1"-,11 .o-.Iit' .0,0; N I !~ i N 0 ~ ~ :, . ~. H z 0 ~ -' W >- tf) W ~ I >- ::> 0 tf) s Ã : HI I t ~ ~ I HII. .. ,. ~ "Iii ~ õ~~ ~ ¡,;¡ I: e ";r!!~ :II ~ i õ ~~§ r Ii . :i I i~ ~i . I~ ~ I §E I~ I ¡" I I . ~dl h I i3i B &1 B g 00000 l: ~9l:5 YINtlO~I1't':) '3NI^~1I 00 l :Ulns '3^I~O NOS13H::>I" SÞ'££ UttO 'II, oo'c. to/,tIl'iI'a11J.O'W.IM 1II'''-fU(Olr~'' IIN-.K(Olr-.... .~ ~ ...._'--,.,.", ~:fr.~,.~ -=.~~~ ~ .... _I'_Q.~ , ~ - 0 0 Z '''''~.'''''''~IOO: I 'Q'~ r I~ ~~ ¡f¡; Ii~ <J S<;313HIM JElnÔU!8 >.< t'}NJ~Ynnc:ann v.n~3'1:;u "II &=IM'.'~'"~ & ~I¡ ¡) ,I. '--"!!4B ;U !I! g It~ u 8~~ ~gd ~ !b ~ ",!!it ~ Is ~i I~ &1 ~¡ ¡;h @ i~ -e4l. :« !¡i gM ~ !~lI (f)æ.ti I ,~ ~; I ,s s" 01 i I ," ~ I 8 ,~ ~; .0-,11: .11-.1:9 .u-.oç EXHIBIT 6 <) i i i ~ ~: !~ .~. ..G-.C' ('t) I 1« i N [ 0 ~ ~ ~ ,:, ;, . " !~ z 0 ~ i;j ...J W tñ w ;;: onditional Use June 28, 2003 Page 1 of 2 Permit No. 2003-29 Findings of Fact A. Will the proposed contribute to the community? use provide general well a service being of or the facility which will neighborhood or the The proposed 50-foot tall cellular monopine will provide a service to the community by assisting Cingular Wireless in reducing the gaps in digital cellular service that is provided to its users, especially for users traveling on Seventeenth Street from Tustin Avenue to Grand Avenue and surrounding side streets. B. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? Federal law exempts local jurisdictions from regulating health related issues as these issues are covered under Federal laws. However, the proposed facility will be in compliance with both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety regulations. C. Will the stability the area? proposed use adversely affect the present economic or future economic development of properties surrounding The proposed monopine will be compatible with the surrounding area and will not adversely affect the economic viability in the area as the monopole has a stealth design that will maintain the appearance of a pine tree. Additional landscaping materials will be added to an adjacent planter. D. Will the proposed use comply with the specified in Chapter 41 for such use? regulations and conditions The cellular facility has been designed to be with the regulations and conditions identified for a major wireless facility. in compliance in Chapter 41 EXHIBIT 7 31A-11 Conditional Use June 28, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Permit No. 2003-29 E. Will the proposed use adversely affect specific plan of the City? the General Plan or any The proposed monopine will not adversely affect the General Plan as cellular facilities, designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment, are consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Commercial (GC) General Plan designation. 31 A-12 UNE 28, 2004 AGE 1 OF3 Conditions for Approval Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29 is approved subject to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code applicable regulations. compliance, to all applicable Administrative and all other The applicant must comply below prior to exercising permit. in full with each and every condition listed the rights conferred by this conditional use The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 02-84. 2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be amended. 3. Revised plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Manager that increase the overall height of the monopine to 60 feet, with corresponding changes to the elevations, so as to make the "tree" appear more realistic in form and design. Material samples, monopine manufacturer and stock number shall also be submitted for review and approval during plan check. Further, the plans and details shall indicate that all conduits or other communications equipment must be designed to run through the core of the tower from the base to the antenna area. 4. Two live Canary Island planted. The pine trees cellular facility in a minimum of 36-inch boxed Pines (Pinus canariensis) are to be are to be planted west of the proposed new landscape planter and must be a size. EXHIBIT 8 31A-13 JUNE 28, 2004 PAGE20F3 5. The permit applicant recognizes that the frequencies used by the cellular facility located at 1710 East Seventeenth Street are extremely close to the frequencies used by the City of Santa Ana for Public Safety. This proximity will require extraordinary "comprehensive advanced planning and frequency coordination" engineering measures to prevent interference, especially in the choice of frequencies and radio ancillary hardware. This is encouraged in the "Best Practices Guide" published by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Incorporated (APCO), and as endorsed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Prior to the issuance of any permits to install the facility, (Permit Applicant) shall meet in good faith to coordinate the use of frequencies and equipment with the Santa Ana Police Department and the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner Department to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, any interference with the Public Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS). Similar consideration shall be given to any other existing or proposed wireless communications facility that may be located on the subject property. 