HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 CUP 99-012DR 99-017 05-01-00DATE'
MAY 1, 2000
TO:
FROM'
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-012 & DESIGN REVIEW 99-017
SUMMARY: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-012 and Design Review (DR) 99-017 are requests to
establish a 60foot tall major wireless communications facility (Jgtonopine) behind the Snapple building
at 15201 Woodlawn Avenue within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan areca On March 27, 2000, the
Planning Commission approved CUP 99-012 and DR 99-017. On April 3, 2000, the Council appealed
the Planning Commission's decisiota
Applicant: Saundra Jacobs, SBA Ina for Sprint PCS
Property Owner: David French, Snapple
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant paid the application fees associated with the processing of these permits.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval to establish a major wireless communications
facility for the company's cellular communication network. The facility is proposed to be
a sixty (60) foot high structure located on the west side of the Snapple building at 15201
Woodlawn Avenue. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9276, any ground-mounted
wireless communication facility located outside the public right-of-way is considered a
major facility and subject to Planning Commission review and approval of a Conditional
Use Permit.
On March 13, 2000 and March 27, 2000, the Planning Commission considered this
application. Two alternatives were considered which are visually represented in the
photo simulations (Attachment A). Alternative 1 is the applicant's preferred project
which is a sixty (60) foot tall unipole. Alternative 2 disguises the monopole as a palm
tree or pine tree with a cluster of mature trees around the facility.
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 99-012 and DR 99-017
May 1, 2000
Page 2
At the March 13, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to return on
March 27, 2000 with a Resolution No. 3714 (Attachment B) approving the monopine.
The Planning Commission determined that the monopole disguised as a pine tree with
mature trees, such as eucalyptus, planted around the facility would provide the most
mitigation to reduce the potential visual impacts. A copy of the staff reports and minutes
for the March 13 and March 27, 2000 meetings are included in Attachments C and D.
On April 13, 2000 the applicant sent a letter requesting that the City Council consider a
modification to Resolution No. 3714 Condition 1.11 which pertains to the property
maintenance of the site (Attachment E). The applicant prefers to clean up the property
at the time of construction rather than before the issuance of the building permit. This
condition was added because of a lack of property maintenance.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The 60 foot high monopine would be situated approximately eleven (11) feet west of the
rear building wall and fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line (Attachment F). The
facility would be-800 feet west of the Woodlawn Avenue right-of-way. The maximum
height allowed in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area is 50 feet. However, TCC
Section 9276(I) allows consideration of wireless facilities that exceed the maximum
height permitted within a zoning district by up to ten (10) feet. The 615 square foot
equipment area necessary for facility operation would be located at the base of the
monopole. As a condition of approval, the Planning Commission included a requirement
that the applicant construct a six (6) foot eight (8) inch tall block wall enclosure around
the wireless facility to prevent unauthorized access and visibility from any surrounding
sites or public right-of-ways.
Project Site Characteristics
The site is located within the "Technology Center" zoning district of the Pacific Center
East Specific Plan which provides for general research and development, light
industrial, and accessory offiCe and commercial uses. Surrounding uses include a
vacant parcel, Del Amo Avenue and the SR-55 Freeway to the west and commercial
and office uses to the east, north and south (Attachment G). There are no other major
wireless communication facilities in the immediate vicinity. On April 10, 2000 the
Planning Commission denied a request for a major wireless communication facility
(Unipole) 1,800 linear feet from this facility at 1421 Edinger Avenue.
Tustin City Code Section 9276 includes development criteria related to screening, site
selection and Iocational criteria for wireless communications facilities. The Screening
Criteria and Guidelines require that:
Facilities be located in areas that minimize their intrusion on the surrounding
community.
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 99-0,12 and DR 99-017
May 1,2000
Page 3
Ground-mounted facilities should only be located in prOximity to existing above
ground utilities, such as electrical towers or utility poles.
Facilities b'e primarily located on existing structures; and secondarily located
where existing topography, vegetation, or other structures provide the greatest
screening.
In addition., the Site Selection Order of Preference within the guidelines requires that:
1) Wireless communication facilities shall be located
preference:
in the following order of
a)
On existing struCtures such as buildings, communication towers, church
steeples and freestanding signs.
b)
In locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other
structures provide the greatest amount of screening.
c)
On vacant ground without significant visual mitigation only in commercial
and industrial districts.
2)
Applicants must provide written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort
in locating facilities in accordance with the Site SeleCtion Order of Preference.
The proposed monopole is located where there are no other structures, utilities, or pine
trees of comparable heights in the immediate vicinity. Although the facility was
approved as a monopine within a cluster of living trees, the photographic simulations
(Attachment A) demonstrate that the location and height of the proposed monopine, in
contrast with the lack of adjacent buildings or vegetation of similar heights, will be highly
visible. Even if disguised as a pine' tree and surrounded by living trees, it may be
observable that it is a wireless communications facility.
Site Selection Justification
Attachment H contains the applicant's rationale for the proposed facility and documents
their efforts to comply with the Site Selection Order of Preference for wireless
communication facilities (TCC Section 9276). The proposed project location is desired
by the applicant to provide better coverage for users living or working in the surrounding
area and to mobile users traveling the SR-55 Freeway and nearby roadways. The
coverage in this area is currently Weak and the applicant has received complaints of
dropped calls from customers.
Attachment I contains the applicant's radio frequency analysis of the proposed facility,
Based on the analysis, the antennas need to be mounted at a height of 57 feet and 11
inches to achieve optimal signals. Map 3 shows the signal strength, or coverage, of a
City Council Repod
AppealofCUP 99-012 and DR 99-017
May 1,2000
Page 4
sixty (60) foot tall facility and Map 4 shows the coverage of a forty-five (45) foot tall
facility. The taller facility would provide more "In Building" coverage than the shorter
facility (shown in green on the maps). The "In Vehicle" coverage (shown in yellow) does
not differ widely between the two heights. According to the applicant, the 60 foot facility
would provide the most efficient coverage for the area. Given the average thirty (30) foot
height of buildings within the project vicinity, one building mounted facility would not
provide sufficient coverage. However, two or more building-mounted facilities could
provide sufficient coverage. Based on the applicant's information, this alternative has not
been examined and, therefore, does not meet the intent of the Ordinance which requires
the applicant to provide written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort in locating
facilities in accordance with the Site Selection Order of Preference.
Overconcentration and Visual Intrusion
The information provided within the radio frequency analysis (Attachment I), illustrates that
the sixty (60) foot wireless facility would not provide complete coverage for the service
area which may require this operator to add future sites in the area when the coverage in
the area becomes unsatisfactory. Other cellular providers could also locate major facilities
every 100 lineal feet in accordance with Tustin City Code 9276. Proliferation of these
facilities could create an. overconcentration within the area.
The monopole will be visible from Valencia, Del Amo Avenue and the SR-55 freeway due
to lack of screening, buildings or landscaping in the surrounding area. The site which is
located adjacent to a undeveloped lot, creates a potential impact on future development
that can not be foreseen. Disguising the facility as a pine tree will reduce, but not
eliminate, the visual impacts of the facility. In contrast, stealth facilities that are building
mounted present minimal visual impacts. The alternatives'to a monopole facility at this
location, such as one or more building mounted facilities, have not been exhausted by the
applicant.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires local govemments to act expeditiously,
avoid preferential treatment between carriers, and not preclude any wireless antennas on
the grounds of the radio frequency emissions. The Act allows local governments to
regulate the location and screening of a facility to reduce aesthetic impacts. However, the
Act requires that local government decisions to deny a request to place, construct or
modify a facility be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the
wdtten record. The evidence needs to be presented for each facility on a case by case
basis; undocumented refusals to grant permit applications are 'nOt allowed under the Act.
If the Council directs staff to prepare a resolution of denial, findings must be made that are
specific to this site and application.
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 99-012 and DR 99-017
May 1, 2000
Page 5
CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES
The following options are available to the City Council'
,
Affirm the Planning Commission's decision and direct staff to prepare a resolution
of approval.
2. ,. /~irect staff to. pr,~are a resolution of denial with appropriate findings.
