Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting of June 1st, 2026 to order. Order number one would be to do the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner McCormick will give the pledge. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States.

Mr. Beckman, please call the roll. Certainly. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Commissioners. We'll begin tonight with Commissioner Vasquez. Present. Thank you. Commissioner McCormick. Here. Thank you. Commissioner Martinez. Present. Thank you. Commissioner Maldonado. Here. Thank you. Commissioner Vahar.

Here.

Thank you very much. Vice Chair Tucker. Here. Excellent. Thank you. And finally, Chair Leslie. Here. Thank you. I'd like the record to reflect we have a full quorum this evening. Thank you.

Great. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on matters not listed on the agenda, which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, provided that no action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. Have we received any requests to speak tonight? All right, very good. Moving on to consent calendar. All items on the consent calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. Any member of the planning commission, staff, or the public may request an item be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. Any motion on the calendar? I move. There's a first. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Seconded by Alison Vehar. This time we'll make a motion or vote to approve the minutes. All right, the motion to approve the minutes has passed. OK, moving on to commission business. Item 4.1, the general plan conformance finding the FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 THROUGH 2030-2031, THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND FINDING OF CEQA EXEMPTION PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15, EXCUSE ME, SECTION 15378. AND AT THIS TIME, I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO GET A STAFF REPORT, IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS EVENING, SENIOR PLANNER ARLEN BECK WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW.

Thank you, Chair Leslie, and good evening to the Planning Commission. So this is the general plan conformance finding for the upcoming capital improvement program, or CIP. So in accordance with government code section 65401, the Planning Commission is required to review the CIP and and report on whether the proposed projects are consistent with the city's adopted general plan. So for the proposed five-year CIP, there are a total of 86 projects proposed, and that includes 12 newly added projects from the previous year's CIP. Additionally, 22 projects from the prior five-year CIP have either been completed, eliminated, or placed on hold. staff reviewed this proposed CIP for consistency with the city's general plan and determined that the projects further the implementation of the general plan goals and policies. So staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find the proposed five-year CIP to be consistent with the general plan. And in addition, the tonight's action is not approving construction or implementation of any specific project it's limited to general plan conformance determination because the cip is the budgeting and fiscal planning tool it does not commit the city to any specific project and therefore staff recommends that the planning commission find the action not a project under sequa guidelines section 15378 that concludes staff presentation i'm available for any questions

Thank you very much for the presentation. Does any commissioner have a question for the staff? OK. Seeing none, I guess we can open this for public hearing at this point? No? OK. We have to vote on this? Make a motion. All right. So let's make a motion then, if somebody would like to, to approve the general plan conformance finding here.

I'll make a motion. I will move to approve the general plan conformance finding for fiscal year 2026 to 2027 through 2030 to 2031 five-year capital improvement program and finding a CEQA exemption per CEQA guidelines section 15378 and find that all projects identified within a proposed five-year capital improvement program are consistent with the city's general plans and find that the action is not a project per state CEQA guidelines section 15378 and therefore categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA.

I second the motion.

Okay, at this time we'll take a vote. And my screen is doing the same thing that happened when Allison was sitting here. I touched the document button.

Yeah.

Okay.

All in motion passes. Thank you very much for that. Moving on to item 5.1, public hearing to consider a request to construct a new wireless communications facility AT&T Wireless, located adjacent to the west rear property line of 744 North Eckhoff Street, APN 386-521-19, and a finding of CEQA exemption, minor site plan review, PA 25-0104. Is there a staff report for this?

Yes, thank you, Chair. This evening, Planning Technician Lauren Briggs will provide the staff report.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. The project for review is a proposal to construct and operate a new 70-foot tall stealth ground-mounted wireless facility with ancillary supporting equipment and an existing vacant parcel. The proposed facility incorporates stealth design techniques to screen the appearance of the installation and would appear as mature eucalyptus tree upon completion. The stealth design utilizes faux foliage to blend in appropriately with the existing foliage in order to resemble the surrounding area's natural features. The requested height will be vertically compatible with the existing vegetation as well. The zoning designation of the project is recreational open space and is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. The properties to the north and west are zoned recreational open space, and the properties to the south and east are zoned M1 light manufacturing. At 70 feet, the proposed facility will exceed the maximum allowable height of 35 feet for the recreational open space zone. The Orange Municipal Code Section 1712025 permits wireless communication facilities to exceed the maximum height of the zone in which it is located in through a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. This new facility will enhance and improve wireless coverage and capacity for the city while preserving the aesthetic character of the site and surrounding communities. To date, staff has received one public comment submitted, emailed to the city. That was by the Orange County Transportation Authority that was submitted at 5 p.m. today. The main concerns were about road access, which appears to enter from the Department of Transportation District 12 Caltrans right of way, and is requesting that the city works with Caltrans and OCTA to coordinate on that matter. That is the conclusion of this report. Staff is available to answer any questions, and the applicant is also here in attendance to answer any questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you for that report. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Yes.

I just wanted to ask, is there a new access road being proposed? And does it go into the OCTA owned property? I didn't see that in the project description.

