Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZA Action Agenda 10-20-10ACTION AGENDA ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2010 **** CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. Clifton C. Miller Community Center ROLL CALL: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Zoning Administrator Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director John Buchanan, Redevelopment Program Manager Justina Willkom, Principal Planner Ryan Swiontek, Associate Planner Sesar MorFin, Redevelopment Management Analyst Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) CONSENT CALENDAR: No Items on Consent Calendar PUBLIC MEETING: 1. DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 - a request to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a sixty-five (65) foot tall mono-cedar faux tree and associated equipment and co-location of a future facility located within Cedar Grove Park. APPLICANT: T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATION: CEDAR GROVE PARK 11385 PIONEER ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Zoning Administrator Agenda October 20, 2010 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION That the Zoning Administrator adopt Zoning Administrator Action No. 10-010 approving Design Review 09-033. Presentation: Ryan Swiontek, Associate Planner The Zoning Administrator reviewed the staff report and asked staff to provide a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Swiontek provided the presentation. The Zoning Administrator asked staff to respond to the nine items listed in a letter from Paul Martin, 11015 Hiskey Lane, Tustin, dated October 20, 2010, incorporated herein by reference. Mr. Swiontek responded to the items. The Zoning Administrator asked staff to report existing City facilities. Mr. Swiontek indicated there are 40 cell sites in Tustin. The Zoning Administrator asked how many sites are located in the Sports Park. Mr. Swiontek responded there are three. Ms. Willkom added that cell sites are regulated by the FCC. The Zoning Administrator invited the applicant to the podium. Monica Moretta, representing the applicant, described the process involved in choosing Cedar Grove Park as the appropriate site for a cell tower. The following spoke in opposition to the proposed project; their general consensus being that the City and T-Mobile should find a more suitable location for the tower due to research indicating cell towers can be unhealthy for residents and visitors to the park; proper noticing of this project was not provided to surrounding residents; once installed, cell towers cannot be removed, thereby reducing the surrounding property values; lack of cell coverage should not be a reason to endanger the lives of Tustin residents and future generations, etc.: Nancy Kuwada, 2701 Timmons Miriam Saenz, 2551 Avenita Alpera Jennifer Wierks, 11070 Matthews Drive Zoning Administrator Agenda October 20, 2010 Page 3 Lynnea Kull, 10816 Churchill Place Sharon Michael, 2865 Pankey Avenue Sharon Komorous, 10875 Kimball Place Graham Lambert, 11695 Goetting Avenue Tracy Powell, 2875 Pankey Avenue Brandon Key, 10950 Hiskey Lane David Bessen, 10960 Hiskey Lane Tanya Zaverl, 12025 Lambert James Zaverl, 12025 Lambert Erik Tran, 11675 Leihy Avenue Ms. Wierks submitted a petition containing 135 names and read into the record the seven points of concern, including, but not limited to: potential health issues related to cell towers, the tower being too tall and inconsistent with a residential environment, the tower being a short distance from two schools, lowering of property values, etc. The following submitted speaker forms but did not speak at the podium: Suzie & Jeremy Speizer, 2296 Aspen Street Rita Semaan, 10880 Tantlinger Drive General discussion ensued. The Zoning Administrator asked the ATS Communications representative to respond to the residents' health concerns. Tony Ingegneri responded that he had done some research but had no specific information to share in that regard. The Zoning Administrator suggested adding language requiring appropriate pre- and post-testing of the facility in compliance with FCC regulations. The Zoning Administrator adopted Zoning Administrator Action 10-010, with suggested corrections, approving Design Review 09-033. The Zoning Administrator explained the appeal period noted that staff would provide notification to everyone in speaker forms and/or provided a-mail addresses to staff. REGULAR BUSINESS: regarding this action and also attendance who had filled out None Zoning Administrator Agenda October 20, 2010 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT: The Public Meeting closed at 7:30 p.m. The date of the next meeting of the Zoning Administrator will be scheduled when items are set for hearing. Dear Mr. Swiontek: October 20, 2010 Thank you for your time this morning to discuss the Cedar Grove Cell Tower Project under consideration by the City of Tustin. As discussed, I would suggest the applicant and City consider engaging in the following items: 1. Document radiation emissions at specified distances in comparison to other typical household equipment such as microwaves or baby monitors. 2. Discuss why placement of tower is needed at Cedar Grove Park rather than co-locating within existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) communications tower. It is my understanding there is remaining co-location capacity in the OCFA tower for additional service providers. 