Lor~ A. II~udi L~' I Elizabeth A. Binsack
Associate Planner Community Development Director
s:ccrept/cup99-012appeal.doc
Attachment:
Ae
B-
C-
D-
E- '
F-
G-
H-
I-
Photo-simulations of Unipole, Monopalm and Monopine
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3714
March 13, 2000 and March 27, 2000 Planning Commission Reports
March 13, 2000 and March 27, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter from applicant, dated April 13, 2000
Submitted Plans
Location Map
Site Selection Justification from Applicant
Radio Frequency Analysis
ATTACHMENT A
Photo-simulations of Unipole, Monopalm and Monopine
~o~o
Z
Z
·
-r
Z
Z
ATTACHMENT B
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3714
]0
22
23
24
27
RESOLUTION NO. 3714
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-012,
AND DESIGN REVIEW 99-017 AUTHORIZING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF MAJOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITY AT 15201 WOODLAWN AVENUE.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 99-012 and
Design Review 99-017 was filed by Sprint PCS to establish a major
wireless communications facility sixty feet in height with six antenna
panels fifty-six (56)inches in length on the property located at 15201
Woodlawn Avenue.
Bo
That the proposed facility is consistent with the requirements of
Tustin City Code Section 9276 et seq., relating to wireless
communications facilities.
Co
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on February 14, 2000, and continued to the February 28
and March 13, 2000 meetings of the Planning Commission.
D°
That installation, operation, ' and maintenance of a major wireless
communication facility, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the
health, safety,, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be
injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the
neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the
City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings:
1)
As conditioned, the proposed facility would not be detrimental
to, or have a negative effect on, surrounding properties in that
it would appear to be a tree set within the "Technology Center"
zoning district of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which
provides for general research and development, light industrial
and accessory office and commercial uses. A monopole
constructed as an artificial tree within a cluster of trees at this
location is consistent with the second and third site selection
order of. preference in Tustin City Code Section
12
13
15
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Resolution No. 3714
Page 2
Bo
2)
3)
9276(F)(2)(a)(3) which identifies placement where vegetation
would provide screenings and in commercial and industrial
zones, in addition, consistent with the iocational guidelines in
TCC Section 9276(H), the facility would not be located within
100 feet of any existing, legally established major wireless
communication facility nor within 300 feet of residentially
zoned or used property.
As conditioned, the proposed facility would not be detrimental
to, or have a negative effect on, surrounding properties in that
the facility would appear to be a tree and would be'located in
close proximity to living trees of comparable heights consistent
with the screening guidelines of Tustin City Code Section
9276(F)(1).
As conditioned, the use of a portion of the project site for the
facility would not impair, the operations of the existing use.
The facility would be unattended and not necessitate use of
required parking spaces nor generate significant traffic in the
neighborhood.
4)
As conditioned, co-location of the facility shall be required for
other carriers at a fair market rate to avoid an infiltration of
additional major wireless communication facilities within one
hundred (100)feet of the facility.
Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the
Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and
general appearance of the proposed facility would not impair the
orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or
future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making
such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following
items:
·
o
,
Height, bulk and area of buildings.
Setbacks and site planning.
Physical relationship'of proposed improvements to existing
structures in the neighborhood. '
Appearance and design relationship of proposed
improvements to existing structures and possible future
structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares.
Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City
Council.
!9
2O
"5
Resolution No. 3714
Page 3
F,
This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303,
Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Go
That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air
Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been
determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element.
11.
The Planning Commission h'ereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 9.¢-
012 and Design Review 9~-017 authorizing establishment of a major
wireless communication facility sixty (60) feet in height with six (6) antenna
panels fifty-six (56)inches in length at 15201 Woodlawn Avenue, subject to
the Conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a
regular meeting on the 27th day of March, 2000.
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY.OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, 'ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California;
that Resolution No. 3714 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27th day of March, 2000.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 99-012 AND DR 99-017.
MARCH 27, 2000
GENERAL
(1) 1.2
(1) 1.3
(1) 1.5
(1) 1.6
(1) 1.7
The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for
the project date stamped March 27, 2000, on file with the Community
Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director
of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit.
The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent
minor modification to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be
consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code.
_ .
Project approval shall become null and void unless building permits are
issued within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit.
The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed
form prior to the issuance of any permits.
All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
any building permits for this project, subject to review and approval of plans
by the Community Development Department.
Any public improvements damaged' by the applicant adjacent to this project
shall be repaired and/or replaced by the applicant as determined by the
Engineering Division and shall include but not be limited to curb, gutter,
street paving and drive apron.
Design Review approval shall be reviewed by the Community Development
Director on or about March 27, 2005 and every five (5) years thereafter or
sooner if deemed appropriate. The Director may recommend to the City
Council modification to the existing conditions and facility including lowering
or.requiring a building mounted facility or impose new conditions as part of
such review to protect the public health, safety, community aesthetics and
general welfare.
The-applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from ali
claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this
project.
SOURCE CODES
(2)
(3)
(4)
STANDARD CONDITION
CEQA MITIGATION
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S
DESIGN REVIEW
EXCEPTIONS
(5)
(7)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
EQUIREMENTS
LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
PC/CC POLICY
Exhibit A- Resolution
Conditions of Approval
CUP 99-012, DR 99-017
Page 2
'14
(1) 1.8
(1) 1.9
(1) 1.11
PLAN SUBM
Except as otherwise stated in Condition 1.2, Design Review approval shall
remain valid for a period not to exceed the term of the lease on the subject
property, including any extension thereof. A copy of said lease shall be
submitted to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any
permits. If the lease is extended or terminated, notice and evidence thereof
shall be provided to. the Community Development Director. Upon
termination or expiration of the lease, the facilities shall be removed from the
subject property.
To prevent overconcentration of monopole structures, future wireless
communication facilities proposed by Sprint south of the I-5 Freeway and
east of the SR-55 Freeway within the City of Tustin shall be limited to
building mounted facilities which are integrated into the architecture of the
host buildings. The applicant shall submit a master plan of the for the area
south of the I-5 Freeway and SR-55 Freeway to the Community
Development Department demonstrating that building mounted facilities
could be developed to eliminate existing or future gaps in service.
The applicant shall be required to accommodate additional carriers that
request to co-lOcate on the facility at a lease that is at a fair market rate.
The owner shall bring the property into compliance with the City's Property
Maintenance Ordinance prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said
property shall be maintained in a manner to ensure compliance with the
Property Maintenance Ordinance.
ITFAL
(1) 2.1
(1) 2.2
At building permit plan check, the applicant shall submit three (3) complete
sets of architectural, electrical and mechanical plans with the necessary
structural calculations, specifications and details complying with the Uniform
Building Code, other related Codes, City Ordinances an.d State and Federal
Laws and regulations. The structural calculations and specifications shall be
prepared by a California registered civil or structural engineer. The
engineer's license number and license expiration date shall be indicated on
the report.
All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall complY with the city of
Tustin Grading Manual. All street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
lighting and storm drains shall comply with on-site improvement standards.
Any deviations shall be brought to the attention Of the Building Official and
request for approval Shall be submitted in writing prior to any approval.
Exhibit A- Resolution No.
Conditions of Approval
CUP 99-012, DR 99-017
Page 3
,4
(6) 2.3
At building plan check, the applicant shall submit three (3) sets of
landscaping and, irrigation plans identifying the existing and Proposed
landscaping, planting details, soils report and modifications to the existing
irrigation system. The plan shall be prepared consistent with the City's
landscaping and irrigation guidelines.
USE RESTRICTIONS
(4) 3.1
The wireless facility shall be disguised as a pine tree no more than sixty (60)
feet in height with a round trunk with artificial bark and full branching from the
top of the pole to the ground. A total of six (6) living trees of a variety of
·
species shall be installed' in close proximity and height to the monopole tree
· structure subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department. If sufficient space is not available for installation of 'one
monopole .structure and six (6) living trees, the applicant shall request
approval of revised plans from the Planning Commission.
(4)
3.2
The number and dimensions' of the antenna sectors shall be limited to six (6)
panels fifty-six (56)inches in length as shown on the approved plans. The
location and configuration of the facility shall be restricted to the location and
configuration shown on the approved plans.
3.3
The artificial tree/monopole structure shall be maintained in good condition.
if the condition of the structure serves to lessen the visual mitigation of the
communication facility as an artificial tree, the Director may require that the
structure be refurbished within thirty (30) days of notification from the
Community Development Department.
3.4
The condition' of the living trees shall be monitored by the Community
Development Department. if the height, style or condition of the trees
serves to lessen the visual mitigation of the communication facility, the
Director may require that the trees be trimmed, altered, moved or replaced
within thirty (30) days of notification from the Community Development
Department to enSure that the facility will be screened by healthy trees of-
comparable heights.