Yes, so thank you for the question. On the plans, at least there already is current access on private roads to the Orange County Flood Control District area. It does correlate with OCTA as well, but as of right now, there is no proposal for a new private road. Would the applicant like to clarify anything as well? He's available to.

So .

At this stage, we need to open up the public hearing before we direct any questions to the applicant.

At the last meeting, didn't we hear direction that we didn't have to open up the public hearing for the applicant? Sorry, I don't want to argue with the attorney, but we heard conflicting. That's a good question.

If I gave that direction, that would mistake that. I think we should try to keep with the normal order of public hearing, then applicant at the end. Keep things straight. Yeah, it's not necessarily a legal under government code, but it's the way the city council runs. So per city attorney's direction, we're just going to keep things the same.

And if I may, since the question was directed to staff, I'll just follow up with the plans seek to utilize existing access. There's no new proposed, but the comment letter does bring to light that there are multiple agencies that are involved with coordinating access to this particular property. When the public hearing is opened, the applicant is also available to expand on that. But generally, this would not impact the project proposal.

So to Commissioner Maldonado's question and about this letter from OCTA, the OCTA's concerns are not relevant to this project, or are they?

I believe they are, but it's not in the scope that would physically alter an aspect of this project. ACCESS AND EASEMENTS ARE TRADITIONALLY A PART OF NEW WIRELESS FACILITIES AND TYPICALLY THE PLANS THAT ARE PRESENTED ARE FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW. AND SO THIS IS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. WE'RE USED TO IRONING THESE OUT IN PLAN CHECK, IF YOU WILL, BUT WE ARE GLAD THAT OCTA HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR COMMENTS, SO WE'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION SHOULD THIS PROJECT BE APPROVED TONIGHT. UNDERSTOOD. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES.

I HAVE A QUESTION, STAFF. I guess, is there any way to scroll down to a plan that shows the plan rather than just the site index sheet? Hold on a second. Go back. Let me go back to the legend. Let's take a look at A1. And I guess my question Question is, the letter states that there would be impact, the landscape and planting. Is there a way, staff, you can tell me what those impacts are?

thank you for that question there will be some impacts when it comes to the visibility for some of the other surrounding trees and vegetation I can actually show photo simulations of what the facility will look like as well so you'll get a better vision

Commissioner McCormick, just for clarification, while Lauren pulls up some additional information, your question is tied to access?

Well, it's actually tied to impacts, since it was referenced in the letter. Sure, sure.

Yes, so some of the impacts would be, which you can see from the photo simulation, mainly impacting the vegetation right there off of the 57, but the applicant is prepared to mitigate as many impacts as possible.

So are the impacts everything in terms of landscape and planting everything we see green?

Yes.

So all that will be removed?

No, I think you're mistaken. No, all of the trees and vegetation that are present will continue to stay there off of the 57. Any impacts when it comes to construction on that site may be removed, but the applicant has proposed to make sure that whatever is on the site will be mitigated and blend in appropriately.

Okay, so this letter reflecting may impact landscape planting it in fact doesn't. Is that what you're saying?

Lauren, would you do me a favor? Can you pull up the A1 one more time? Yes. On that particular plan, Commissioner McCormick, I believe the hatched outline shows the proposed access route to the site showing from Eckhoff Street and then due west and then finally heading south over multiple property lines before entering the lease area. Typically the access is for the equipment enclosure, which is in that kind of detail area. But generally tied in with this comment, it's staff's understanding that it's this access path that may impact some ground covering and landscaping. And it's to that effect that OCTA is requesting coordination with the city so as to minimize, in our opinion, minimize potential impact to existing landscaping. What Lauren was referring to was, I think, some of the landscaping buffering for the facility itself, and I think that the comment letter is tied to the access path that's been proposed.

So I guess I'm trying to get my head around this. I mean, I know that shows the proposed construction, but it doesn't show me the proposed demolition, if there is any. Unless I can see on the plans, which I didn't necessarily...

There will be no actual demolition associated with this project proposal. It would really be installation of a new facility. And then it's the access to that new facility that's proposed that I believe was the nature of the comment from OCTA.

Okay, so there won't be any impacts on the landscape?

Not that we can foresee, but again, to the point of OCTA, they believe that there may be. So they're just raising that to highlight the coordination required.

That's my questions, so. I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING INTO THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET IT ON THE RECORD THAT POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARE PROBABLY MINIMAL, IF NOT ANY. OKAY, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THERE A NEED OR WANT TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? OKAY, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK. FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, SORRY. FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT. YES, SORRY. YOU'RE GOOD, YEAH. SO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT. OH, ASK FOR THE PUBLIC, SORRY. ASK IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN. ALL RIGHT, NOW I CAN CLOSE IT. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE CAN BRING THE APPLICANT UP. IS THAT RIGHT? SO WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE BRING THE APPLICANT UP. SORRY FOR THE BACK AND FORTH, SIR.

I don't have anything else to add except a clarification about where we're planning to build a cell site. It's in a parking or sort of a storage area. Landlord is Orange County, the County of Orange. And we're just replacing the existing cell site that you saw in the previous picture that's gonna be coming down for reasons that we can't control and we're building this one up. So I'm here for any other questions or clarifications that you need.