3. Discuss status of preparation of City of Tustin Wireless Master Plan, and technical reasons for determining optimal locations of cell towers. Explain issues relative to topography, signal strength, wireless demand, etc. 4. Document height of existing trees at Cedar Grove Park and discuss the difference between the proposed tower and the adjacent trees. 5. Document the proximity of the proposed cell tower to nearby homes and school buildings. Based on quick Google Aerial review, homes appear to be approximately 600 feet away from the proposed tower location: a. 1 home in Tustin Ranch Estates within 300; b. 1 home in Tustin Ranch Estates within 400; c. 1 home in Tustin Ranch Estates within 500; and d. Remaining homes in the Serrano neighborhood 600 feet away. 6. Discuss the revenue expected from licensing of the cell tower which will be contributed to the City of Tustin General Fund. 7. Consider conditioning the proposed project to construct a pedestrian trail linking the existing paved Class Imulti-use trail to internal sidewalk within Cedar Grove Park near gated pedestrian access to Peters Canyon Elementary. Residents repeatedly have removed cross-beams from fencing along Class I trail to access Cedar Grove Park since no direct access is provided between Class I trail and Cedar Grove Park. If proposed project constructs an ADA compliant linkage concurrent with the cell tower construction, the City of Tustin can reimburse the applicant partially or fully based on negotiations. See the attached graphic illustrating the recommended concept. 8. Request the applicant discuss ordinances employed by other jurisdictions to help address resident concerns about environmental impacts caused by cell towers. For example in 2007 the City of Mission Viejo considered an ordinance restricting cell towers at any City park or open spaces or restricted cell towers from within 300 feet of residential property and school district property when the antennas are pointing towards those sensitive land uses. 9. Discuss health concerns related to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Thank you for your help with this matter, and I hope the items discussed above are constructive and beneficial for the City. Paul Martin 11015 Hiskey Lane, Tustin Z 0 U _~ U Z Q w 0 w w a z Q U ~_ U Z Q w w C,~ Z H v_~ w a a _ C.U ~ ~ c 'a 3 m y m ~ a a ~ ~, a a N ~ N ~. y d O O a` u'~ d a m J C O c~ V L_ U ~L ~.+ N d '~ a a a~ 0 fLn V L U U O .-~ O Z PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GRCfVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin Ranch, California are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, anon-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. 3. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics ofthe surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye-sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 4. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 5. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 6. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. 7. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers} from being built near this residential area! Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition ~f~~~~~C~CI ~~ ~~~t~~~ ~~E~e~C ~fC}~~ P~C~ Viee~ (`urr~nt yi{>naitn~es - 5i;zi~ the Patitici« To: City of Tustin Page 1 of 2 PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin Ranch, California are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: 1. The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, anon-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower, 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. 3. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be aneye-sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 4. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 5. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 6. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. 7. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the http://www.petitiononline.cotn/CedarGrv/petition.html 10/20/2010 Petition to Protect Cedar Crrove Park Petition Page 2 of 2 potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential area! Sincerely, ~fi~e [_ncfersi~~~d C(rck Hera to Sign PeUUon V;eGV ~'tt~TCttt ~i~=t~~tttres The Yctitiota to t'r«t~ct C~eciar (iro~~ I'at~k Petition to City of Tustin ~~as created by and written by Jennifer Wierks (jaws2(c7ec~x.net). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. "There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice. Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Pctition Help form. share: blogger ~ del.icio.us k digg facebook ~ furl reddit ~~ slashdot ~ send to a friend Send Petition to a Friend -Petition FAQ - Start a Petftion - Contr(butians - Priva -Media Kit PetitionC~n[Tt,e - DesignComrrtunity - Arc>~itec#ureWeek -Great Buildings - ~rchipianef -Search http:/Iwww.PetitionOnline.com/CedarGrv/petition.html © 1999-2007 Artifice, inc. - A(1 Rights Reserved. http://www.petitiononline.com/CedarGrv/petition.html 10/20/2010 Petition to Protect Cedar Crrove Park Petition Page 1 of 2 ,. tNllv~r of Phaanix® V~,t~gnal Wurefna Stl+oot f Degrees m talay's Most Pogder Fields. Hands-on training & yob pleterhent help. LA, l Online and Campus passes. OC end Ontario campuses. l ~~ Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Following Ss a tab delimited list of ell active signatures on your petitiott To format and use this data elsewhere you should save this page as text. Open the file in a teat editor and delete the teat before and after the signature list and then import the data imo a spreadsheet program, such as Microsoft Excel. Number Name Email CommentsAddress 1 Jetu~ifer Wierks 2 Lynnea Kull There are other suitable locations than in a park located in a residential area between two schools (Peters 3 David Haigh david.haigh@cox.net Put the cell tower up on the tail east hill 4 Jennifer Sourer 2jsouter@cox.net 5 Natalie Griswold 6 Kurt Himler ~ Jane Zhou i3 Sonja peterson sonjap@csu.fullerton.edu 9 thanh vo 10 -ebra Plante debplante@cox.net 11 Dru Desai 12 Margaret Shen 13 Jennifer Van Tersel 14 Larry Kull 15 Karen Dey Would prefer cell toner not be be placed in community park and by schools 16 Kruti Khan 17 Lisa Osako lkosako@cox,net 18 Tilden osako 19 Rita Semaan 20 michelle Blum 21 Caroline Merchant caroline@marchanthockey.com Please do not put up this cell tower so close to our children. 22 Todd Merchant 23 Yan Ye 24 Michael S- Carter 25 Stephanie M. Fabbrl Carter there are thousands of children who play at that park- why would we pat all these children 26 Annie 5 TS Sun 27 Yan Ye 28 Madeline Griswold 29 Yan Ye 30 Cathy Sanders 31 Marcene Marcus 32 Jayne Chun jaynechun@hotmail-com A 33 Brandon Key dcpost@cox.net Wouldn't a location nearer the toll road, in a less populated area be a better option? 39 Stacey Muto staceymuto@hotmail 35 EvetT,e Smith 35 Rathy Piazzon 37 Sharon Komorous I oppose the construction of a cell phone tower next to Cedar Grove park and our schools. Let's find another 3S Robert Allen 39 Valerie Pereira vppereira@aol.com 90 Scott Warner Griswold Set's find a better spot than a popular and beautiful park 41 Joyce Magsarlli 42 Katherine Boutelle We don't want to expose our kids! 93 Debbie Bessen 44 Monica Nesbitt 45 Lisa Kormos 46 Coleen Fields 47 Mike Kormos Bad idea, other locations more suitable- 48 David Bessen 49 Jacinto Lamb jacinta.l.amb@gmail.com A 50 Kimberly Goh 51 Dawn Araki 52 Dean L. Groves 53 Robin King 54 Janet A11e^ jdallen@cox.net 55 Lei Xu sheliyxn@cox.netshellyxu@cox.net 56 Lindsey Garrett I am vehemently opposed to a cell phone tower in Cedar Grove Park 57 Lisa Deneen 58 Anne Hawing 59 Sharon Michael 60 Kristi Fuentes 61 Lisa Richardson 62 Thomas Michael 63 Patrick J. Garrett 64 Melanie IIelger 65 Christina Dennis 66 Daral yn Nagle 67 Chen Li 68 Debra Lanning 69 Fdward Perfetti 70 Kathleen Gambillkshg@cox.net 71 Suzie Won-Speizer 72 David Baker Z am opposed to a cell tower UNhESS it meets higher safety and aesthetics standards. 73 Elizabeth Tilford 74 Hop Pham Please don't put cell phone tower near our residential area. 75 Luke Nguyen It is not safe for our community. 76 Trish Nornhold Why in a park surrounded by schools and neighborhoods. Toll road seems like the perfect place. 77 Cheryl Alberola 78 Jennifer Lucci jennlucci@cox-net This is completely irresponsible to have this so close to where children play and spend so m 79 Erik Tran &0 Katie Head 81 Dale Head 82 Qiang Ye shellyxu@cox.net R3 Stacy mckellar there has to be a better place to put the cell tower. the park is clearly not an appropriate or safe choice 84 Janis Nishimoto 85 Bracy Feldman 86 Jacqueline Hoppe hops://petitiononline.seeuresites.com/CedarGrv/tDgGVDjyQihh.egi 10/20/2010 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition 89 Blair Hoppe 88 a13sa Y.opp II9 Carolyn Osborn 50 Sue Garland suegarland@yahoo.com 91 5alma Monir_a Greene 92 Lisa Hung 93 Susan Peterson 9A Jessica Chatte rton SS Timothy P. Duchene 96 Zngrid Hoblik 97 Lisa Sourbour 98 Mitch King kingim®yahoo.com 94 Sue Tobler 100 Alida Calvagna 101 Rebecca Gomez 102 Lisa guardado 103 Stacie L Reyes 104 Vicki. Scha££er A 105 Chad Slumskie 106 Beth Pflomm 107 Steve Irwin 108 Irina Todorov 109 Sara Stewart 17.0 CaCherine Lambert 111 Jeff 5prosty 112 Candace Lee 113 Graham Lambert 114 Laurie Ayers 115 Gypsy M. Biller 116 Maggie Villegas mvillegas1516@yahoo.com 117 Dan Villegas 118 Eric Sanders 119 David P.ye rS 120 Susie Teel 121 Natalie Banning 122 Sodi Sprosty Y23 kim chi T_van 129 Terese O'De.Ll 125 kiroberly vu Y25 Brad Bj orndahl 127 Kendra Sjorndahl 128 Joanna 5a kaeda 129 Nancy Kuwada 130 Stephanie Crail A 131 Janet Beadle 132 Michael Beadle 133 Scott Crai1 N7e don't want itf 139 Colleen $e11 135 rheryl Beil There mast be a safer. place to put it! Page 2 of 2 The '-; `. ,afar G_ 'r.._.PetiNon rA City of Tustin was created by and written by Jennifer Wierks (aws2(¢coxnet). This petition is hosted heat ww~_v_Petiti cnOnfine.cam as a pubE~c service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by g~u_fice Inc. or our sponsors- For technical support please use cwr simple Per(tion Hem form. Send this to a fr"send Sentl PMfGOn to@Frtentl-PtfY7tion fACr-$tarta Pafjtron-CQnmDlltloo$-P~- di Ktf-Cotroltenfs and Suaaesf ors P0?ittn rOnL==ire - D~ anCo;rrmurv.;Py -Arch Le ~ture6Neak - Great bwtctirgs -Search httpr//www.petrfiaronlJ»e.can/Ceda~rv/petltlonhbnl ® {999-2005 ~rikice. Inc. - All Rigbts Reserved. https://petitionontine.securesites.com/CedarGrv/tDgGVDjyQihh.cgi l 0120/2010