Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOWERPOINT PRESENTATION DR 09-033Cedar Grove Park Wireless Communication Facility 1 OnApril26,2011,thePlanningCommissionadopted ? ResolutionNo.4163approvingthesubjectproject. OnMay6,2011,theCityClerkreceivedanappealofthe ? PlanningCommission’sdecisiontoapproveDesignReview 09-033. OnJuly19,2011theCityCouncilconsideredtheappealof ? DesignReview09-033andcontinuedtheitemtothe October18,2011meeting. 2 CedarGroveParkislocatedin ? TustinRanchalongPioneer Road Thesiteislocatedwithinthe ? EastTustinSpecificPlan. Surroundingusesinclude ? gatedresidencestothesouth andeastoftheparkalongwith anOCFAFireStationatthe southernend.TustinRanch Estatesresidenceslietothe westofthesiteandPeters CanyonElementarySchool abutstheparktothenorth. 3 Project Location 4 5 Peters Canyon Elementary School 830’ Tustin Ranch Estates 320’ 800’ 200’ Pioneer Middle School Fire Station 6 Thefacilitywouldconsistof: ? 2–40foothighflagpoles ? 1–43foothighflagpole ? UndergroundEquipment ? Eachflagpolehasadiameterof14inchesandcontains ? 2panelantennas. Theproposedflagpoleswithwirelessantennaewillbe ? inthesamelocationastheexistingflagpoles. 7 ProposedProposed ExistingExisting 8 ProposedProposed ExistingExisting 9 ProposedProposed ExistingExisting 10 11 TherearetwosectionsoftheTustinCityCodewhich ? applytotheproposedproject. • Section9272pertainingtoDesignReview • Section 7260 pertaining to Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Property and in the Public Right of Way; and Resolution No. 01-95 12 Resolution No. 01-95 Section 9272 • • Height,bulk,andareaofstructures Location • SitePlanning • StealthFacility • ExteriorMaterialsandColors • Co-location • TowersandAntennae • Colors • Landscaping • Screening • AccessoryEquipment • Landscaping • PhysicalRelationshipofProposed • Signage StructuretoExistingStructures • AccessoryEquipment • Appearanceanddesignrelationship • RequiredRemoval ofproposedstructurestoexisting • structuresandpossiblefuture Undergrounding structuresintheneighborhoodand publicthoroughfares TheCityCouncilrequestedfurtherinformationonthe ? followingtopics: StatusofOCFAfacility SightlineAnalysis ? ? EffectonPropertyValues StatusoftheAT&Tmerger ? ? AT&TCoverageNeeds ImpactofTreeGrowth ? ? EvaluateCo-location ? CoverageDataofotherT-MobileSites ? ReviewofWirelessCaseLaw ? EvaluateCity’sWirelessMasterPlan ? NumberofT-MobileCustomersintheArea ? 14 SightlineAnalysis–TheOCFAprojectsiteisbetween21and27 ? feethigherthantheCedarGroveprojectsite.Residencesand treesobstructsightlinesbetweenthetwoprojectsites. View 2 View 1 OCFA Site 15 T-MobileExistingCoverageData–T-Mobilefacilities ? alongTustinRanchRoadandattheSalvationArmy providecoverageinthevicinityoftheprojectsite,but notaswellastheproposedfacility. StatusofAT&TMerger–TheU.SDept.ofJusticehasfiled ? anantitrustlawsuitblockingAT&T’sacquisitionofT- Mobile. 16 AT&TCoverageNeeds–Staffhasprovidedinformation ? onAT&Tfacilitieswithinthevicinityoftheprojectsite. ImpactofTreeGrowth–Treesareobstaclestoradio ? frequenciesandmaydisruptsignalattheproposed facilityinthefuture. WirelessCaseLawReview–TheCityAttorneyhas ? providedanopiniononrecentcaselawpertainingto wirelessfacilities. EvaluateCo-location–Co-locationispreferredtosingle ? carriersites,howeveritisnotrequired. 17 EvaluatetheCity’sWirelessMasterPlan–ATS ? communicationsandtheRDAhaveprovideda responsecontainedinthestaffreport. StatusofOCFAFacility–Theprojectisstillinthe ? entitlementapplicationphaseandisnotapproved. EffectonPropertyValues–Staffhasprovideda ? pamphletfromtheOCDivisionoftheLeagueof CaliforniaCities. T-MobileCustomersintheArea–Thisinformationcan ? bestbeprovidedbytheapplicant. 18 CityStaffreceived5publiccommentsaftertheprinting ? ofthestaffreportidentifyingthefollowingconcerns: AccuracyofSightlinesandElevationofthesites ? DriveTestData ? Elevationofprojectsites ? HeightofT-MobileAntennasatOCFAFacility ? HealthConcerns ? 19 View 2 View 1 OCFA Site 20 21 Original Updated 22 23 ElevationofProjectSites–Thedifferenceinelevation ? betweenthetwoprojectsitesrangesfrom21-27feet withtheOCFAsitehavingahigherelevation. HeightofT-MobileAntennasatOCFAFacility–The ? heightnortheOCFAfacilityingeneralhavebeen approvedbytheCityofIrvine. HealthConcerns–NewStudyoncellphoneradiation ? 24 ThattheCityCounciladoptResolutionNo.11-47 ? approvingDesignReview09-033toinstalland operateawirelesstelecommunicationsfacility consistingof:two(2)flagpoleswithaheightofforty (40)feet;one(1)flagpolewithaheightofforty-three (43)feet;and,undergroundequipmentlocatedwithin thelandscapedcircleintheparkinglotofCedar GroveParklocatedat11385PioneerRoad. 25