3.5
Maintenance and pruning of the live trees shall comply with the International
Society of Arborculture (ISA) pruning practices.
(4)
3.6
A six (6) foot eight (8) inch tall block wall enclosure shall be .installed around
the wireless facility to prevent unauthorized access and visibility from any
surrounding sites or public right-of-ways, subject to final approval of the
Community Development Director. Access into the facility shall not encroach
over any property line.
Exhibit A- Resolution N~.
Conditions of Approval
CUP 99-012, DR 99-017
Page 4
,14
*** 3.7
NOISE
(1)
FEES
4.1
(1) 5.1
The applicant shall prepare a preliminary report within 90 days of completion
of the project demonstrating conformance with national standards for safe
human exposure to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency installation.
Said report shall be submitted to the Community DeveloPment Director.
All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the
provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, as amended, and may take
place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless the Building Official
determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the
Noise Ordinance and that public health and safety will' not be impaired
subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is
awarded or during progress of the work.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all
applicable fees, including but not limited to' the following. Payment shall be
required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are
subject to change.
Ac
Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development
Department based on the most current schedule.
B,
Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the
applicant shall deliver to the Community DeveloPment Department, a
cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of
$38.00 (thirty-eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate
environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight
(48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community
Development Department the above-noted check, the statute, of
limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental
determination under the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act could be' significantly lengthened.
ATTACHMENT C
March 13, 2000 and March 27, 2000
Planning Commission Reports
Report to the
Planning Commission
DATE'
MARCH 13, 2000
SUBJECT:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-012 AND
DESIGN REVIEW 99-017
APPLICANTS:
SAUNDRA JACOBS
SBA, INC.
3151 AIRWAY AVE., STE. #L3
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
SPRINT PCS
4683 CHABOT DRIVE
SUITE 100
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PROPERTY
OWNER:
DAVID FRENCH
SNAPPLE
15201 WOODLAWN AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92780
LOCATION:
15201 WOODLAWN AVENUE
ZONING:
pACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN
(TECHNOLOGY CENTER)
ENVIRONMENTAL-
STATUS: APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WOULD BE CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; DENIAL OF
THIS PROJECT WOULD BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION
15270 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHICH STATES THAT CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS
REJECTED OR DISAPPROVED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY
REQUEST:
AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A MAJOR WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval to establish a major wireless communication facility
for the Sprint PCS cellular communication network. The proposed facility is comprised
of a unipole sixty (60) feet in height and related equipment located on the west (rear)
side of an existing single story building. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9276, any
ground-mounted wireless communications facility located outside the public right-of-way
Planning Commission Repo,
CUP 99-012 & DR 99-017
March 13, 2000
Page 2
is considered a major facility subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission.
Tustin City Code Section 9276 includes development regulations related to screening
and site selection for wireless communications facilities. The screening regulations
require that facilities be located in areas that minimize their intrusion on the surrounding
community. Ground-mounted facilities should only be located in close proximity to
existing above ground utilities, such as electrical towers or utility poles. In addition, the
site selection order of preference identifies that wireless facilities be primarily located on
existing structures or secondarily be located where existing topography, vegetation, or
other structures provide the greatest screening. As a last choice, facilities should be
located on vacant ground without significant visual mitigation only in commercial and
industrial districts. Further, the site selection criteria require applicants to provide
written documentatien demonstrating a good faith effort in locating facilities in
accordance with the site selection order of preference.
The project site is located within the "Technology Center" zoning district of the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan which provides for general research and development, light
industrial, and accessory office and commercial uses. Surrounding uses include a
vacant parcel, Del Amo Avenue ~nd the SR-55 Freeway to the west and commercial
and office uses to the east, north and south (see Location Map - Attachment A). There
are no other major wireless communication facilities in the immediate vicinity.
Project Description
The facility is proposed to be located on the west side (rear) of a building occupied by
Snapple. The monopole would be situated approximately eleven (11) feet west of the
rear building wall and fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line (see Submitted Plans -
Attachment B). The facility would be 800 feet west of the Woodlawn Avenue right-of-
way. The sixty (60) foot tall unipole would accomodate six (6), 56 inch long vertically.
attached antenna panels. The maximum height allowed in the Pacific Center. East
Specific Plan area is 50 feet. However, TCC Section. 9276(I) allows consideratiOn of
wireless facilities that exceed the maximum height permitted within a zoning district by
up to ten (10) feet. The equipment necessary for operation of the facility would be
located at the base of the monopole in a 615 square foot lease area. The applicant
proposes to use a'portion of the existing' eight (8) foot high chain link fence along the
property line and new sections of eight (8) foot chain link fencing to enclose the
monopole and equipment. Access to this area would be provided by a new gate in the
existing chain link fence which would require access from the railroad right-of-way.
Site Selection Justification
Attachment C contains the applicant's rationale for the proposed facility and documents
their efforts to comply with the Site Selection Order of Preference for wireless
communication facilities (TCC Section 9276). The proposed project location is desired
by the applicant to provide better coverage for users living or working in the surrounding
area and to mobile users traveling the SR-55 Freeway and nearby roadways. The
Planning Commission Re[.
CUP 99-012 & DR 99-017
March 13, 2000
Page 3
coverage in this area is currently weak and the applicant has received complaints of
dropped calls from customers.
Attachment D contains the applicant's radio frequency analysis of the proposed facility.
Based on the analysis, the antennas need to be mounted at a height of 57 feet and 11
inches to achieve optimal signals. Map 3 shows the signal strength, or coverage, of a
sixty (60) foot tall facility and Map 4 shows the coverage of a forty-five (45) foot tall
facility. The taller facility would provide more. "In Building" coverage than the shorter
facility (shown in green on the maps). The "In Vehicle". coverage (shown in yellow) does
not differ widely between the two heights. According to the applicant, the 60 foot facility
would provide the most efficient coverage for the area. Given the average thirty (30) foot
height of buildings within the project vicinity, one building mounted facility would not
provide sufficient coverage. Although two or more building-mounted facilities could
provide sufficient coverage, the applicant wishes to pursue one ground mounted facility
since it would be more cost effective.
Project Alternatives
The unipole shown in the submitted plans (Attachment B) is the applicant's preferred
project (Alternal!ive 1). However, the applicant has also provided altemative photOgraphic
rendersings that would disguise the facility as a palm or pine tree within a cluster of shorter
trees for the Planning Commission's consideration (Alternative 2). The height of the
cluster of trees would need to be maintained below the antennas to prevent interference
caused by the leaves. Attachment E includes photographic renderings of the unipole,
monopaim and monopine alternatives from five vantage points: 1) the view facing east on
Del Arno Avenue (which would also be the same view from the SR-55 Freeway); 2) the
view facing north from Valencia Avenue; 3) the view facing west from Santa Fe Drive and
Woodlawn Avenue intersection; 4) the view facing south from the adjacent parking lot; 5)
the view facing sOuthwest from Woodlawn Avenue. These five perspectives provide the
most common views of the proposed alternative facilities from the public right-of-way.
DISCUSSION
For wireless communication systems to provide sufficient service,'a number of facilities
must be located within a service area and mounted above the ground to overcome
topographic constraints. As a result, the primary issues associated with wireless
communications facilities are the potential for overconcentration and visual intrusion. The
proposed facility would be visible from public view on Valencia and Del Arno Avenue right-
of-ways and the SR-55 Freeway. GiVen the pOtential adverse visual intrusion of a unipole
facility, staff does not support the proposed unipole (Alternative 1). However, a stealth
facility constructed as a monopalm or monopine located in a cluster of trees (Alternative 2)
may be lesS visually intrusive.
Altemative 1
The proposed unipole is the applicant's preferred alternative, however, it is located
where there are no other structures, utilities, or trees of comparable heights in the
Planning Commission Rep(.
CUP 99-012 & DR 99-017
March 13, 2000
Page 4
immediate vicinity. Other wireless facilities in the general vicinity are more effeCtive at
minimizing their visual impact to the general public. Examples include:
1671 El Camino Real:
A tower element on the Key Inn was increased to 47
feet in height to provide sufficient coverage while
disguising the facility as a part of the building.
600 W. 6th Street:
550 W. 6th Street:
The 60 foot tall monopole facility is surrounded by a
number of trees that are the same height as the
facility which diverts attention from the monopole.