6. At all times, the permit applicant shall not of Santa Ana from having adequate spectrum City's 800 MHz radio frequency. prevent the City capacity on the 7. Before activating its facility, the permit applicant will submit to a post-installation test to confirm that "advanced planning and frequency coordination" of the facility was successful in not interfering with the City of Santa Ana Public Safety radio equipment. This test will be conducted by the Santa Ana Police Department and the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of the Applicant. This post-installation testing process shall be repeated for every proposed frequency addition and/or change to confirm the intent of the "frequency planning" process has been met. 8. The permit applicant shall provide a 24-hour which interference problems may be reported. will also apply to all existing facilities Santa Ana. phone number to This condition in the City of 31A-14 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The permit applicant will provide a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to City's designated representative upon activation of the facility. The permit applicant shall insure that lessee shall comply with the terms and conditions of shall be responsible for the failure of any users under the control of permit applicant to or other user(s) this permit, and lessee or other comply. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the permit applicant shall provide a coverage and cell site location map for each existing and proposed facility in Santa Ana. The proposed engineered to providers. wireless communication allow the collocation structure of other mus t be service Locate all equipment and related appurtenances (appleton plug and electric meter) on the inside of the equipment enclosure or inside the building. 31A-15 MAYOR Miguel A, Pulido MAYOR PROTEM Brett E, Franklin COUNCILMEMBERS Claudia C. Alvarez Usa Bist Alberta D. Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio ~ ~ CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Flelcher CLERK OF THE COUNC Patricia E, Healy PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Cenler Plaza (M-2m P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is to inform the general pUblic that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Title: Cingular Wireless Facility Project Description: The proposed project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 60-foot high wireless communication facility within the Arterial Commercial Zoning District Project Location: South Side of 17th Street between Mabury Street and Cabrillo Park Drive Project Number: ER 2002-381 Public Review Period: 11-07-2003 to 11-26-2003 Hearing Date: 11-24-2003 Hearing Location: City of Santa Ana Council Chambers 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 The Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, Califomia. Please submit any comments on the Negative Declaration to the City on or before 11-26-2003. Please direct your comments to: Dan Batt, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-20, Santa Ana, CA, 92702. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Ann Ni at (714) 667-2700. RHCB\lnotice\er EXHIBIT 9 3'A1.1~ (5606-2 MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PROTEM Brett E, Franklin COUNCILMEMBERS Claudia C. Aivarez Lisa Bist Alberta D, Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio ~ ~ CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY MANAGER David N, Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W, Flelcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healy PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa.ana.org Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Ana for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for the project described below: Project Number: ER 2002-381 Applicant: Wireless Facilities, Incorporated, Shannon McDonald 1225 West 190th St. Suite 250, Gardena, CA Project Location I Address: 1710 East Seventeenth Street Project Title I Description: The proposed project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 60-foot high wireless communication facility within the Arterial Commercial Zoning District. And does hereby find: That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of revisions to the project and mitigation measures placed on the project, and agreed to by the applicant, reduce each impact to below a level of significance. Signature: Date: Environmental Coordinator This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination is filed. 31~~11'9 C3 60ß.2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ER-2002-381 REQUEST The proposed project is to allow a 60-foot high the Arterial Commercial a request for a Conditional Use wireless communication facility (C5) zoning district. Permit within PROJECT SITE The project site is 6.3-acres in size and is situated on the south side of Seventeenth between Mabury Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. The property is rectangular in shape, and currently contains 21,150 square foot of retail stores and food and office uses. There are a total of 405 parking spaces provided on site. The property has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC) and is located within the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district (Exhibit 1). Surrounding land uses include multi-tenant commercial centers to the north, west and east, and a mixture of single-family and multi-family dwelling units to the south (Exhibit 2) . PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the construction of a 60-foot high cellular monopole facility. The proposed monopole would be constructed in the form of a flagpole. The top of the antennas would be 55 feet with the top of the flagpole at 60 feet. A six-foot high solid block wall would be installed around the equipment area in the rear yard area. RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following is an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, based upon the City of Santa Ana CEQA checklist form. Where needed, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level considered less than significant. I. AESTHETICS 31Ae_31ä9 lJiJ- 0 R4 IT R4 J ~~! ,""- i,. " , '0 I R1 R1 C5 R4 A1 cs¡ 50.RH2OQ ".,J'- ~. C1 R1 Rt- w C.""" iR R1 R' " R3 R1 0 I R1 C4 , ~ ----\- C5 ~ tr'-f72' ~;'~~i'r I I î I i R1 < ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 M1 R3 R3 a; _.~ P P .