I guess I would love to see if you can kind of add to or answer some of the questions I had of staff.

Yes. So, I mean, they want to coordinate my understanding because we are transversing a few parcels that they are in control of. That's a walkway and it is a bike path. that entire corridor there, that's the Orange, that's the Santa Ana River Trail. So we're, there's also, so from our perspective, there is, we're just building it on an open lot that has just some storage stuff that the county is using, and that's where we're placing that. So in terms of landscaping, We're not aware of that from our end, but obviously we're happy to work with any entities that are needed. There you go. That's a perfect picture. Yeah. So we're in that back corner further south. No, not in the green area. Further in the concrete area. In that area towards the right a little bit more, where the cursor is.

So it's basically just going on asphalt.

Correct.

Not landscaping. Correct. So they're going to be happy that there will not be any impacts. Okay. Thank you.

No problem. I have a question. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thanks for joining us tonight. My understanding is that this is because a current facility is being decommissioned.

Yes, sir.

Sorry, I didn't see that in the documents if I missed it. Where is that current facility? currently?

Right behind it. If you look at the map here from our overhead, you can see a shadow of it.

So it's the one that we see on the plans? Correct. Okay, I just, I thought, the way the plan's presented, I thought there was going to be both of them.

So I was going to get into why both.

You thought that too? Okay, yeah.

Yeah, so that one's coming down, and then we're just replacing it with that. Okay. Yeah.

Is it a like-for-like replacement? I'm just curious. Is it increased in any way? I mean, obviously it looks different, but it keeps the connectivity.

We like to keep it as like-for-like as possible. Because we're going closer to the freeway, we have to go, we're requesting for higher because of the way it propagates. So essentially, and of course there's a requirement for beautification. We want to make sure we're screening it. That was an older site. So we respect that requirement and that's what we're proposing there. Okay. Thank you.

I have another question. The landscaping that shows at the bottom, I guess the plans that we saw earlier proposed a 20-foot wide, or I couldn't tell from the screen how actually wide that's going to be. in that area where it's green. Am I reading the plan correctly? Because I do see this shadow of a cell tower just to the right of that. Well, it moved. It's down. Yes, there's a shadow pattern that Right there, just above that, that's a tower, right? So the next one up, which is past the building and the parking lot, there's another shadow pattern. Is that a second tower?

That's a separate tower. Separate, not our project? Nothing to do with that, yeah, not our project.

So the roadway I see is going through the landscaped area to get to that tower that we referenced earlier?

No, the access would be coming from the north.

Okay, and that's through the already paved area?

Sorry, yeah, already paved, correct.

Okay, great, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? All right, thank you for your time.

Thank you for your time.

All right, at this time, if there's no other questions, I'll ask for a motion.

I made a motion. All right, is there a second? Well, I guess I should state the motion first. Sorry, that's on me. Yes, so I move that the commission adopt planning commission resolution number PC12-26, approving PA25-0104, a conditional use permit number PA25-0104, and minor site plan review number PA25-0104. dash 0104 to construct and operate a new stealth ground mounted wireless communication facility on a 70 foot tall mono eucalyptus tower consisting of 12 panel antennas, 16 remote radio units, one GPS antenna, four DC9 and one DC50 surge suppression unit with ancillary supporting equipment with a new 636 square foot equipment enclosure located at APN 386-521-19 and a finding that this is category exempt from CEQA. Also not sure, I don't know that we've ever had such a descriptive motion. I'd be curious even on that, why we're being so descriptive of all of the different components. Commissioner Vasquez, really more for a matter of record. Okay, got it. Well, I nailed 70-foot tall mono-eucalyptus tower, so I'm happy with that.

Can I add to that? I have seconded it, but you had referenced with some emphasis in your voice the word stealth.

Yeah, I thought it was kind of funny because it's, I mean, stealth means something, not in the way that we're thinking about it, that it's not, we can see it, and we can see it, of course.

So stealth is maybe not a good term to use.

I think it means something, the type of, If I may, I'm happy to expand on that. If this facility were left untreated with no aesthetic consideration, it would appear as the tower that's going to be decommissioned. In this case, you would have panels and all of the infrastructure, the DC-9, the RRUs behind it. perfectly visible from the public. When we say that we're applying stealth techniques, the applicant is applying some type of camouflage to the equipment to hide it from direct visibility. And then the final tier, if you will, of stealth that could be applied is completely stealth, and that's when it's fully architecturally integrated into a building somehow.

Okay, my motion stands if there's a second.

Is there a second? All right. OK, let's take a vote.

Chair, I believe we'll need to do a voice vote for this item, if you don't mind. Very good. All right, voice vote. Okay. Commissioner Vasquez? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner McCormick? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Martinez?

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Maldonado?

Aye.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Veyhar?

Aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair Tucker? Aye. Thank you. And finally, Chair Leslie?

Aye.

Thank you. The vote passes 7-0.

All right, very good. On that note, this meeting is now adjourned. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, June 15th, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. in the council chamber. Thank you all.