The 60 foot tall monopole facility is designed as a
palm tree. To camouflage the facility, several live
palm trees of similar heights are planted around the
facility. The equipment at the base is enclosed within
the adjacent self storage building to screen it from
public view.
2721 Michelle Drive:
The 60 foot tall monopole facility is located behind a
eucalyptus tree' of a comparable height to the facility,
thus screening if from view along the Santa Ana (I-5)
Freeway.
36 Auto Center Drive:
The 60 foot tall monopole facility at the Tustin Ranch
Road/l-5 Freeway interchange is surrounded by light
standards of similar heights.
SR-22 Freeway/Main Street:
The monopole at the Main Street/Glassell Street
interchange is designed as a palm tree. To
camouflage the facility, several live palm trees of
similar heights are planted around the facility. The
equipment at the base is screened by hedgerows
along the freeway on-ramp.
I-5 Freeway/Culver Drive:
On the east side of the freeway, a tower that
duplicates the design theme of the adjacent office
building houses a stealth facility.
I-5 Freeway/3effrey Road:
A monopole facility is situated in front of a row of tall
Eucalyptus trees and is visible from the freeway.
However, the monople is painted forest green and
effectively blends into the row of trees.
Unlike these examples, the proposed unipole would be visible from Valencia, Del Amo
Avenue, and the SR-55 Freeway due to the lack of screening materials, buildings, or
landscaping. The photographic renderings demonstrate that the height of the proposed
unipole in contrast with the lack of adjacent buildings or vegetation of similar heights
Planning Commission Rep¢
CUP 99-012 & DR 99-017
March 13, 2000
Page 5
would have a negative visual impact. The potential visual intrusion of the unipole is not
consistent with the screening requirements for wireless communication facilities and
would be a detriment to the surrounding area.
Altemative 2
The applicant has provided two altematives to the preferred unipole to minimize the visual
impact of the facility; 1) a grouping of a monopalm and two palm trees; and 2) a grouping
of a monopine and two pine trees (Attachment E). Staff recommends consideration of the
following modifications to these alternatives:
A.
The monopalm facility could be clustered with two living trees on each side
of the facility (total of five trees). The trees should be the same type of palm
tree as the wireless facility and.approximately the same height as the facility
at the time of planting.
Bo
The monopine facility could be clustered with two artificial pine trees and two
living trees of a different species such as eucalyptus trees. Installation of
mature living pine trees would not be feasible given the limited amount of
space and the large root system of mature pine trees. The artificial trees
should simulate the same type of pine trees as the wireless facility and be of
a similar height with branching to the ground. Two additional living trees
would unify the appearance of the simulated and living vegetation.
'C.
The monopalm or monopine facility could also be clustered with a variety of
living tree species (total of four living trees). Eucalyptus trees thrive in a
limited amount of space and achieve heights comparable to the proposed
facility.
If the Planning Commission is inclined to approve one of these altematives (A, B, or C),.
staff recommends the following conditions of approval in Resolution No. 3714:
Condition No. 1.9:
This condition would ensure that any future facilities south of
the I-5 and east of SR-55 would be building mounted rather
than ground mounted. The intent of this condition is to prevent
overconcentration of monopoles and encourage building
mounted facilities. The applicant would be required to submit
a master plan to the Community Development Department
demonstrating that building mounted facilities could be
developed to eliminate existing or future gaps in service.
Condition No. 3.1:
This condition is presented in three different versions to reflect
the three options (A, B, or C) outlined above for the Planning
Commission's consideration. In addition, this condition would
ensure that the trees intended to screen the facility could be
successfully integrated into the construction level plans (see-
Attachment F for conceptual site plans). The applicant has
Planning Commission Rep¢
CUP 99-012 & DR 99o017
March 13, 2000
Page 6
Condition 3.3'
Conditions 3.4 and 3.5:
Condition No. 3.6:
indicated to staff that additional lease space could be obtained
if the leased area does not provide the necessary space for a
cluster of trees. If sufficient space for the facility and a cluster
of mature trees cannot be provided, the applicant would be
required to seek Planning Commission approval of any
modification to the plans.
This condition would require the applicant to maintain the
artificial tree/monopole structure in good condition so that it
continues to resemble a tree.
These conditions would ensure that the trees that provide
screening of the facility are maintained in a healthy condition
and pruned in a manner which follows the International
Society of Arborculture (ISA) pruning practices.
This condition would require a six (6) foot eight (8)inch tall
block wall instead of chain link fencing for the equipment
enclosure. This would enhance the .appearance of the facility
and screen equipment from view. In addition, the condition
would require the applicant to take access to the facility from
the same property where the facility is located rather than the
adjacent railroad right-of-way. ,~
Resolution No. 3714 denying Alternative 1 and Resolution No. 3714 approving
Alternative 2 are included as Attachments G and H for the Planning Commission's
consideration.
Associate Planner
Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
s:pcreptlcup99--012.doc
Attachments:
A - Location Map
B - Submitted Plans
C - Applicant's Site Selection Justification
D - Radio Frequency Analysis
E - Photographic Renderings of Unipo, le, Monopalm, and Monopine
F - Conceptual Site Plans Illustrating Cluster of Trees
G - Resolution No. 3714 -Altemative #1
H - Resolution No. 3714 - Alternative #2
i
Report to the
Planning Commission
DATE:
MARCH 27, 2000
SUBJECT:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-012 AND
DESIGN REVIEW 99-017
APPLICANTS:
SAUNDRA JACOBS
SBA, INC.
3151 AIRWAY AVE., STE. #L3
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
SPRINT PCS'
4683 CHABOT DRIVE
SUITE 100
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PROPERTY
OWNER:
DAVID FRENCH
SNAPPLE
15201 WOODLAWN AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92780
LOCATION:
15201 WOODLAWN AVENUE
ZONING:
PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN
(TECHNOLOGY CENTER)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WOULD BE CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; DENIAL OF
THIS PROJECT WOULD BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION
15270 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHICH STATES THAT CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS
REJECTED OR DISAPPROVED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY
REQUEST:
AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A MAJOR WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 3714 approving the construction ofa monopine 60 feet in height.
BACKGROUND
At the March 1.3, 2000 meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to revise
Resolution 3714 approving a sixty (60) foot tall monopine major wireless communication
facility. The modifications made to Resolution 3714 include the following:
Planning Commission Rep(
CUP 99-012 & DR 99-017
March 27, 2000
Page 2
Condition 1.6 has been modified to include a review of the Conditional Use Permit
by the Community Development Director every five (5) years.
Condition 1.10 has been added to mandate co-location of the facility by additional
carriers. Finding No. 4 has also been added, which states that mandating co-
location of the facility would avoid infiltration of additional major wireless
communication facilities within the surrounding area.
Condition 3.1 has been modified to identify that a sixty (60) foot tall monopine shall be
located on the subject site with a cluster of six (6) additional live mature trees planted in
the leased area and the monopine shall have a round trunk with artificial bark and full
branching from top to bottom.
Associate Planner
s:pcrept/~apg~012resocont..doc
Attachment A: Resolution No. 3714
Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT D
March, 2000 and March 27, 2000
·
Planning Commission Minutes
MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 13, 2000
CALL TO ORDER:
7:01 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Davert
ROLL CALL:
PROCLAMATION'
Chairperson Kozak, Bell, Davert, Kawashima and Pontious
Presented to Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary, as she leaves
service for the City of Tustin.
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
No Public Concems were expressed.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of the February 28.2000 Planning Commission Meetina.
Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Kawashima, to approve the Consent
Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
e
Conditional Use Permit 00-004 a request to establish a contractor's office in an
existing office building. The' project is located at 275 Centennial Way, Suite 211,
within the First Street Specific Plan zoning district.
APPLICANT:
ORANGE COUNTY CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE
PROPERTY OWNER: LARWIN. SQUARE, LLC.
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3716 approving Conditional
Use Permit 00-004.
The public hearing opened at 7:08 p.m.
Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner presented the subject report.
Planning Commission
March 13, 2000
Page 2
· ~es
e
The public hearing closed at 7:10 p.m.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Bell seconded,
Resolution No. 3716 approving Conditional Use Permit 00-004.
carried 5-0.
to adopt
Motion
Conditional Use Permit 99-012 And Design Review 99-017 a request to
construct a major wireless communication facility. The project is located at 15201
Woodlawn Avenue within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (Technology
Center) zoning district.