~, A1 .8 C-SM C1 CT.MD C2 C3 CJ-A C4 C5 GENERAL AGRICULTURAl. PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM. COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY !NDUSTRIAl MiliTARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED CDMMUNITI DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CA GC MI '-12 MO 0 P PCD PAD R1 . Rt C5 , ~-r ~~-I .. I l_- ! " R4-PRp "¡!___...l r--1 I L.~ (::_1 ~ R1 C5 LN~ R1 ~ R1 ,. ~=I: , Cll , i I .~ --1..--- C1 - R4.PRO >' " z ¡: "' F P p p >- ~ W w a: ... '" '" R4 ,I p A1 A2 A3 SINGLE FAMilY RESIDENTIAL ",.,,0 FAMILY RESIDENce MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN A4 RE SO SP ~ ¥-.~"~ CUP 03-29 CINGULAR WIRELESS 1710-1730 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET A $ l' = 1000 FEET p L A N N N G A N 0 B U EXHIBIT 1 31~~1O~9 L 0 N ~ ~ =500 FEET G A G E N c y SHOPPING ) CENTER O:liJ go: OFFICE MEDICAL of2 UILDING BUILDING ::¡co - PKG. APARTMENT UNITS I( E FA ¡'¡ILY ESIOf T/AL B SIN SINGLE "'MIL RESID NT/AL l FURNITURE I R%~~t I FAST FOOD I BANK ) a: c OFFICE \. BUILDING OFFICE BUILDING liJ "liJ CO" -liJ 0:-, ~ð i!!(J ~ a: / ~ 0 ...J ...J a: ca « u OFFICE BUILDING PA KING ~ ~ CUP 03-29 CINGULAR WIRELESS 1710-1730 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET SEVENTEENTH ST. CONDOS A oW' P L N N E N C Y A ¡..: CJ) SHOPPING .. CENTER > a: ::I aJ « :: FIFTEENTH ST. CON DOS N G N B U L D N A D EXHIBIT 2 31 ~,;2029 G A G (A) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, are no scenic vistas on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts to any scenic resources. there (B) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land are no State Highways within the viewshed Therefore, implementation of the proposed impact any scenic resources along a State Use Element EIR, there of the project site. project would not Highway. (C) Less Than Significant Impact The General Plan Urban Design Element identifies that the project site is located within the Cabrillo Park Design District. The Urban Design Element establishes goals and policies to help guide the design of land uses proposed within a Design District. Specifically, land uses proposed within a Design District should exhibit high quality design and should incorporate design elements that are proportional and aesthetically related to the District setting. The proposed monopole would be stealth and constructed in the form of a flagpole. The monopole would be situated within an existing landscape planter. Two 24-inch box Canary Island Pine Trees would be provided in the parking lot where the monopole is proposed. Additionally, Boston Ivy Vines would be provided around the equipment enclosure area. Through the City's development review process, the proposed project was determined to be consistent with the City's Urban Design Element. Compliance with the Urban Design Element would reduce potential aesthetics impacts to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not degrease the existing visual character of the project site or surrounding project area. (D) No Impact The project site is currently approved and surrounded by onsite street lighting. The proposed project would not introduce substantial amounts of new light and glare into the project area. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant light and glare impacts. 2 31Ä~1 II. AGRICULTURE (A.B.C) No Impact The City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR indicates that there are no prime or unique farmlands designated on the project site. Additionally, none of the project site is under any existing Williamson Contracts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to agriculture resources. III. AIR QUALITY (A) No Impact The proposed project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin and subject to the requirements of the Clear Air Act at both the Federal and State level, as implemented by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the primary planning document to monitor if air quality standards and objectives are being achieved in the South Coast Air Basin. The air quality obj ectives in the AQMP are based upon population and growth projections provided in regional plans and local general plans. A project could be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in population and growth impacts beyond those identified in regional plans or local general plans. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and would not result in growth projections beyond those established in the General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed proj ect would not be in conflict with the growth projections and air quality objectives established in the South Coast AQMP. (B.C.D) Less Than Significant Impact As mentioned previously, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD considers an air quality impact to be significant if it exceeds the thresholds identified below. 3 31Ä~22 SCAQMD EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Project Pollutant Construction Tons/ Operations Pounds/Day Quarter pounds/Day Carbon Monoxide 550 24.75 550 Reactive Organic Compounds 75 2.5 55 Nitrogen Oxides 100 2.5 55 Particulate Matter 150 6.75 150 The proposed project would involve the construction of a wireless communication facility- The proposed project would generate a minimal amount of additional vehicle trips within the project area. As a result there would be no significant increase in long-term mobile source emissions. Additionally, implementation of the project would involve a minimal amount of construction activity. Less than significant construction- related air quality impacts would occur. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant long-term operational air quality impacts, short-term construction related air quality impacts or significant cumulative air quality impacts. (E) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not emit long or short term objectionable odors. No adverse odor impacts be associated with the proposed project. term would III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (A.B.C.D) No Impact The City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR identifies that there are no sensitive biological resources located within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any biological resources. IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES (A.B.C.D) No Impact 4 3fÄ~23 The City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR indicates that there are not any known cultural resources within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is situated within an existing commercial center. The potential for the discovery of unknown cultural resources is very low. Additionally, the proposed project would not involve any construction activities that would result in the uncovering of unknown cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any known or unknown cultural resources. v. GEOLOGY/SOILS (A-l) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no active earthquake faults, or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to ground rupture risks. (A-2) Less Than Significant Impact The project site is situated within a highly active seismic region of southern California. The Newport/Inglewood Fault, located approximately 8-miles south from the City and the Whittier Fault located approximately 13-miles north from the City are considered to be the most dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking impacts. Along the Newport/Inglewood and the Whittier Fault an estimated maximum earthquake on the magnitude of 7.0 could potentially occur. A seismic event of this scale could result in significant damage to the project site. However, the seismic risks at the project site are not considered significantly different from other areas in the southern California region. Additionally, the proposed project does not involve the construction of any habitable structures that would be subject to seismic shaking impacts. Implementation of the proposed proj ect would not increase risk for seismic risks. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code seismic Safety Standards to minimize potential seismic shaking impacts. (A-3) Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's proj ect site is located very low liquefaction General Plan Land Use Element EIR, the in an area that is characterized with hazards. The proposed project would 5 3 ti\~~a involve the construction of a wireless communication facility. Implementation of the proposed pro] ect would not increase the risk for liquefaction hazards. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Safety Standards to minimize potential liquefaction hazards. (A-4) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there are no landslide areas on the project site. (B) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not involve any earthwork activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to soil erosion impacts. (C.D.E) No Impact According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there are no known geological hazards or unique geologic features located on the project site that would preclude the implementation of the proposed project. VI. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (A.B) Less Than Significant Impact According to the City's General Plan there are no hazardous material sites located on the project site. The operation of the proposed project would not involve the use of large amounts of hazardous waste materials or involve hazardous emissions. Though, construction practices associated with the proposed project could involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws regarding the handling of hazardous materials. Compliance with federal, state and local laws would reduce potential hazardous material safety impacts to a level considered less than significant. (C) No Impact According to the Santa Ana Fire Department the project site is not on any list of known hazardous waste site. (D) No Impact 6 3'A:~5 According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR and the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the project site is not located within Aircraft Accident Potential Zone, Clear Zone or FAA Notification Area. VII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY (A) Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not involve routine waste discharges that would be in conflict with water quality standards established by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. During construction operations surface water runoff generated from' the project site could potentially be degraded. However, Best Management Practices would be employed during construction operations to reduce potential water quality impacts to a level considered less than significant. (B) No Impact The City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR identifies that groundwater level in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 0 to 10 feet below sea level. Construction operations associated with the proposed project would not involve dewatering operations. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to underground water recharge areas, in that the project site is not a groundwater recharge area. (C.D) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site. As a result the rate of surface water runoff generated from the project site would not increase. The proposed project would not result in changes to existing drainage patterns or require the construction of additional drainage facilities. No adverse impacts in regards to drainage would be associated with implementation of the proposed project. (E.F.G) No Impact According Flood Rate Insurance Map 0602320029F the project site is located within Zone x, and not subject to 100-year flood risks, Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant flood hazards. 