APPLICANT:
SPRINT PCS
PROPERTY
OWNER:
DAVID FRENCH
SNAPPLE
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the Planning Commission.
The public hearing opened at 7:11 p.m.
Lori LUdi presented the subject report.
Commissioner Davert aSked staff if the applicant could make do with a monopole of less
than 60 feet and still have reasonably good coverage. ·
Lori Ludi replied that the radio frequency analysis indicated that 45 feet would be
sufficient for vehicular use but not for use within a building and a 60 foot facility may leave
gaps in coverage.
Commissioner Davert asked if the applicant anticipated another structure.
Lori referred that question to the applicant.
Commissioner Davert noted that there are a number of buildings taller than the Snapple
building and asked staff's opinion on the feasibility of using the Orange County Teachers
Credit Union building for a roof mounted antenna.
The Director responded that staff believes it would be possible and the applicant has not
provided justification that it cannot be done and further noted other sites that use signs
and relatively high buildings to accommodate cell sites.
Chairperson Kozak stated that the Micro Center sign would be an excellent site.
Planning Commission M~,,.,,es
March 13, 2000
Page 3
Commissioner Davert stated that with the upcoming Tustin Legacy project he would like
to see other options explored before committing to a 61) foot monopole.
Commissioner Kawashima asked what the height restriction is for the Pacific Center East.
The Director stated that the maximum height permitted in this district is 50 feet for
buildings which is why an additional 10 feet for clearance was incorporated in the wireless
ordinance.
Commissioner Davert asked if two or more building mounts would provide the same
coverage.
Karen Peterson noted that the applicant's justification letter states that any antenna
height of leSs than 60 feet may require the placement of two antenna locations to cover
.the signal requirements for the area.
Commissioner Davert stated that the Planning Commission could suggest two well-
screened antennae as opposed to one monopalm.
The Director responded that the COmmission could request that and noted that several
other carriers' have done that. She further noted that the ordinance incorporated approval
of stealth facilities at the Zoning Administrator level for ease of development.
Chairperson Kozak noted that the Commission has to take potential developments at
Tustin Legacy into consideration.
. Saundra Jacobs,' Sprint representative, thanked Lori Ludi and Karen Peterson for their
hard work and assistance through the application process. She stated that the proposed
antenna is in response to very poor cellular coverage in the area of the 55 freeway,
Redhill and Edinger Avenue. She noted that Sprint reviewed several potential site
candidates and chose this property owner because he was a willing lessor, agreed to the
lease rate that Sprint budgeted for, and lastly there is enough physical space for the
equipment. She asked for the Commission to approve a standard antenna because it is
conducive to co-location and the tree poles are not conducive to collocation. She
thanked the Planning Commission for their time. -
Chairperson Kozak stated his appreciation for comments regarding alternatives and
stated his preference for a multiple building alternative.
Saundra Jacobs, Sprint representative, stated that the site acquisition personnel looked
at various buildings in the area and this was the best alternative.
Chairperson Kozak asked the applicant for assistance in reading the graphical depictions
of coverage and drop areas.
Kathleen Abola, radio frequency engineer for Sprint, stated that map 1 shows the current
cell sites and green and yellow is vehicle coverage level; map 2 shows the same area
Planning Commission,
March 13, 2000
Page 4
with two additional cell sites that are being added to show what they will cover; map 3
shows the same area with the requested at 60 feet; and map 4 shows the same area with
the facility at 45 feet. She noted that the system is very dynamic and coverage changes
according to how many people are using their phones. She further noted that if the pole
is approved for only 45 feet, the coverage gets smaller and the site would have to be
revisited.
Commissioner Davert asked staff how much the FCC limits what the City can do.
The Director stated that the City may not ban the technology they are proposing which is
why the ordinance identifies site location criteria..The City does have the discretion to
regulate location and what the facility looks like. She further noted that five years ago it
was not possible to do a monopalm or building mounted, otherwise monopoles would be
located throughout the community.
Commissioner Pontious stated that she cannot support a monopole and believes it is
unfortunate that. once an acceptable location was found, the applicant did not review
alternative mounting locations. She further stated that she would be more inclined to
approve a monopine since there have been problems with keeping the palm trees alive in
other locations.
Chairperson Kozak asked Commissioner Pontious if her recommendation would be for 60
feet or lower.
Commissioner Pontious responded that she is willing to approve the 60 foot proposal
because of the possibility of having more poles at the 45 foot height.
Commissioner Davert stated his first preference would be something that is building
mounted but noted that he does find the applicant's justification compelling: He stated he
is very concerned about the impact on surrounding community particularly with the Tustin
Legacy project. He stated that he would be willing to approve a monopalm with a round
trunk. He further noted that the project site has rusty fumiture and garbage all over and
asked if the property owner could be encouraged to clean up the site.
Commissioner Bell stated that she would also prefer a roof mounted facility but given the
choice between a palm or a pine she feels the pine blends in better with the existing
landscaping. She also encouraged the applicant to look at other locations.
Commissioner Kawashima stated he would be willing to approve a monopine at 60 feet.
The Director stated that she believed the applicant did not explore the possibility of a 45
foot screen on top of a 30 foot building but staff would not likely recommend approval.
Commissioner Davert noted that, to be fair to the applicant, this was the one property
owner they were able to come to terms with.
Planning Commission Mi~,~,,es
March 13, 2000
Page 5
Seline (incomprehendable), a representative from Sprint, noted that the search for
buildings is left to the site acquisition personnel to negotiate with landlords who are
responsive to their needs. He further stated that it is not a case of not investigating other
sites since the search has been going on for a year and they have been looking in that
area extensively. He noted that there are technical restrictions in terms of power loss and
requirements for this type of equipment.
Chairperson Kozak stated that he did not see the difference in the cable run for a 60 foot
above ground antenna and a 30 foot building because it is still 60 feet above ground
level.
Seline (incomprehendible) stated that the underground structural engineers would not
approve an extension at a maximum 50 feet above roof line even if the landlord was
willing.
Commissioner Davert asked if the applicant would be lowering antennas in the future.
Seline stated that they probably wouldn't lower antennae but adjust specific antennae.
Commissioner Davert asked staff aboUt the conditions that would limit the applicant.
The Director noted that Condition 1.6.would allow her to re-reView the project in 2005 in
the event that technology exists to bring down the height but would require Council
approval; Condition 1.9 would limit the overconcentration of their facilities in this area
which would mandate a building mounted facility in the future; and, she noted that other
carriers' technology may allow them to collocate on stealth facilities' and a condition could
be included that would mandate that at a fair.market rate.
Commissioner Pontious asked if Condition 1.6 could be amended to indicate review every
five years after.
The Director stated that the condition could be modified as such.
Chairperson Kozak asked staff if they had any information about future development
plans for the vacant property between the Snapple building and Del Amo.
The Director responded that City is undertaking the development of the Newport Avenue
extension and the reconfiguration of the offramps in that area. As part of the public
improvements, the undergrounding of Edison trunklin'es that are going through there is
being considered.
Chairperson Kozak stated his concem about the effect of a 60 foot cell site on the Tustin
Legacy and any development proposals for the vacant property. He stated his preference
for a roof-mounted altemative and his concern about setting a precedent by going above
50 feet. He further stated he would be more in favor of a palm tree rather than a pine but
would not like either at 60 feet.
Planning Commission rv .... utes
March 13, 2000
Page 6
Commissioner Davert asked the Director if there is a 50 foot limit on the height of the
antenna.
The Director responded that there is a 50 foot height limit on buildings but the wireless
ordinance allows an additional 10 feet in height for an antenna.
Commissioner Davert asked if a 50 foot building were constructed on the vacant lot what
affect that would have on the cell site and what the applicant would do in that situation.
Saundra Jacobs, Sprint representative, stated that if the antenna were 60 feet high and
the building were 50 feet high there would be no affect on coverage. She further noted
that she brought samples of the fake pine branch and trunk and noted that they can now
be made round and the carrier guarantees to the landlord the site will be kept working
and in good order.
Commissioner Davert noted the staff recommendation of Pleasure of Commission and
asked staff has a recommendation after examining the issue.
The Director stated that staff does not feel that all options have been exhausted which is
why a resolution of denial has been presented. She stated that the decision was up to
the Commission and if they are inclined to approve a palm or pine monopole, staff would
recommend continuing the hearing for. two weeks to allow staff to modify the resolution.
Commissioner Pontious stated she is pleased' that the cell site will not be impacting
residential areas as in the past.
Commissioner Davert stated he did not wish to be unbusiness friendly but did not wish to
see cell sites continue to proliferate. ·
Chairperson Kozak stated that the Commission is going to see more requests of this kind.
Commissioner Davert stated that he accepts the applicant's justification for 60 feet height
but he prefers a stealth site.
The Director stated that the Commission can take action this evening and direct staff to
prepare a resolution of approval.
Commissioner Davert mOved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to approve the
project and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval to reflect the
Commission's direction,
Saundra Jacobsl Sprint representative, noted that the additional living trees have to be
shorter than the antenna.
The Director noted modifications including requirement for collocation and lowering facility
if technology exists.
Planning Commission
March 13, 2000
Page 7
Chairperson Kozak stated that the pole should be round.
The applicant responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Pontious thanked the applicant for the excellent graphics that were
provided. ,
Commissioner Davert asked if the property owner could be encouraged to clean up the
property.
The public hearing closed at 8:17 p.m.
REGULAR BUSINESS
No Regular Business
STAFF CONCERNS:
4. Report on Actions taken at the March 6, 2000 City Council Meeting
Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development
5. Summary of Proiects
Presentation: Karen Peterson, Senior Planner
Commissioner Bell moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to receive and file.
Motion carried 5-0.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Commissioner Bell
Wished Kathy good luck. ·
Congratulated Commissioner Davert on the birth of his daughter.
Commissioner Davert
- Noted that the Baskin Robbins store closed and has been replaced with
something else.
- Stated that the public auto auction signs mentioned at the last meeting have
been up for the last three weekends. He suggested that the City of Santa
Aha code enforcement be enlisted to assist in the elimination of the signs.
Planning Commission
March 13, 2000
Page 8
Les
The Director stated that staff contacted the persons placing the signs and they
said they would not locate the signs in Tustin and staff will contact them again.
Wished Kathy good luck and thanked her for her work for the commission.
Commissioner Pontious
- Wished Kathy good luck and fond farewell.
- Congratulated Commissioner Davert on the birth of his daughter.
Commissioner Kawashima
Thanked Kathy for her work and congratulated her on her upcoming
wedding.
Congratulated Commissioner Davert on the birth of his daughter.
'Noted that the roller rink on Walnut Avenue closed down.
Karen Peterson noted that the dnk was sold to another owner but will continue to
operate.
Chairperson Kozak
·
- Asked for the status of the'quick lube on Newport Avenue.
The Director stated that the project is moving along and going through the plan
check process and is close to getting building permits.
- Asked if staff could provide public works improvements on the project
summary report in the future.
The Director responded that staff will add that information as an attachment to the
reports.
- Thanked Kathy for her work and support of the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to adjourn
the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on March 27, 2000 beginning
at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin.
MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 27, 2000
CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kawashima
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Kozak, Bell', Davert, Kawashima and Pontious
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
No puSlic concerns were expressed.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1
Minutes of the March 13. 2000 Planning Commission Meeting.
Conditional Use Permit 99-012 and Desiqn Review 99-017 a request to
construct a major wireless communication facility. The project is located at 15201
Woodlawn Avenue, within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (Technology
Center) zoning district.
The Director noted for the record that the applicant was not present and that the applicant
would be notified of the appeal period.
Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Pontious seconded, to approve both
items on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3~
Conditional Use Permit 00-002 a request to modify the shared parking program
to allow the establishment of a fifty (50) seat restaurant within an existing retail
commercial center. This project is located at 13771 Newport Avenue, #12 within
the Planned Community Commercial (PC-Comm) zoning district.
,
APPLICANT/:
PROPERTY OWNER:
TUSTIN PLAZA CENTER, LP
ATTN: SCOTT FRASER
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3720 approving Conditional
Use Permit 00-002. '
Planning Commission iv,,,~utes
March 27, 2000
Page 2
The Public Hearing opened at 7:02 p.m.
Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner presented the subject report.
The Director recommended modifications to Condition 3.2 so the applicable laws at the
time of the application will apply.
Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Davert seconded to adopt
Resolution No. 3720 approving Conditional Use Permit 00-002 modified ~-s follows'
Condition 3.2 should read "No outdoor seating shall be permitted unless a
separate Conditional use permit is approved consistent with the then current.
provisions of the Tustin City Code." Motion carried 5-0.
The public hearing closed at 7:06 p.m.
m
Conditional Use Permit 99-025 a request to allow the stockpile of quarry rock on
private property. This project is located on the southwest corner of Harvard
Avenue and the OCTA/SCRRA railway. This project is within the Public and
Institutional (P & I) zoning district.
APPLICANT:
COUNTY OF ORANGE, PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND RESOURCES
ATTN: DALE DILLON
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
Recommendation
THE IRVINE COMPANY
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3718 approving an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit 99-025.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:07 p.m.
Lori Ludi, Associate Planner presented the subject report.
Commissioner Davert suggested adding ian'guage that would allow Zoning
Administrator to grant another extension should one be necessary. The Director stated
that the Condition actually allows the applicant an additional 90 days subject to review
and approval by the Community Development Director, versus having to go to the.
Zoning Administrator. The Director proposed changing the conditions to allow for a
time extension of 120 days beyond August 31, 2000.
Commissioner
Davert
Resolution No. 3718
follows:
moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adopt
approving Conditional Use Permit 99-025 modified as
Planning Commission
March 27, 2000
Page 3
Condition 2.2 should read "...An extension up. to 120 days may be granted
subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director."
Motion carried 5-0.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:12 p.m.
REGULAR BUSINESS
General Plan Conformity Determination a request to determine that the
proposed location for lease of a 950 square 'foot area for counseling services at
C.E. Utt School is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. The project is
located at 13601 Browning Avenue within the Public and Institutional (P & i) zoning
district.
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
COUNTY OF ORANGE HEALTH CARE AGENCY
TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3719 determining that the
proposed location for lease of a 950 square foot area located at C.E. Utt School for
physical and occupational therapy services for physically disabled school age is in
conformance with the Tustin General Plan.
Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adopt
Resolution No, 3719 determining that the proposed location for lease of a 950.
square foot area located at C.E, Utt School for physical and occupational therapy
services for school age children is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan,
Motion carried 5-0,
STAFF CONCERNS:
6. Report on Actions taken at the March 20. 2000 City Council Meeting
Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development
In response to a question raised by the Commission, Director explained Fee Weaver
policy which was established about three years ago, to encourage development in the
Old Town area.
Planning Commission Iv,
March 27, 2000
Page 4
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Commissioner Davert
Thanked staff for distributing a copy of the Tustin Legacy RFP.
Thanked staff for their efforts in eliminating auto auction flyers.
Commissioner Pontious
- Thanked staff for prompt graffiti removal on Nisson Road.
ChairDerson Kozak
Thanked staff for prompt graffiti removal on Holt Avenue and noted that the
contractor did a good job.
Suggested that staff contact the management company of Tustin Plaza to
encourage employees to park in the rear of the center.
The Director indicated she would contact Tustin Plaza and noted there were no
current parking problems
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Davert moVed. Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adjourn 'the
meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0.
An informational workshop on the Tustin Legacy is Scheduled for 6:15 prior to the 7:00
p.mo meeting. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on April
10, 2000 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin.
ATTACHMENT E
Letter from applicant, dated April 13, 2000
April 13, 2000
VIA FAX
Ms. Karen Paterson
Senior Planner
Ms. Lod Ludi
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Tusfin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re:
Resolution No. 37~14
Conditional Use Permit 99-012
Design Review 99-017
Sprint PCS Antenna OG03XC165A
15201 Woodlawn Avenue
City of Tustin, Orange County, California
Dear Ms. Peterson:
S~A inc., on behalf of Cox PCS Assets (Sprint PCS), respectfully requests the
Tustin City Council consider our request for clarification and recommendation on
Condil:ion of Approval number 1.11 for Resolution No. 3714. The condition
currently reads as follows:
The owner shall bring the properly into compliance with the City's Properly
Maintenance Ordinance prior to the issuance of a building permit_ Said
properly shall be maintained in a manner to ensure compliance wi~h the
Property Maintenance Ordinance.