7 31A:~6 VIII. LAND USE/PLANNING (A) No Impact The proposed project would be installed within an existing commercial center. The proposed project would not physically divide any established community, in that there are no residential uses located on the project site. (B) No Impact The proposed project is consistent with City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any planning programs in the City. (C) No Impact The project site is situated within an urban setting and is not included within any habitat conservation plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan. IX. MINERAL RESOURCES (A) No Impact The City's General plan Land Use Element EIR identifies that there are no areas on the project site that contains Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any mineral resources. X. NOISE (A.B.C.D) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not generate long- term noise levels, in that the proposed project does not involve any operations that would emit noise. Additionally, construction operations required for the proposed project would activities that would not result in significant short-term noise impacts or significant groundborne vibration impacts. All construction operations would be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance and would be limited to 7 AM to 8PM Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sundays or Federal Holidays. (E) No Impact 8 Paje 12 of 29 3~IA;'27 According to the City's General Plan, the project site is not significantly impacted by aircraft noise from John Wayne Airport. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not expose people within the vicinity of the project site to excessive aircraft noise levels. XI. POPULATION/HOUSING (A) No Impac t The proposed project involves the installation of a wireless communication facility. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the extension of new roads or major infrastructure systems. Implementation of the proposed project would not induce more population growth into the project site vicinity. (B.C) No Impact The proposed project involves the installation of a wireless communication facility. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace any residential uses or population within the vicinity of the project site. XII. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Department: No Impact The City of Santa Ana Fire Department would provide fire protection and emergency services to the project site. The City maintains ten fire stations throughout the City. The stations are situated where no location in the City is outside of an approximate 1.5 radius of a fire station. Additionally, the City maintains a Mutual Aid Agreement for fire protection services with the neighboring Cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Tustin, Irvine and Costa Mesa. According to the City of Santa Ana Insurance Service Organization, the City has a low fire risk rating. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services within the project area over current levels of demand. The Santa Ana Fire Department has indicated that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, it does not anticipate any significant constraints in providing adequate fire protection services to the project site. The proposed project would not generate a need 9 3a'r~~~8 to construct new fire protection facilities. Additionally, through the City's development review process, the Santa Ana Fire Department has determined that the proj ect has adequate fire protection measures and facilities. Police Department: Potentially Incorporated Significant Unless Mitigation The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed proj ect . The City of Santa Ana is subdivided into four policing districts, with each district serving a section of the City. The proposed project is located within the South Coast District. The average police response time within the reporting district is 8.1 minutes. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for police protection services over current levels of demand within the project area. The Santa Ana Police Department has indicated that under existing levels of manpower and equipment, they would have the ability to provide adequate police protection services. However, the radio frequencies that would be used at the cellular facility would be close to the frequencies used by the City of Santa Ana for Public Safety. Without proper coordination, the proposed project could interfere with the radio frequencies of the city. To prevent radio frequency interference, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure . Prior to the issuance of any permits to install the facility, the project applicant shall meet in good faith to coordinate the use of frequencies and equipment with the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff Corner Department to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, any interference with the Public Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System. . At all times, the project applicant shall not prevent the City of Santa Ana from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio frequency. . Before activating its facility, the project applicant shall submit to a post-installation test to confirm that advanced planning and frequency coordination of the facility was successful in not interfering with the City of Santa Ana Public Safety radio equipment. The Communications Division 10 3'1g~~2ä of the Orange County Sheriff corner department or a Division approved contractor shall conduct the test at the expense of the project applicant. The post-installation testing process shall be repeated for every proposed frequency addition and/or change to confirm the intent of the frequency planning process has been met. . The project applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported. . The project applicant shall provide a single point of contact in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all interferences issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to City's representative upon activation of the facility. . The proposed wireless communication engineered to allow the collocation providers. structure must be of other service Schools: No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not have any adverse impacts on school services or facilities, in that the proposed project does not involve any land uses or activities that would generate an increased demand for school services or facilities. Parks, Other Public Facilities: Implementation of the proposed project would not have any adverse impacts on parks or other public facilities, in that the proposed project does not involve any land uses or activities that would generate an increased demand for parks or other public facilities. XIII. RECREATION (A.B) No Impact The proposed project involves installation of a wireless communication facility. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in the use of existing recreation facilities, nor would it require the expansion or construction of additional recreational facilities. 11 3 'A~~f(f XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC (A.B) No Impact The proposed project would not generate any long-term traffic impacts. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that implementation of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on existing and future level of service in the project area. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not individually or cumulatively exceed any required level of service established by the City or by the County's Congestion Management Program. (C) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not have any impact on air traffic patterns. (D.E) No Impact The proposed project does not involve any roadway improvements that would result in hazards to pedestrians or motorist. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on emergency access to the project site area. (F) No Impact The proposed project would not generate any long-term parking demands. No adverse impacts in regards to parking would be associated with the proposed project. (G) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not be in with any supporting policies supporting alternative transportation. conflict xv. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS (A.B.C.D.E) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board or require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, storm water drainage facilities or new sources of water supply or wastewater treatment. 12 ~1 Ä:~1 (F.G) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in increased demand for solid waste disposal. No adverse impacts in regards to solid waste disposal would be associated with the proposed project. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (A) No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to plant, wildlife species or historic properties, in that no plant or animal species of special concern or historical properties are located on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. (B) Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts to the environment. However, the proposed project's incremental contribution would not be considered cumulatively considerable because the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code, conditions of approval and mitigation measures, which provide specific requirements that would avoid any significant cumulative impacts within the project area. (C) Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not cause any substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. Potential impacts associated with the proposed project have been reduced to a level considered less than significant. XVIII. DETERMINATION Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record in the above evaluation and cited references, I find proposed project would not have a significant impact environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has prepared. documented that the on the been 13 3'A-3~2 XVIV. REFERENCES City of Santa Ana General Plan Urban Design Element, July 1998 City of General Plan Land Use Element Environmental Impact, August 1997 City of Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, December 1998 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines South Coast Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook Flood Rate Insurance Map 0602320029F City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance City of Santa Ana Development Review Committee, December 12, 2002 XX. PREPARERS Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator City of Santa Ana 14 ~,e~~:J3 anœ£OOA ANA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. F. D Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed, A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. ~~~) ~~\\ Printed Name I. II. III. IV. V. VI. A. D B. ~ C. D D. D E. D Project Title: Cingular Wireless Facility Project Numbers: ER 2002-381 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning Division P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number: Dan Bott (714) 667-2719 Location: 1710 East Seventeenth Street Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eartier EIR (EIR No. - ) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required, t \ ~ ") - Z:DÐ""?/ Date md\msword\envcheck.doc\ 1,15.99 31~:~.129 Page 1 of 1 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impacf' answer is adequately supported if the. referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e,g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). II. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts, III. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefiy explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact incorporated impact Impact I. Aesthetics - Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 ~ B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 0 to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ø or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0 D, Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ~ in the area? 0 0 0 md\msword\envcheck.doc\1.15,99 Page 1 of 10 Page 20 of 29 31A-35 mYŒ£OOA. ; ANA . Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ M ~ Air Quality - Where avaiiable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or III. pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: B, Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? mdlmswordlenvcheck.docI1.15.99 3arÂ~36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ r)f ~ 0 0 0 Page 2 of 10 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. Biological Resources - Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U,S. Fish and Wildlife Services? B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? D. Confiict with any local policies protecting biological resources, preservation policy or ordinance? or ordinances such as tree V. Cultural Resources - Would the project: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064,5? B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? mdlmswordlenvcheck,docI1.15.99 3'Ä~jff Potentially Significant Impact D D D D 0 0 D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D 0 D D D D Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 D D 0 0 D No Impact ~ ø: M J¥ eX # ~ ~ Page 3 of 10 anl^ "n_--. --- -- -- ----- ..------- Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project: A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of an known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fauit? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? B, Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? D, Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? E. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? md\msword\envcheck,doc\ 1,15.99 Page 23 of 29 31A-38 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 M ~ 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact ~ 0 ~ 0 0 tzf gr ~ ~ 9\ Page 4 of 10 ~IA .-----_:. ------.- Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? C. Be located on a site which is located on a iist of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project: A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? B, Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? mdlmswordlenvcheck.docI1,15.99 Pa§le 24 of 29 31A-39 Potentially Significant Impact D 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact M ~ 0 0 ~ 0 No Impact 0 0 ç¥ }2( 0 ctf Page 5 of 10 ~'K Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance -_._------,-" --- - -------- Issues & Supporting Information Sources c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? D. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? E. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? F. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? G. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? IX. Land Use and Planning- Would the project: A. Physically divide an established community? B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. Mineral Resources - Would the project: A. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- Important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? mdlmswordlenvcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 3T~~~b Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact tzt ç¥ ~ M ~ $ ~ Øf ~ Page 6 of 10 on,A Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources XI. Noise - Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ar.1bient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. Population and Housing - Would the project: A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere? of people, replacement mdlmswordlenvcheck,docI1.15.99 31~~4 ig Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D 0 0 0 0 0 D D No Impact ~ ~ M JZl R ~ ~ ~ Page 7 of 10 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance -- Issues & Supporting Information Sources XIII. Public Services A, Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? Poi ice protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. Transportation / Traffic A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e, result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections?) mdlmswordlenvcheck,docI1,15.99 3'A~4~ Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 j5;( D 0 0 D D D Less Than Significant Impact 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 D D No Impact 0 ~ 0 Y¥ ~ ~ ~ ¡2( ~ Page 8 of 10 ..JANTA ANKH - ---.----- Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources B, Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in .a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g. farm equipment)? E. Result in inadequate emergency access? F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e,g, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. Utilities and Service Systems A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? E, Result in the determination by tile wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to tile provider's existing commitments? mdlmswordlenvcheck.docI1.15.99 :llf A~493 Potentially Significant impact D 0 D D 0 D D 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Uniess Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant impact D D D D D D D D D D D No impact ~ ~ ~ ¡2( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JRi ~ Page 9 of 10 ~fA Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's sold waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? md\msword\envcheck.doc\ 1.15.99 !1Ä~!4 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 ~ ps( No Impact ¡2( ~ jZ( 0 0 Page 10 of 10 KO - 7/7/04 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-29 TO ALLOW A MONOPINE CELLULAR ANTENNA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1710 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29 came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on June 28, 2004. B. Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to allow a 50-foot tall monopine cellular antenna for the property located at 1710 East Seventeenth Street. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-198.10 requires a Conditional Use Permit for major wireless facilities. C. D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain findings. 1. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community? The proposed 50-foot tall cellular monopine will provide a service to the community by assisting Cingular Wireless in reducing the gaps in digital cellular service that is provided to its users, especially for users traveling on Seventeenth Street from Tustin Avenue to Grand Avenue and surrounding side streets. 2. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity? 31A-45 Resolution No. 2004-22 Page 1 of 3 3. Federal law exempts local jurisdictions from regulating health related issues as these issues are covered under Federal laws. However, the proposed facility will be in compliance with both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety regulations. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area? 4. The proposed monopine will be compatible with the surrounding area and will not adversely affect the economic viability in the area as the monopole has a stealth design that will maintain the appearance of a pine tree. Additional landscaping materials will be added to an adjacent planter. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use? 5. The cellular facility has been designed to be in compliance with the regulations and conditions identified in Chapter 41 for a major wireless facility. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City? The proposed monopine will not adversely affect the General Plan as cellular facilities, designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment, are consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Commercial (GC) General Plan designation. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-381 has been prepared for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission after conducting the public hearing hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No.2003-29 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. E. 31 A-46 Resolution No. 2004-22 Page 2 of 3 ADOPTED this 28th day of June, 2004 by the following vote: Commissioners: Cribb, De La Torre, Leo, Lutz, Mondo, Nalle, Sinclair (7) None (0) None (0) None (0) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Glenn Mondo Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Deputy City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2004-22 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on June 28, 2004. Date: Planning Commission Secretary City of Santa Ana 31A-47 Resolution No. 2004-22 Page 3 of 3 Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit. A. PlanninQ Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 02-84. 2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be amended. 3. No commercial advertisement shall be allowed on the proposed monopole. 4. Two live canopy Canary Island Pines (Pinus canariensis) are to be planted. The pine trees are to be planted north of the proposed cellular facility in an existing landscape planter and must be a minimum of 20 to 25 feet in height. 5. The permit applicant recognizes that the frequencies used by the cellular facility located at 1710 East Seventeenth Street are extremely close to the frequencies used by the City of Santa Ana for Public Safety. This proximity will require extraordinary "comprehensive advanced planning and frequency coordination" engineering measures to prevent interference, especially in the choice of frequencies and radio ancillary hardware. This is encouraged in the "Best Practices Guide" published by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Incorporated (APCO), and as endorsed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Prior to the issuance of any permits to install the facility, (Permit Applicant) shall meet in good faith to coordinate the use of frequencies and equipment with the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department to minimize, to the greatest EXHIBIT "A" P~ ÄO!48 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. extent possible, any interference with the Public Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS). Similar consideration shall be given to any other existing or proposed wireless communications facility that may be located on the subject property. At all times, the permit applicant shall not prevent the City of Santa Ana from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio frequency. Before activating its facility, the permit applicant will submit to a post- installation test to confirm that "advanced planning and frequency coordination" of the facility was successful in not interfering with the City of Santa Ana Public Safety radio equipment. This test will be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of the Applicant. This post-installation testing process shall be repeated for every proposed frequency addition and/or change to confirm the intent of the "frequency planning" process has been met. The permit applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported. This condition will also apply to all existing facilities in the City of Santa Ana. The permit applicant will provide a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to City's designated representative upon activation of the facility. The permit applicant shall insure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit, and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of permit applicant to comply. 11. The permit applicant shall provide a coverage and cell site location map for each existing and proposed facility in Santa Ana. The proposed wireless communication structure must be engineered to allow the collocation of other service providers. 13. Locate all equipment and related appurtenances (appleton plug and electric meter) on the inside of the equipment enclosure or inside the building. EXHIBIT "A" p~ ~!49 31A-50