While Sprint PCS wishes to comply with all'conditions of approval required by the
City, the enforcement mechanism of the condition by Sprint, to the property
owner, is unclear. Spdnt is more than willing to clean up any and all debris that
may be present in the antenna construction and conditioned landscape area, and
is willing to maintain the lease area in a clean and orderly fashion for the duration
of the lease. However, in order to comply with the above condition, Sprint
proposes the following changes: 1) Sprint will clean any an all debris from the
antenna construction and landscape area at the time of construction, rather than
prior to issuance 'of the building permit; and 2) Sprint will notify the owner in
writing, copied to the City of Tustin, of any non-compliant property maintenance
issues observed at the time of construction, and as may be observed dudng
subsequent maintenance of the facility (usually quarterly or semi-annually).
SBA, loc. · Wireless (omm~lticitiotts COBsultIBts
~IIA, IRc. · 3151 Alrwly Avenue · Suite L-3 - Costl Hess, C~ 9Z6~6
,..,=Pr 1 P2
F2~I E, FC C~JLTAI'ITS PHOI'IE I~10. · 714 581 257'7 Apr.. 17, 20~cJ cJ3:c''-' ' . ....
Sprint proposes that the written owner notification serve as our compliance to the
above condition.
We look forward to discussing this further with the .City Council at the May 1,
2000 hearing. Should you have any further questions, please contact me at
(949) 599-2039.
Respectfully submitted,
SBA, Inc.
Saundra Jacobs
Zoning Specialist
Debbie Bond - SBA, Inc.
Jenna Harrison- Sprint PCS
ATTACHMENT F
Submitted Plans
kl.!
ii ~v
I
'x
N.
/
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
/
/
/
,f
, , ,
il~tlil ~i-iF1 /
ATTACHMENT G
Location Map
!
t
1
LO(
.TiON
MAP,/
?
/
CdP Rol-o~2.
· EOmQ~l AV~4U~ ~
I 1~5201 ~O0'D LAWN
NO SCALE
ATTACHMENT H
Site Selection Justification from Applicant
SBA
February 23, 2000
Ms. Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
Ms. Lori Eudi
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re:
Conditional Use Permit99-012
Design Review 99-017
Spdnt PCS Antenna OG03XC165A
15201 Woodlawn Avenue
City of Tustin, Orange County, California
Dear Ms. Peterson:
SBA Inc., on behalf of Cox PCS Assets (Spdnt PCS), respectfully submits the following antenna
location and height justification, and photo simulations as requested. Additional specific Radio
Frequency information, include the requested Drive Test information, will be submitted under a
separate cover.
BACKGROUND
PCS is a rapidly evolving digital technology that is expected to change the future of
telecommunications through easy-to-use, lightweight and highly mobile communications devices
including: portable phones, pagers, computers, and personal digital assistants. PCS will provide
voice and data capabilities for customer's communications needs virtually anywhere and at
anytime.
The system that Spdnt will be using involves a technology known as Code Division Multiple Access
(CDMA). The benefits include a six-fold increase in channel capacity, call privacy and security,
and improved voice quality. PCS will also serve to enhance personal safety and security. With the
PCS network in place, individuals will have the ability to communicate dudng periods of
discontinued electrical service and/or when circumstances preclude them from utilizing a
conventional phone.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project consists of the installation and operation of a 60-foot monopole mounted antennas and
associated equipment cabinets for Sprint Spectrum's Personal Communication Services (PCS)
wireless telecommunications netwOrk. A total of six antennas are proposed at this site. The
equipment will be located at ground level directly adjacent to the monopole. The approximate
lease area is 615 square feet.
SIVA, Inc. · Wireless Communications Consultants
SBA, Inc. · 3151 Airway Avenue ° Suite L-3 · Costa Hesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (7iL,) 557-6052 · fax: (71~) 557-6Z~9
d/bin ia the State of Calitornia as SBA Consulting S~rvices, Inc.
Equipment Cabinets:
The BTS units are proposed to be located immediately adjacent to the monopole. The equipment
cabinets include five Base Transceiver Stations (BTS), with dimensions of approximately 2'-6" wide
by 5'-6" high by 2'-6" deep, one meter pedestal approximately 5' high, one emergency generator
receptacle, and two service lights, all located on a concrete foundation of approximately 8 inches in
thickness. Minimal grading will be required to establish a fiat area for the foundation. As required
by the City, the equipment units will be enclosed by a concrete block wall. Access to the
equipment will be gained through a four-foot wide chain link gate.
All .utilities will be under-grounded. Coaxial cables associated with the Sprint lease area are
housed in a cable tray and are located between the equipment cabinets and the actual monopole.
These cables are not public utilities. The equipment cabinets, cable tray and monopole are
completely fenced and not accessible to non-Sprint personnel. No "trip-and-fall" risks exist outside
of the lease area associated with the Sprint equipment or easements.
Antennas:
Three antenna sectors (80 degrees, 210 degrees and 310 degrees), each with two panels, will be
installed at 57 feet above the ground on the proposed monopole. The total height with antennas
will be 60 feet. Each antenna, measured at approximately 48" long, 8" wide and 2.75' deep, is
capable of transmitting and receiving signals.
Height Justification
The site has been approved by Sprint technical staff responsible for the design and operation of
the PCS network.. Radiofrequency (RF) engineers have conducted a technical analysis of the site,
and determined the necessary height and orientation of the antennas for ensuring adequate signal
coverage. Based on RF analysis and testing, RF engineers have concluded that the proposed
tower mounted antennas need to be installed at a height of sixty (60) feet in order to'achieve the
network's signal requirements. The total height of the pole and antennas will not exceed 60 feet.
Additional Heiqht and Location Justification
Additional height and location justification will be submitted to the City under separate cover and
will include the "Drive Test" exhibits which indicate the need for the antenna in this area, as well as
the height required. The currently proposed 60-foot antenna does not completely fulfill the needs
of the signal coverage, and in fact a higher antenna would be required to fully achieve the network
signal requirements. However, due to the zoning constraints on this property, only 60 feet is
allowable under existing City of Tustin ordinances. Therefore, 60 feet'has been requested as part
of our application. An antenna height of less than 60 feet may require the placement of two
antenna locations in order to cover the signal requirements for this area. The RF information to be
submitted will demonstrate the need for the proposed height of 60 feet and the possible need for
two separate antennas should a lower height be required by the City of Tustin.
SITE SELECTION'
Sprint technicians, planning and leasing staff have been working to design the network of wireless
interconnects throughout Southern California, including the City of Tustin. Like the existing cellular
systems, Spdnt PCS will employ a network of transmitting/receiving station ("cell sites') that carry
and "hand off" signals as the user moves from one area to another. As the user moves from one
sell area (the area where the base station and antenna are located to receive and transmit calls) to
the next, signals to and from the first cell site fade while those to and from the next cell site
strengthen. Sophisticated computer systems sense these changes and automatically hand the
signal off to an available channel as the user moves between cell areas.
The network of PCS cell sites throughout the region is Iocationally dependent, meaning that there
is a necessary and logical interrelationship between each cell site. Eliminating or relocating a
single cell site can lead to gaps in the system or area where a continuous signal cannot be
maintained.. Further, the elimination or relocation of a single cell site will most often have a domino
effect on other cell site locations and necesSitate significant design changes or modifications to the
PCS network.
The FCC has licensed Spdnt to develop and operate a wireless communications network., in
designing the PCS network, Spdnt has determined that the Snapple site at 15201 Woodlawn
Avenue is necessary to ensure PCS network coverage for users living and working in the
surrounding communities, and to mobile users traveling along the 55 Freeway, and nearby arterial
highways. All Spdnt sites are chosen based on a number of factors including technical feasibility, a
property owner's willingness to agree to acceptable lease terms, and planning/zoning consistency.
Compliance with City Ordinance No. 1192 '
The following provides a description of the screening and site selection guidelines and the
applications' compliance with these guidelines. Sprint compliance justifications have been boided.
City of Tustin DeveloDment Criteria and Guidelines for Wireless Communication Facilities:
Screening Cdteria and Guidelines:
a) Wireless communication facilities shall have subdued colors and non-reflective
materials which blend with surrounding materials and colors.
A. The Sprint antenna has been Proposed as a "flush-mounted" standaione
antenna which would be painted the same color as the existing building. At
the City's request, Sprint will convert the flush-mounted pole to a tree pole if
necessary, However, based on the photos simulations provided to the City,
Sprint feels the flush-mounted pole is more compatible with the surrounding
industrial area,
Wireless communication facilities shall be located in areas that will minimize
their aesthetic intrusion on the surrounding community. Ground-mounted
facilities should only be; located in close proximity to existing above-ground
utilities, such as electrical tower or utility pole (which are not scheduled for
eventual removal or under grounding), light poles, or trees of comparable
heights. For building mounted facilities, all screening shall be compatible with
the existing architecture, color, texture and or materials of the building.
A. Sprint has relocated the antenna site to the northwest portion of the site
and to the rear of the existing facility.. The photo simulations provided to the
City show how the antenna will look from various angles around the
,
immediate area of the community. As indicated in the photo simulations
there are numerous existing above-ground utilities which provide vertical
elements in the immediate area. The adjacent industrial uses and railroad
easement location also provide a compatible surrounding to the proposed
antenna site. The relocation of the antenna facility to the rear of the
property, behind the existing building and the existing landscaping in this
area will assist in the screening requirements outlined in the City's
Ordinance No. 1192. Additional landscaping will be proposed if necessary
and as requested by the City.
The new location also now meets the rear setback requirement of 10 feet and
this dimension is depicted on plans submitted to the City. The previous
location was located in the southwest corner, and visible from adjacent
rights-of-way. As indicated in the previous site plan, the configuration of the
lot resulted in the need to request a variance for the front and rear lot
setbacks. The new location will not require the variance.
Site Selection Order of Preference:
a) Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the following order of
preference:
1) On existing structures such as buildings, communication towers,
church steeples, freestanding signs, and/or co-located on existing
facilities.
A. The existing building at 15201 Woodlawn Avenue is approximately 30-
feet in height. Construction of a roof-mounted antenna would require an
extension of 30-feet above the existing roofline in order to meet the
coverage height of 60-feet. Installation of a 30-foot screen around the
existing building top was not an acceptable alternative to the current
building owner.
B. The length that the coaxial cable can run between the antenna and
equipment is a maximum of 200 feet before transmission signals begin to
weaken (requiring more height), if the equipment were to stay in the
currently proposed location, the cable run between the antenna and
equipment would be exceeded by at least one set of antennas due to the size
of the existing structure. Placement of the equipment on the roof is not
structurally feasible for this building.
C. Alternative Sprint locations reviewed by TDI Associates prior to the SBA
inc. sUbmittal to the City included Kent Industrial USA, located at 1231
Edinger Avenue, in the City of Tustin. Based on review of this location, TDI
Associates indicated that the zoning in this area was not compatible with the
antennas height required by Sprint. This'alternative location was not re-
reviewed by SBA.
D. The building owner adjacent to Kent Industrial was contacted. However,
after a site visit to this rooftop location, it was determined that there was not
enough room for the Sprint equipment either on the roof or on the ground.
E. The Tusfln Marine Air Station was considered at an alternative location.
However, it was withdrawn by'Sprint and SBA until future development
projections are made and reviewed. Future locations in the eastern portion
of the base may be considered.
F. The Tustin Centennial Park site, located north of Edinger Avenue and
east of Redhill Avenue was reviewed as an alternative candidate. However,
there was not enough room in the maintenance yard area for all of the Sprint
equipment.: In addition, the immediately adjacent residences were
considered and this site was withdrawn.
G. A business at Edinger Avenue, west of Woodlawn was contacted but not
interested in a Sprint antenna at this facility.
H. A Pacific Bell Wireless building is located on Michelle Avenue, east of
Tustin Ranch Road was contacted but not interested in another roof
mounted carrier since their antennas were already on this building.
!. Based on previous and recent field visits, there are no existing co-
iocatable towers within Sprints necessary "search ring."
J. Once an acceptable location was found, SBA did not review alternative
roof-mount locations since the current landowner was willing to accept
Sprints offer, in addition, there was enough room for all of Sprints
equipment at this location.
2) In locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or
other structures provide the greatest amount of screening.
A. As indicated in 1. b) abOve, Sprint has relocated the antenna site to the
rear of the existing building providing a partial screen from industrial uses
to the north, south and east. The existing adjacent trees and landscaping
also provide a partial vegetation screen. To the north of the site e.xists
vacant and undeveloped property. In addition, there are numerous existing
above-ground utilities which provide vertical elements in the immediate
area. The adjacent industrial uses and railroad easement location also
provide a compatible surrounding to the proposed antenna site. Additional
landscaping will be proposed if necessary and as requested by the City.
3) On vacant ground without significant visual mitigation only in
commercial and industrial zoning districts.
A. Although the proposed antenna location is not vacant property, there is
vacant property to the west. The proposed location is within a generally
light industrial area of the PC-Planning Community zoning.
b) As part of the application process, applicants for wireless communication
facilities shall be required to provide wdtten documentation demonstrating a good
faith effort in locating facilities in accordance with the Site Selection Order of
Preference.
A. Please accept this correspondence as our written documentation of
SBA's and Sprints demonstration of a good faith effort in locating our
facilities in the City of Tustin.
Should you have any further questions, please contact me at (949) 599-2039.
Respectfully submitted,
SBA, Inc.
Saundra Jacobs
Zoning Specialist
cc: Debbie Bond - SBA, inc.
ATTACHMENT I
Radio Frequency Analysis
Sprint
Sprint PCS
Memo
"J'o',
From:
Re:
Saundra Jacobs
Kathl~n Abola
Nina Stark, Debbie Bond, 165 Project File
February 24, 2000
OG35XC165-A: Tustin Senior Planner's questions
'Fnis memo resaonds to the ques~ons asked by the City of Tustin's Planning Commission.
OG165 is a ce!! site proposed by Spdnt PCS to filPin a weak coverage area in Tustin. This cell site's coverage
objectives ("target") include "in-building" coverage to the businesses in Tustin around Hwy 55 and Red Hill Avenue,
· Tus~n 'Hosp~l and enhanced coverage on Hwy 55, Edinger Ave., Red Hill Ave., Newport Ave. and Grand Ave. In
addition, OG165 needs to offioad network traffic capacity from eight operational Spdnt PCS cell sites. To achieve
the desired ;overage obj~:tives for OG165, the search area was centered at Hwy 55 and Red Hill.
T'ne coverage in this area is currently very weak and there are a lot of dropped calls due to lack of coverage. Site
OG165 is proposed as a sixty foot facility located at 15201 Woodlawn Avenue. This property has been chosen as
i~ location enables it to achieve the coverage objectives.
Tests have shown that this site location provides the required indoor coverage to the targeted Tustin Businesses.
To provide quality in-building service, a cell site's radio signal has to propagate' and penetrate through vadous
sec'Jons of the intended:target During propagation the radio signal experiences loss due to attenuation between
floors and structures, which prevents the signal from having a direct path to the mobile. The attenuation varies with
the rnatedal composition of the buildings and walls. As a result, coverage inside buildings is usually worse than
· Page 1
Sprint PCS: Proprietary and Confidential OG35XC165-A Planning Comm memo
outside. The proposed Spdnt PCS cell site at OG165 would be ideal to overcome the in-building penetration loss by
virtue of the sites location which is very close to the target.
Tests have also shown that the requested height of 60 fl is just sufficient to provide service to the identified weak
areas. This height provides the least obstruction to coverage to the surrounding areas (buildings, stores and car
parks). If the height of the structure is lowered, then the signal becomes subject to the obstructions in the area such
as other buildings and trees. These cause shadowing and blocking and would make it d~lt to provide a basic
level of service.
The addition of cell site OG165 to the Tustin area will enhance the much needed coverage and capacity of the
Spdnt PCS network in this area allow!ng for more calls to be made especially dudng "peak"1 hours when the areas
of weak coverage open up to create holes. In addition, by being the dominant server to the Tustin area, site OG165
will allow customers to make quality calls indoors while offloading the traffic of the adjacent existing cell sites.
Maps of the existing coverage, sites in the area and the predicted coverage for OG165 are enclosed. Two signal
leve!s are shown in the coverage map; in building and in vehicle coverage.
Please call if you have any questions. Thanks!
Notes:
1. Actual c~ site cove.age may vary subject to network loading and antenna configuration. The plots are a snapshot of what the system looks
like during regular 'off peak' hours. Coverage pa. ttems are dynamic and shrink by a percentage during 'peak' hours with an increase in call
volume.
Coverage plots shown reflect'areas that achieve the following CDMA criteria--
. In Building Mobile Receive of-80dbm or better
· In Vehicle Mobile Receive of-93dbm or better
· Frame Error Rate of 3% or better
· Page 2
Sprint PCS. - Confidential
OG35XC165-A Planning Comm memo
~:l l J: I
I